Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

A.B., a 42-year-old individual with a longstanding diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, had been receiving mental health services in San Francisco since 2008, including numerous psychiatric hospitalizations and crisis interventions. He was previously under conservatorship, which ensured compliance with medication, but historically disengaged from treatment and decompensated when conservatorship ended. In October 2023, following a psychiatric incident at home involving paranoia and disruptive behavior, A.B. was hospitalized. His mother, who provided housing, testified to his history of aggression and repeated decompensation when not medicated, stating she would not allow him to live with her absent a conservatorship and mandatory medication order.The San Francisco County Superior Court initially appointed the public conservator and imposed an involuntary medication order. After a mistrial in April 2023, the parties resolved the matter by conservatorship without a medication order, but following further decompensation, the conservator sought renewal with an involuntary medication order. At the 2025 court trial, testimony from A.B.’s mother and treating psychiatrist indicated that A.B. lacked insight into his illness, would not reliably take medication without a legal mandate, and was unable to maintain shelter independently. Although A.B. testified that he now recognized his diagnosis and would comply with medication, the court credited the testimony of his mother and psychiatrist over his own.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, held that substantial evidence supported the trial court’s findings that A.B. was presently gravely disabled due to his mental disorder and unable to provide for his own shelter without medication, which he would not take absent a court order. The appellate court also affirmed the finding that A.B. was incompetent to give or withhold informed consent for psychotropic medication. The orders renewing the conservatorship and involuntary medication were affirmed. View "Conservatorship of A.B." on Justia Law

Marquis Kennedy sought employment as a police officer with the City of Arlington, Texas, and enrolled in the Arlington Police Academy after passing a physical exam. During a mandatory training exercise known as Gracie Survival Tactics, which involved intense self-defense scenarios, Marquis reportedly complained of fatigue, thirst, and lightheadedness, but was not permitted breaks or water. He continued participating, allegedly due to fear of failing and repeating the training. During the final scenario, Marquis signaled distress, but the instructors continued the exercise until he could not proceed. After the simulation ended, Marquis requested an ambulance, was assisted to a break room, and subsequently suffered cardiac arrest. Emergency services were called, and Marquis was taken to a hospital, where he died two days later. The autopsy listed cardiac arrest as the cause of death, likely due to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.Kennedy, Marquis’s widow, brought suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the City and several officers, asserting Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including claims for excessive force, deliberate indifference to medical needs, bystander liability, and municipal liability for failure to train officers. The City moved to dismiss and submitted video evidence of the training, which Kennedy referenced in her claims. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of all claims, finding no plausible constitutional violation, no constitutional seizure, and no duty of medical care in an employment setting. The district court adopted these findings and dismissed the case.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Fifth Circuit held that Kennedy failed to plausibly allege a Fourth Amendment seizure or substantive due process violation, and that no constitutional duty of medical care existed in this employment context. The court also found no basis for bystander or municipal liability. View "Kennedy v. City of Arlington, Texas" on Justia Law

A California state prisoner, Maurice Lydell Harris, is a practicing Nichiren Buddhist who believes his faith requires him to eat “clean” food, including meat as close to its natural state as possible. Because the prison system did not offer a diet specifically aligned with his religious practice, Harris enrolled in the halal meat program (RMAP), based on advice from a prison chaplain that it most closely matched his requirements. Prison regulations require RMAP participants to refrain from buying non-halal foods from the commissary, but Harris purchased such items, including ramen and processed meats, citing health needs and cultural practices, which led to multiple violations and ultimately his removal from the program.Harris filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that his removal from RMAP violated his rights under the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). He sought preliminary injunctive relief to continue receiving the RMAP diet while supplementing with non-halal foods. The district court denied Harris’s requests twice, concluding that the RMAP diet was not required by Harris’s religion and that expulsion would not affect his ability to observe his faith.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the district court erred by evaluating the centrality of the halal diet to Harris’s beliefs, rather than whether Harris sincerely believed the diet best suited his religious needs. The Ninth Circuit held that Harris could demonstrate a substantial burden on his religious exercise and that, if so, the government must show its regulation is the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling interest. The court vacated the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings to reassess whether Harris’s religious exercise was substantially burdened. View "Harris v. Muhammad" on Justia Law

