Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The defendant was indicted by a federal grand jury in Massachusetts on three counts: being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm and ammunition, and two counts of possession with intent to distribute controlled substances. The first drug count was based on drugs found during his arrest, and the second on drugs found at his residence during a search. He moved to suppress evidence seized from his home, arguing the search violated the Fourth Amendment, but the district court denied the motion, finding the search was conducted under a valid warrant and in good faith. He also sought dismissal of the firearm charge, claiming the statute was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, but that motion was denied. He then pleaded guilty to all counts.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts grouped the convictions for sentencing under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The presentence report applied several enhancements, including one for being a career offender based on prior convictions. The defendant objected, arguing he had only one qualifying conviction and that a 2008 Massachusetts conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine should not count, because the definition of “controlled substance” had changed under federal law. The district court rejected his objections, but stated it would have imposed the same sentence even if it had accepted his arguments. The court ultimately imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of 96 months.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the district court erred in applying the career offender enhancement because the relevant Massachusetts conviction did not qualify as a “controlled substance offense” under the Guidelines at the time of federal sentencing, since the substance at issue was no longer federally controlled. Nevertheless, the error was harmless because the district court made clear it would have imposed the same sentence regardless. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences. View "US v. Fulcar" on Justia Law

Following the 2020 presidential election, three individuals—Shawn Smith, Ashley Epp, and Holly Kasun—formed an unincorporated association called the United States Election Integrity Plan (USEIP) to investigate what they believed was widespread election fraud in Colorado. In 2021, USEIP organized volunteers to go door-to-door canvassing, asking voters questions about their voting history and, in some instances, about whom they voted for. The Colorado Montana Wyoming State Area Conference of the NAACP, the League of Women Voters of Colorado, and Mi Familia Vota (collectively, the Voter Organizations) filed suit against USEIP and its founders, alleging that these canvassing activities constituted voter intimidation.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted summary judgment for USEIP, holding that unincorporated associations could not be sued under the statutes invoked: Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1985. The district court then held a bench trial against the individual defendants. After the plaintiffs presented their case, the district court granted judgment on partial findings for the individuals under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c), finding insufficient evidence that any defendant engaged in voter intimidation. The court denied the defendants’ subsequent motion for attorney’s fees.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of USEIP, holding that unincorporated associations can be sued under both Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act and § 1985. The appellate court found that the district court’s exclusion of USEIP significantly narrowed the scope of relevant evidence at trial, affecting the plaintiffs’ substantial rights. The Tenth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for a new trial against all defendants. The related appeal regarding attorney’s fees was dismissed as moot. View "Colorado Montana Wyoming State Area Conference of the NAACP v. Smith" on Justia Law

A man who was convicted of possessing child pornography in 2013 served his sentence and later married and had a son. Despite completing sex offender treatment and complying with supervised release conditions, he remained subject to Alabama’s Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Act (“the Act”). This law prohibits him, for life, from residing with or conducting overnight visits with any minor—including his own child—because his conviction involved a child-related offense. The Act contains no mechanism for relief or individualized assessment, even for parents who have shown rehabilitation.After the birth of his son, the man sued the Sheriff and District Attorney of Tuscaloosa County and the Alabama Attorney General under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking to enjoin enforcement of the Act’s prohibition against living with his child. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama granted summary judgment in his favor, declaring the Act’s prohibition facially unconstitutional and issuing a universal injunction. On appeal, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated and remanded in part, finding the Act unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiff but vacating the universal injunction. The panel’s opinion was then vacated, and the case was reheard en banc.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that all parents—including those with past convictions or “misconduct”—enjoy a fundamental right to live with their children under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court rejected Alabama’s argument that certain classes of parents lack this right due to prior offenses. The court remanded the case to the panel for further proceedings under strict scrutiny, requiring Alabama to show its law is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. The court affirmed in part and remanded in part. View "Henry v. Sheriff of Tuscaloosa County, Alabama" on Justia Law

