Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

An African American police officer employed by the Baltimore Police Department attended a nightclub event in August 2018, where an altercation occurred between a member of her party and an on-duty police sergeant, resulting in the sergeant striking her friend. The officer testified against the sergeant before a grand jury and at his criminal trial, after which she was warned by colleagues that she was being targeted. Though criminal charges against her were declined, the department initiated internal disciplinary proceedings, ultimately filing charges against her in June 2020 for assault and making false statements. She was suspended with pay and later, after filing an EEOC complaint in February 2021 alleging race discrimination and retaliation, was forced to resign in lieu of termination in June 2022.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland reviewed her claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including allegations of race discrimination, retaliation, and municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York. The district court dismissed her original and amended complaints, concluding that she failed to plead plausible claims for relief, specifically finding her comparator evidence insufficient for the discrimination claim and that her retaliation and Monell claims lacked factual support.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit applied de novo review to the district court’s dismissal. The court held that the officer had sufficiently alleged a Title VII racial discrimination claim by identifying multiple white or non-black comparators who engaged in similar conduct but received less severe discipline. However, it affirmed the dismissal of her retaliation claim, finding she failed to plausibly allege a causal connection between her protected activity and the adverse employment action. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the Monell claim, holding the complaint did not include specific factual allegations of a widespread pattern or practice. The judgment was therefore affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Johnson v. Baltimore City, Maryland" on Justia Law

Adrian Roberts, a military veteran suffering from severe mental health issues, was the subject of an involuntary commitment order after his wife raised concerns about his safety and possession of weapons. Law enforcement officers, including a specially trained response team, attempted to execute the order, initially trying to persuade Adrian to leave his home peacefully. When he refused, the team forcibly entered his residence. Shortly after entry, Deputy Evans shot and killed Adrian. The circumstances surrounding the shooting were disputed: Evans claimed Adrian charged at officers with a machete, while Adrian’s wife alleged he was shot in the back while facing away.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina reviewed the case after Adrian’s wife brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force and unlawful entry. The district court granted Evans qualified immunity and summary judgment on the unlawful entry claim but denied both on the excessive force claim. The court found that genuine disputes of material fact existed, particularly regarding whether Adrian posed an immediate threat or was resisting arrest, and relied on the autopsy report suggesting Adrian may have been shot from behind. Because these factual disputes remained, the court concluded that a reasonable jury could find Evans violated Adrian’s clearly established rights.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit considered whether it had jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of qualified immunity and summary judgment on the excessive force claim. The Fourth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction because the district court’s decision was based on unresolved factual disputes rather than purely legal questions. The court emphasized it could not weigh evidence or resolve factual disputes at this stage, and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Roberts v. Evans" on Justia Law

During a shopping trip at Walmart, William Montgomery was stopped by a store employee and subsequently by Officer Armando Cruz, who suspected shoplifting after Montgomery declined to show a receipt. Officer Cruz directed Montgomery to raise his hands, handcuffed him, and proceeded to search his pockets. Without conducting a pat-down, Officer Cruz reached into Montgomery’s pockets, removing a prescription bottle and a wallet, and looked for Montgomery’s driver’s license. Montgomery was detained briefly, but Walmart employees determined he had paid for the items and he was released.Montgomery filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging that Officer Cruz violated his Fourth Amendment rights by searching his pockets and wallet without proper justification. Officer Cruz moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, arguing that his actions did not violate clearly established law. The district court denied the motion for summary judgment, finding that factual disputes existed regarding whether Officer Cruz had patted Montgomery down before reaching into his pockets and whether Montgomery had consented to the search of his wallet.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the denial of summary judgment de novo. The court held that, accepting the district court’s factual conclusions, Officer Cruz’s search of Montgomery’s pockets without a pat-down or arrest constituted a clearly established violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court further concluded that the subsequent search of Montgomery’s wallet was not justified by consent, as any statement made by Montgomery after the illegal search could not retroactively legitimize the search. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Officer Cruz. View "Montgomery v. Cruz" on Justia Law

