Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The 1972 Shakman Decree enjoined the City of Chicago and county officials from governmental employment practices based in politics. A 1983 Decree enjoined those officials from conditioning hiring or promotions on any political considerations. After the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment’s prohibition against patronage-based firings extends to promotion, transfer, recall, or hiring decisions involving public employment for which party affiliation is not an appropriate requirement, the Clerk of Cook County entered a separate consent decree. In 1992 the Voters Organization joined the Shakman complaint. The court has dismissed some entities and officials, including Chicago and its Park District, as showing substantial compliance. In 2010 the Clerk and other defendants consented to a magistrate judge conducting further proceedings. A new magistrate and a new district judge were assigned in 2020.In 2019, plaintiffs moved for supplemental relief. The magistrate found that the Clerk violated the 1991 Decree, that the evidence strongly suggested that the Clerk’s policy of rotating employees was “instituted for the purpose" of evading the 1972 Decree, appointed a special master to oversee compliance within the Clerk’s Office, and refused the Clerk’s request to vacate the Decrees. The Seventh Circuit, noting that it lacked authority to review the appointment of the special master, affirmed the denial of the request to vacate. Sounding a “federalism concern,” the court noted the permitting a consent decree over an arm of state or local government to remain on a federal docket for decades is inconsistent with our federal structure. View "Shakman v. Clerk of Cook County" on Justia Law

The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHAA) does not require landlords to accommodate the disability of an individual who neither entered into a lease nor paid rent in exchange for the right to occupy the premises.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City, in an action brought by plaintiff against the City for wrongful eviction based on several theories of state law implied tenancy. The panel held that the FHAA applies to rentals only when the landlord or his designee has received consideration in exchange for granting the right to occupy the premises. As to occupants requesting accommodation, the panel held that the FHAA's disability discrimination provisions apply only to cases involving a "sale" or "rental" for which the landlord accepted consideration in exchange for granting the right to occupy the premises. Applying a federal standard rather than California landlord-tenant law, the panel concluded that because plaintiff never provided consideration in exchange for the right to occupy Spot 57, the FHAA was inapplicable to his claim for relief. Furthermore, the City was not obligated to provide, offer, or discuss an accommodation. View "Salisbury v. City of Santa Monica" on Justia Law

In this libel case, the Eleventh Circuit held that New York's "fair and true report" privilege, codified as N.Y. Civ. Rights Law 74, applies to the fair and true publication of the contents of a document that was filed and sealed in a Florida paternity/child custody proceeding.Plaintiff filed suit against Gizmodo and Katherine Krueger, the author of an article published on the Splinter website owned by Gizmodo, over an article entitled "Court Docs Allege Ex-Trump Staffer Drugged Woman He Got Pregnant with 'Abortion Pill.'" The district court concluded that section 74 applied, and that the Splinter article was a fair and true report of the supplement because it was "substantially accurate." Plaintiff does not challenge the district court's finding that the Splinter article was a fair and true report, but he maintains that the section 74 privilege does not apply because the supplement was filed in a paternity/child custody proceeding and sealed. The court held that section 74's fair and true report privilege applies to the Splinter article written by Ms. Krueger about the supplement filed by the mother of plaintiff's child, and that the 1970 decision of the New York Court of Appeals in Shiles v. News Syndicate Co., 261 N.E.2d 251, 256 (N.Y. 1970), does not preclude the application of section 74. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants. View "Miller v. Gizmodo Media Group, LLC" on Justia Law