Two plaintiffs, both incarcerated at the Adult Correctional Institutions in Rhode Island, alleged that the Department of Corrections failed to properly treat their preexisting ankle injuries. They claimed the Department denied them necessary accommodations, including access to elevators and elevation pillows, resulting in painful daily traversal of stairs and inadequate medical care. The plaintiffs filed a complaint citing various federal and state legal provisions, with one count specifically alleging disability discrimination under the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act (RICRA).The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island denied the Department’s motion for summary judgment on the RICRA claim. The court found genuine disputes of material fact and reasoned that Rhode Island’s State Tort Claims Act (STCA) broadly waived sovereign immunity for “all actions of tort.” The District Court concluded that actions under RICRA sound in tort, meaning the state’s immunity was waived. The Department appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit certified to the Rhode Island Supreme Court the question of whether RICRA discrimination claims are “actions of tort” under the STCA.The Rhode Island Supreme Court, reviewing the certified question de novo, determined that discrimination claims brought under RICRA are indeed “actions of tort” within the meaning of the STCA. The Court based its holding on the broad definition of tort in Rhode Island law and federal precedent, reasoning that RICRA creates a legal duty and provides remedies for violation of that duty, consistent with tort law. Therefore, claims under RICRA fall within the STCA’s waiver of sovereign immunity, and the certified question was answered in the affirmative. The Court ordered the papers returned to the First Circuit for further proceedings. View "Parente v. Lefebvre" on Justia Law

Three individuals, each having entered the United States unlawfully more than a decade ago, were detained by federal immigration authorities after routine traffic stops in Texas. None had criminal histories, and each was a long-term resident and father of U.S. citizen children. They petitioned for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1), claiming exceptional hardship to their U.S. citizen children if removed. After being detained without bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), they filed habeas corpus petitions, asserting their detention violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas reviewed each petition, applying the procedural due process framework from Mathews v. Eldridge. The district courts found the mandatory detention regime unconstitutional as applied to these petitioners, ordered their immediate release, and required that any future detention must be preceded by a hearing to determine dangerousness or risk of flight. The government appealed these rulings, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit consolidated the cases.The Fifth Circuit examined precedent, including Zadvydas v. Davis, Demore v. Kim, and Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, and concluded that physical presence and long-term residence within the United States entitles aliens to due process protections. The court held that mandatory, indefinite detention of noncriminal, long-term resident aliens under § 1225(b)(2)(A) without a bond hearing violates the Fifth Amendment. The government must provide a bond hearing within ninety days of detention to determine if continued detention is justified by individualized findings of dangerousness or flight risk. The court affirmed the district courts’ grants of habeas corpus and clarified the scope of its decision to similar aliens detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A). View "Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega" on Justia Law

A Christian church in Maine operates a private K–12 school that adheres closely to its religious beliefs, including requiring students and staff to conform to a statement of faith and specific codes of conduct and dress. The school is willing to admit students of any background if their families support its religious philosophy, but it maintains policies that exclude students who are openly gay or transgender and requires employees to be co-religionists. The school sought to participate in Maine’s tuition-assistance program, which allows public funds for private education in certain circumstances, but did not apply because of state nondiscrimination laws it believed would conflict with its religious practices.The United States District Court for the District of Maine denied the school’s motion for a permanent injunction against several provisions of the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA), finding either no case or controversy or no constitutional violation. The case reached the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit after the parties stipulated to final judgment based on the preliminary injunction record, reserving all appellate rights.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed whether the MHRA’s rules on employment, religious expression, religious nondiscrimination, and sexual orientation/gender identity nondiscrimination violate the First Amendment as applied to the school. The court held there was no case or controversy regarding the employment rule due to existing carveouts. It affirmed the district court’s rejection of the school’s challenges to the religious nondiscrimination and sexual orientation/gender identity rules, finding no constitutional violation. However, the court determined that the religious expression rule violates the school’s free-exercise rights and must be enjoined as applied to the school. The judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case was remanded for entry of a permanent injunction against enforcement of the religious expression rule. View "Crosspoint Church v. Makin" on Justia Law

W.W., an incarcerated person, died after experiencing a severe medical crisis while in Bureau of Prisons custody. Shronda Covington was the highest-ranking official on duty at the time and had the authority to call a physician or send W.W. to the hospital; evidence showed that she was informed of W.W.’s distress but allegedly failed to intervene. Tonya Farley, a BOP nurse, examined W.W., observed troubling symptoms, but instead of seeking appropriate medical attention, contacted a psychologist and submitted a report stating no signs of acute distress. Both Covington and Farley later made statements to investigators that were allegedly false regarding their actions during the crisis.After an investigation, Covington and Farley were charged in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Covington was convicted by a jury of violating 18 U.S.C. § 242 (willfully depriving W.W. of his constitutional rights, with the jury finding bodily injury but not death resulted), as well as making false statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Farley was convicted of making false statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 but acquitted of the Section 242 charge and another false report charge. Both defendants were sentenced to terms of incarceration and home detention. Farley contested the inclusion of her acquitted conduct in calculating her Guidelines range.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Section 242’s “bodily injury results from” language requires proof of both but-for and proximate causation. The district court erred by not instructing the jury on proximate cause for Covington’s Section 242 conviction, so that conviction and both defendants’ sentences were vacated and remanded for further proceedings. The court affirmed both defendants’ convictions for making false statements under Section 1001, rejecting all other challenges. View "US v. Covington" on Justia Law