Four juveniles conspired to rob a victim of vaping products in Colorado in 2019. During the incident, one of the juveniles, who is Black, shot and killed the victim. All four were initially charged with felony murder, aggravated robbery, and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery. Subsequent investigation revealed that the shooter acted alone in confronting and shooting the victim, while the other three, including two non-Black juveniles, had more limited roles and cooperated with law enforcement. The two non-Black juveniles received plea deals allowing them to be tried in juvenile court and were sentenced to two years in the Division of Youth Services, while the two Black defendants, including the shooter, were prosecuted in district court and faced substantially harsher potential sentences.The District Court for Arapahoe County denied the shooter's motion to dismiss for selective prosecution, finding that he was not similarly situated to his non-Black codefendants due to his greater culpability as the shooter. The court also found that statistical evidence provided did not establish discriminatory purpose by the prosecution. The case proceeded to trial, and a jury convicted the shooter, who was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after forty years. On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss, agreeing that the shooter was not similarly situated to the other defendants. The appellate division did not address whether the statistical evidence sufficed to show discriminatory purpose.The Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It held that the defendant failed to establish a claim of selective prosecution because he did not show a discriminatory effect or purpose. Specifically, he was not similarly situated to his non-Black codefendants, and his statistical evidence did not demonstrate that similarly situated non-Black individuals were treated differently. View "Mitchell v. People" on Justia Law

The case centers on Orlando González Tomasini, who filed civil rights and tort claims against the United States Postal Service, his former employer, alleging that psychological and medical conditions prevented him from working. His then-wife, Juliette Irizarry-Miranda, was initially a co-plaintiff but eventually became a defense witness after a contentious divorce and ongoing custody dispute over their son. On the eve of trial, the Postal Service accused González of witness tampering, specifically of seeking to dissuade Irizarry from testifying by conditioning custody concessions on her refusal to take the stand. Irizarry recorded part of a phone call between them, and the Postal Service submitted this as evidence.Prior to the current appeal, the case was heard in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, where a magistrate judge presided by consent of the parties. The magistrate judge held a three-day evidentiary hearing to address the witness tampering allegations. After hearing testimony from González, Irizarry, and a social worker, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that González had engaged in witness tampering. As a sanction for this fraud on the court, the magistrate judge dismissed González’s case.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court's decisions. The First Circuit affirmed the district court in all respects, holding that the evidentiary hearing was appropriately ordered, the finding of witness tampering was not clearly erroneous, and the sanction of dismissal was within the court’s discretion. The appellate court found that González’s conduct constituted a fraud on the court, justifying dismissal, especially given the egregiousness of the witness tampering and its potential impact on the integrity of judicial proceedings. Judgment was affirmed for the Postal Service. View "Gonzalez Tomasini v. Steiner" on Justia Law

Three parents of students in Philadelphia challenged the School District’s 2022 Admissions Policy for four selective public high schools. Prior to 2022, admissions decisions were made by individual schools using academic criteria, attendance, and sometimes additional requirements such as interviews and writing samples. After a report identified geographic disparities in school representation, and following the School District’s public commitments to anti-racism and equity, a new centralized policy was adopted. This policy introduced revised academic standards, eliminated certain prior requirements, and implemented a zip code preference favoring applicants from six areas with high Black and Hispanic populations. Qualified applicants from these zip codes received automatic admission, while others had to enter a lottery for remaining seats.The parents, whose children lived outside the preferred zip codes and met the new criteria but were not admitted to their first-choice schools, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. They alleged violations of Title VI, the Equal Protection Clause, and related state constitutional provisions, arguing that the new process was racially discriminatory. The District Court granted summary judgment for the School District, finding that no reasonable factfinder could conclude the policy had a racially discriminatory purpose or impact. The court applied rational basis review, holding the policy was rationally related to legitimate interests such as increasing access for underrepresented geographic areas.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the parents, a reasonable factfinder could conclude the Admissions Policy had both discriminatory purpose and impact. The Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings, directing that strict scrutiny must be applied if a discriminatory purpose and impact are found. View "Sargent v. School District of Philadelphia" on Justia Law

Fourteen children who were removed from their biological parents by New York City officials are the plaintiffs in this case. After their removal, relatives sought certification to become foster or adoptive parents for these children, but their applications were denied due to criminal history or reports of child abuse or mistreatment. The children allege that New York’s certification scheme violates their substantive due process rights to family integrity and freedom from harm, and that procedural due process was violated because they were not given notice or an opportunity to challenge the denial of a relative’s application.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed the complaint. It ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing, reasoning that most of the children did not have a cognizable injury since they were living with relatives, and others could not trace their separation from relatives to the defendants. The district court also found that the plaintiffs were asserting the rights of third-party relatives rather than their own, and that prudential standing barred their claims. The court did not address the procedural due process claims directly.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the plaintiffs have standing to pursue both substantive and procedural due process claims. The court found that denial of certified placement with a relative constituted a concrete and particularized injury, traceable to the defendants, and redressable by a favorable ruling. The court also determined that the plaintiffs were asserting their own rights, not those of their relatives, and rejected the district court’s prudential standing analysis. However, some claims were deemed moot: two plaintiffs are now in the care of a relative foster parent and another has aged out of foster care. Only one plaintiff has standing to challenge the adoption certification rules. The Second Circuit reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "B.B. v. Hochul" on Justia Law