In this appeal in a capital case, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of criminal appeals affirming Defendant's convictions and sentence, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.After a second trial, a jury found Defendant guilty of first-degree premeditated murder, murder in the perpetration of robbery, and aggravated robbery. Defendant was sentenced to death. The court of criminal appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) double jeopardy principles did not bar retrial on the felony murder count; (2) alleged prosecutorial misconduct in the first trial did not bar Defendant's retrial; (3) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress, in admitting evidence of Defendant's prior convictions for rape and assault of the victim and in admitting evidence of Defendant's escape attempts; (4) imposition of the death penalty was not arbitrary; and (5) the sentence of death was neither excessive nor disproportionate. View "State v. Rimmer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction for second-degree murder, holding that the court of appeals erred in concluding that the trial court erred by denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence generated from his blood but that the error was not prejudicial.In denying Defendant's suppression motion the court of appeals held that the trial court erred by not excluding Defendant's blood test results but that Defendant failed to carry his burden to show that the denial of his motion to suppress resulted in prejudicial error. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals applied the incorrect standard for determining prejudice resulting from the violation of Defendant's rights under the United States Constitution. View "State v. Scott" on Justia Law

In this interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court prohibiting Defendant from filing any additional pro se supplemental documents in a postconviction relief proceeding, holding that the district court did not err.Under Iowa Code 822.3A, postconviction relief applicants are prohibited from filing "any pro se document, including an application, brief, reply brief, or motion, in any Iowa court." At issue was the constitutionality of the law, which was passed in the spring of 2019 and effective July 1, 2019, to pending postconviction relief proceedings and postconviction relief appeals. Defendant in this case argued that section 822.3A violated his constitutional rights. The Supreme Court rejected the argument, holding that there is no constitutional right to file pro se supplemental documents in postconviction relief proceedings and postconviction appeals. View "Hrbek v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment entered by the superior court denying in part Petitioner's petition for post-conviction review of his conviction on several sexual assault charges, holding that Petitioner was deprived of his right to the effective assistance of trial counsel.After a trial, the jury found Petitioner guilty of one count each of gross sexual assault, unlawful sexual contact, and sexual abuse of a minor. The Supreme Court affirmed. Petitioner subsequently filed a postconviction petition arguing that he had been deprived of his right to the effective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court granted the petition as to the convictions for unlawful sexual contact and sexual abuse of a minor and vacated Petitioner's convictions on those counts but denied Petitioner's petition as to the conviction for gross sexual assault. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment and remanded for entry of a judgment granting Petitioner's petition for post-conviction review and vacating the remaining conviction, holding that counsel's performance was deficient and that Petitioner was entitled to post-conviction relief from the remaining portion of the judgment of conviction. View "Hodgdon v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree murder and his sentence of death, holding that Defendant failed to demonstrate any reversible error.Defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and was sentenced to death. Defendant appealed, raising ten allegations of error. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in allowing Defendant to represent himself during trial; (2) the trial court did not err in accepting Defendant's guilty plea; (3) the trial properly renewed the offer of counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings; (4) there was no reversible error in the trial court's findings on the statutory aggravators alleged by the State and on certain statutory and non statutory mitigators; (5) any error in the trial court's inclusion of a sentencing recommendation in the presentence investigation report did not rise to the level of fundamental error; and (6) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his remaining allegations of error. View "Woodbury v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Petitioner's postconviction petition filed under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37, holding that the circuit court did not err.Defendant was convicted of four counts of rape and one count of terroristic threatening. The Supreme Court affirmed. Thereafter, Defendant filed amended petition under Rule 37 alleging six grounds for relief. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not clearly err in finding that trial counsel provided constitutionally effective assistance of counsel; and (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in striking the testimony of Defendant's expert witness. View "Joyner v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this interlocutory appeal brought by the State pursuant to Ark. R. App. P.-Crim. 3 arguing that the circuit court erred in granting Defendant's motion to suppress medical records obtained through a prosecutor's subpoena, holding that the appeal was not a proper State appeal under Rule 3.The State charged Defendant with one count of negligent homicide after he rear-ended a vehicle, causing an accident that killed a minor. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the results of a urine sample collected at the hospital and medical records that were obtained by the State, which included the results of a blood test taken as part of Defendant's medical treatment. The circuit court granted the motion to suppress, and the State appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the State did not have a proper basis to appeal. View "State v. Kirchner" on Justia Law