Two individuals were charged with multiple criminal offenses following an encounter with law enforcement. The initial police contact arose when an officer observed their vehicle driving at night without a functioning license plate light. After the officer followed the vehicle, one passenger exited and ran away, prompting further investigation. The officer questioned the driver, who admitted to having a suspended license and denied ownership of the car. Other officers arrived, and both individuals were eventually detained and handcuffed. A search of the vehicle revealed marijuana, methamphetamine, drug paraphernalia, and identification for the passenger. Subsequent criminal charges against both individuals were dismissed after a state court granted their motions to suppress the evidence.After the dismissal of the state charges, the two individuals filed a civil suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. They brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of their Fourth Amendment rights, and asserted additional claims under state law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants—local officers and government entities—concluding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the federal claims. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over some state law claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the federal claims against two officers. The Eighth Circuit held that the officers had, at minimum, arguable reasonable suspicion to justify the initial detention, that the warrantless search of the vehicle was permissible under the plain view doctrine, and that the arrests were supported by probable cause or, at least, arguable probable cause. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment, upholding the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Valdivia v. Porsch" on Justia Law

In 2023, Wyoming enacted two laws restricting abortion: the Life is a Human Right Act, which broadly banned abortion procedures with limited exceptions, and a separate statute prohibiting the prescription or use of drugs to induce abortions, also with exceptions. These laws imposed criminal and civil penalties on violators, excluding the pregnant person. After the laws took effect, several plaintiffs—including medical professionals, non-profit organizations, and an individual woman—challenged the statutes in District Court of Teton County, arguing they violated Article 1, Section 38 of the Wyoming Constitution, which guarantees each competent adult the right to make their own health care decisions.The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the challenged laws unreasonably and unnecessarily infringed on the constitutional right to make health care decisions, and issued a permanent injunction preventing enforcement of the abortion restrictions. The State of Wyoming appealed directly to the Wyoming Supreme Court.The Wyoming Supreme Court, exercising de novo review, held that the decision to terminate or continue a pregnancy is a health care decision protected by Article 1, Section 38. The Court determined that this provision confers a fundamental right, and that statutes restricting it must satisfy strict scrutiny: the State must show such laws are narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest and use the least restrictive means. The majority found that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that the abortion restrictions and their exceptions were the least restrictive means of protecting prenatal life. Accordingly, the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s ruling, holding the 2023 abortion laws unconstitutional under the Wyoming Constitution. View "State of Wyoming v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Enrique Aguilar was involved in a shootout with San Diego Police Department officers after leading one officer on a foot chase during which he brandished a gun. Although Aguilar was wounded, none of the officers were hit, and a bullet fired from Aguilar’s direction struck a nearby store door. Aguilar was charged with multiple offenses, including attempted voluntary manslaughter, assaulting peace officers with a semiautomatic firearm, shooting at an occupied building, possessing methamphetamine while armed, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. At trial in September 2023, a jury convicted him of all charges and the court sentenced him to a lengthy prison term.During jury selection in the Superior Court of San Diego County, the prosecutor used a peremptory challenge to strike a Latina juror (Juror 1), claiming she struggled to understand the concept of intent, as revealed by her responses to a hypothetical question. Aguilar objected, arguing that the prosecutor was improperly excluding Hispanic and Latina jurors. The trial court accepted the prosecutor’s explanation, found Juror 1’s answers equivocal and overruled Aguilar’s objection, determining that ethnicity was not a factor in the challenge.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the denial of Aguilar’s objection de novo, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7. The appellate court found no substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that Juror 1 was confused about intent; her answers were clear and consistent. The court held that “juror confusion” is a presumptively invalid reason for a peremptory challenge under section 231.7, and that the prosecution failed to rebut this presumption. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. View "P. v. Aguilar" on Justia Law

Several individuals and organizations sought to circulate a petition to place a campaign finance ordinance on Houston’s ballot, but the city’s charter at that time required petition circulators to be both residents and registered voters of Houston. The plaintiffs did not meet these requirements. They notified the city of their intent to circulate petitions and challenge the constitutionality of the residency and voter registration requirements. The city initially did not clarify its position but later stated it would not enforce the challenged provisions. Despite this, the plaintiffs filed suit in federal court, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, arguing that the requirements were unconstitutional under Supreme Court precedent.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas first granted the plaintiffs a temporary restraining order barring enforcement of the requirements. After the petition circulation period ended, the court dismissed the claims as moot following a stipulation by the parties. The plaintiffs moved to alter or amend the judgment, which was denied. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the plaintiffs had standing and that the case was not moot, and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the district court granted the plaintiffs declaratory relief and, after the city repealed the challenged provisions, awarded the plaintiffs attorneys’ fees as prevailing parties. However, in a subsequent appeal, a different Fifth Circuit panel concluded there was no case or controversy because all parties agreed the provisions were unconstitutional, vacated the judgment, and remanded for dismissal.On remand, the district court vacated the attorneys’ fees award and ordered reimbursement to the city. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed this ruling, holding that after the prior appellate decision vacated the underlying merits judgment for lack of a case or controversy, there was no basis for a fee award under Rule 60(b)(5). The court also clarified that the city was not required to appeal the fee award directly, and the plaintiffs’ claims of prejudice were unavailing. View "Pool v. City of Houston" on Justia Law