Several residents of Estherville, Iowa, sued a former police officer, the police chief, the City of Estherville, and its insurance company, alleging that the officer repeatedly accessed and disseminated their confidential criminal history and intelligence data for improper purposes between 2015 and his resignation on May 3, 2019. The officer used this data for personal gain, including assisting with vehicle repossessions and harassing certain plaintiffs. Complaints about his conduct were made to the police chief, who ultimately placed the officer on administrative leave and accepted his resignation. Criminal charges were later brought against the officer in 2022 for his actions.After learning of the wrongful data access between 2021 and 2022, the plaintiffs filed suit on July 7, 2023, in the Iowa District Court for Emmet County, asserting statutory and common law claims, including invasion of privacy and conspiracy, and seeking damages under Iowa Code section 692.6. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the two-year statute of limitations under the Iowa Municipal Tort Claims Act (IMTCA) barred the claims, since all alleged misconduct ended by May 3, 2019. The district court denied dismissal, holding that the statutory claim under section 692.6 was subject to a five-year limitation with a discovery rule, and that the remaining claims accrued when plaintiffs discovered the wrongdoing.On appeal, the Iowa Court of Appeals reversed the district court and ordered dismissal, concluding that all claims were governed by the IMTCA’s two-year statute of limitations and that the date of injury was when the data was accessed or disseminated, not when plaintiffs learned of it. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court, holding that the IMTCA’s statute of limitations applied to all claims and began at the time of the wrongful acts, regardless of later discovery or emotional harm. The case was remanded for dismissal. View "Abrahamson v. Scheevel" on Justia Law

Three advocacy organizations filed suit against the South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and its executive director, seeking institutional reforms to address alleged unconstitutional and unlawful conditions in the state’s juvenile detention facilities. The plaintiffs alleged that the facilities were overcrowded, understaffed, and dangerous, resulting in violence, isolation, and inadequate services for juveniles. They based their standing on their advocacy and direct representation work with affected youth, and described both the harm to juveniles and the impact on their own organizational missions.The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The district court found that Disability Rights South Carolina (DRSC) had standing to sue on behalf of certain juveniles, but those claims were rendered moot when those juveniles left custody. The court also determined that Justice 360 had standing in its own right but concluded that its claims failed on the merits. The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP was found to lack standing. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Fourth Circuit held that the advocacy organizations lacked Article III standing to pursue the claims because they failed to demonstrate a sufficient personal stake in the outcome. The court found that DRSC did not meet the requirements for associational standing as its constituents lacked indicia of membership. The court also concluded that none of the organizations suffered a cognizable injury directly caused by the defendants’ actions, but rather incurred self-imposed costs through voluntary advocacy. The court further held that the plaintiffs could not bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the violation of rights belonging to others, as they had not alleged violations of their own federal rights. The dismissal was affirmed. View "South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice" on Justia Law

A group of individuals traveling through Kansas were stopped by Kansas Highway Patrol (KHP) troopers while driving on interstate highways, primarily I-70. In each instance, the drivers and passengers were from out of state, often driving to or from Colorado, and were stopped for alleged traffic violations. After the initial traffic stop was concluded, troopers used a tactic known as the “Kansas Two-Step”—they would briefly disengage, then reinitiate conversation in an attempt to gain consent for further questioning or searches. These stops often led to extended detentions and searches, but no contraband was discovered. The troopers testified that they considered the drivers’ out-of-state status, travel to or from Colorado, and other factors in developing reasonable suspicion.The individuals sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, alleging violations of their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures and their constitutional right to travel. Some plaintiffs also brought damages claims, resulting in jury verdicts in their favor. For their claims for injunctive relief, the district court conducted a bench trial and found that KHP had a pattern and practice of targeting out-of-state drivers and using the Two-Step in a manner violating the Fourth Amendment. The court granted a permanent injunction, requiring changes in KHP’s training, documentation, consent procedures, and supervision.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed whether the plaintiffs had standing for injunctive relief and whether the district court abused its discretion in issuing the injunction. The Tenth Circuit held that the plaintiffs had standing because there was a substantial risk they would be stopped again and that KHP had a pattern of unconstitutional conduct. However, the Tenth Circuit found that the injunction was overly broad regarding the use of a driver’s state of origin and the Two-Step tactic. The court affirmed the injunction in part, reversed it in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Shaw v. Smith" on Justia Law