Maurice King, an inmate convicted on federal drug charges and awaiting sentencing, was housed in a segregation unit at the Orange County Detention Center. On the evening of March 4, 2020, King was assaulted by other inmates in his cell. Surveillance footage showed multiple inmates entering and leaving his cell before and after the attack. Officers Berry and Linster, responsible for security rounds, failed to visually inspect King’s cell during their rounds, despite hearing noises of distress, including moaning and labored breathing. After listening to concerning sounds over the cell intercom and suspecting King had been assaulted, the officers delayed checking on him for approximately twenty minutes to avoid additional paperwork associated with an early security round. When they finally entered, King was found seriously injured and later died at the hospital.King’s estate sued several parties, including Orange County, the Sheriff, and detention officers, asserting federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference, along with state-law claims. The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, adopting in part the magistrate judge’s recommendations, denied summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds for Officers Berry and Linster. The court found sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that the officers consciously disregarded a substantial risk to King’s health.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the denial of qualified immunity. The Fourth Circuit held that, accepting the district court’s factual findings, a reasonable jury could determine that Officers Berry and Linster violated clearly established constitutional law by intentionally delaying medical attention for King after suspecting he had been assaulted. The court affirmed the denial of qualified immunity for those officers, dismissed the appeals related to Monell and bond claims for lack of appellate jurisdiction, and limited its review to the qualified immunity issue. View "King v. Blackwood" on Justia Law

Nineteen career intelligence officers employed by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence were informed that their positions would be terminated. These officers had been temporarily assigned to roles related to diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA). Their terminations were the result of new executive orders issued at the start of President Trump’s second term, which directed federal agencies to eliminate DEIA programs and related positions. The Office of Personnel Management issued memoranda implementing these directives, instructing agencies to place DEIA employees on administrative leave and to conduct reductions in force (RIFs) targeting DEIA positions. The agencies provided no indication that the terminations were based on misconduct or poor performance.The officers sought relief in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, arguing that the agencies violated their Fifth Amendment due process rights by refusing to follow internal regulations that guaranteed them opportunities for reassignment and internal appeal when facing RIF terminations. The district court first denied a temporary restraining order but later granted a preliminary injunction after the agencies refused to provide the procedural rights specified in their own regulations. The court found the officers were likely to succeed on their claims, would suffer irreparable harm without relief, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored the injunction.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the preliminary injunction under an abuse of discretion standard. The court held that the district court acted within its discretion, finding the officers had a property interest in the specific procedural rights guaranteed by agency regulation. The court affirmed that the agencies were required to adhere to their own procedures regarding reassignment and internal appeal before effecting the officers’ terminations, upholding the preliminary injunction. View "Doe v. Office of the Director of National Intelligence" on Justia Law

A woman was detained in a county detention center for thirty days in 2019. During her detention, she developed a painful and visibly swollen abscess on the side of her head. She repeatedly reported her symptoms and submitted grievances, seeking medical help, but did not receive adequate treatment. Correctional officers escorted her to solitary confinement after she protested her lack of medical care, making her unable to access the grievance system. She continued to experience severe symptoms, ultimately requiring emergency hospitalization and surgery after being found unconscious.The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina initially granted summary judgment to five correctional officers, finding they were entitled to qualified immunity because there was insufficient evidence of their subjective knowledge and disregard of a risk to the detainee’s health. Upon a motion for reconsideration, the district court found disputed material facts regarding two supervisory officers’ knowledge of her condition and their actions, determining these disputes precluded summary judgment on qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of summary judgment de novo. The Fourth Circuit held that, in June 2019, a pretrial detainee’s right to adequate medical care and freedom from deliberate indifference to serious medical needs was clearly established in the circuit. The court found that supervisory correctional officers could not ignore repeated warnings and visible signs of severe medical need, nor could they rely indefinitely on medical personnel’s decisions when evidence of inadequate care was apparent. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, concluding that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage because the law provided fair warning that their conduct could violate the detainee’s constitutional rights. View "Rhoads v. Riddell" on Justia Law