After the Texas Legislature passed the Election Protection and Integrity Act of 2021 (“S.B.1”), a sweeping law that amended numerous aspects of the state’s election procedures, multiple groups of plaintiffs—including civil rights and voter advocacy organizations—challenged thirty-eight provisions of the law. They alleged violations of various constitutional amendments, the Voting Rights Act (VRA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Rehabilitation Act, naming state officials including the Texas Secretary of State and Attorney General as defendants.In the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, the defendants moved to dismiss on grounds of sovereign immunity and lack of standing. The district court addressed the motions on a provision-by-provision basis, concluding that the Secretary and Attorney General were sufficiently connected to the enforcement of most challenged provisions to overcome sovereign immunity under Ex parte Young, and that plaintiffs had standing to sue. It denied the motions to dismiss for the majority of the claims, although it dismissed others as moot, for lack of standing, or for failure to state a claim. The defendants appealed the denials.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held it had appellate jurisdiction over the interlocutory sovereign immunity appeals. On the merits, the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held that the VRA claims were not barred by sovereign immunity. For the constitutional and other statutory claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the court determined that the Secretary of State is a proper defendant only for those provisions she directly enforces—such as those involving the design of forms and sanctioning of registrars—and not for those enforced by other officials. Similarly, it held the Attorney General could be sued only for one provision authorizing civil penalties. The court affirmed standing for claims against provisions enforced by these officials. View "Un del Pueblo Entero v. Nelson" on Justia Law

In June 2021, police officers in Aurora, Illinois responded to a 911 call from a woman who reported, based on information from her nephew, that Antron Cannon was violently assaulting a woman inside his home. Officers arrived to find Cannon and a companion inside the house. There were discrepancies between Cannon’s account and that of other witnesses regarding what occurred, but responding officers heard loud noises, received confirmation that no one had left the home, and were told a side door was unlocked. They entered the home without a warrant, detained Cannon, and interviewed his companion, who alleged that Cannon had assaulted her. Physical evidence of injuries was documented, and Cannon was arrested for domestic battery, though the charges were later dropped.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, reviewed Cannon’s subsequent civil lawsuit against the officers and the city. Cannon claimed the officers unlawfully entered his home and arrested him without probable cause. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, concluding that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry and probable cause supported the arrest. The court also dismissed Cannon’s indemnification claim against the city and awarded defendants their costs, rejecting Cannon’s argument that his indigency should exempt him from the cost award.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the appeal. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decisions. It held that the officers’ warrantless entry was reasonable under the emergency aid exception to the Fourth Amendment, given the information available to them at the time. It further held that probable cause existed for Cannon’s arrest based on statements and observed injuries. Finally, it found no abuse of discretion in awarding costs, as Cannon did not demonstrate inability to pay now or in the future. View "Cannon v. Filip" on Justia Law

A former lieutenant in a county sheriff’s office was accused of using excessive force during two arrests. After an internal investigation was initiated, he was suspended and scheduled for a public hearing before a merit board, which is required under Indiana law for disciplinary actions. The lieutenant alleged that the sheriff manipulated both the investigation and the merit board to ensure an unfavorable outcome for him. Faced with the possibility of an unfair hearing and negative publicity, the lieutenant negotiated a severance agreement with the sheriff: he would resign and waive his hearing in exchange for withdrawal of the charges and a promise of a neutral reference.Despite the agreement, on the day the resignation became effective, two county prosecutors and the sheriff broadly disclosed the excessive-force allegations to local legal professionals and the lieutenant’s current and prospective employers, including through Brady/Giglio disclosures. The disclosures described the alleged misconduct and claimed issues with the lieutenant’s credibility, leading to his suspension from his part-time job and the loss of other employment opportunities. The lieutenant claimed these actions were part of a premeditated scheme to render him unemployable in law enforcement.In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, the complaint was dismissed. The district court found that absolute and qualified immunity protected the prosecutors and that the sheriff could not be liable because the lieutenant had voluntarily resigned, waiving his due process rights. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the prosecutors were entitled to absolute immunity only for Brady/Giglio disclosures made in pending criminal cases. For disclosures to the bar association and employers, neither absolute nor qualified immunity applied at this stage because the alleged coercion through misrepresentation could constitute a procedural due process violation. The appellate court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Martin v. Goldsmith" on Justia Law