Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

A group of plaintiffs sued multiple defendants, including white nationalists, white supremacists, and neo-Nazis, for their roles in the violent "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants conspired to commit racially motivated violence. A jury awarded the plaintiffs over $26 million in damages, including a historic $24 million in punitive damages. However, the district court reduced the punitive damages to $350,000, applying Virginia's punitive damages cap across all plaintiffs.The defendants appealed, challenging the district court's decision to hold them jointly and severally liable for the compensatory damages award. The plaintiffs cross-appealed, challenging the district court's application of Virginia's punitive damages cap.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of joint-and-several liability for the compensatory damages. However, the court held that Virginia's punitive damages cap applies on a per-plaintiff basis, not across all plaintiffs. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's ruling on the punitive damages cap and remanded the case with instructions to apply the cap accordingly. View "Sines v. Hill" on Justia Law

The case involves the Tennessee Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) challenging a state policy that requires some convicted felons to submit additional documentation to confirm their eligibility to vote. The NAACP argued that this policy violated the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). A district court agreed with the NAACP and permanently enjoined the policy in the middle of the 2024 election cycle. Tennessee's Secretary of State and Coordinator of Elections appealed this decision and sought a stay of the injunction pending appeal.The district court's decision was based on the finding that the NAACP had standing to challenge the policy and that the policy violated the NVRA. The court held that the policy was unnecessary for determining the eligibility of those with felony convictions as the state had other information at its disposal to make that decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted the stay for two reasons. First, the injunction triggered the Supreme Court’s “Purcell principle,” which instructs federal courts not to disrupt state election rules close to an election. Second, the court found that the NAACP likely did not present enough evidence to prove its standing to challenge the Documentation Policy. The court concluded that the NAACP's claim that the policy forced it to divert its resources to help those convicted of felonies track down the records they need to register was not supported by specific facts. View "Tennessee Conference of the NAACP v. Lee" on Justia Law

The case involves Dianne Hensley, a justice of the peace in Texas, who announced that due to her religious beliefs, she would not perform weddings for same-sex couples but would refer them to others who would. The State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued her a public warning for casting doubt on her capacity to act impartially due to the person's sexual orientation, in violation of Canon 4A(1) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. Hensley did not appeal this warning to a Special Court of Review (SCR) but instead sued the Commission and its members and officers for violating the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (TRFRA) and her right to freedom of speech under Article I, Section 8 of the Texas Constitution. The trial court dismissed her claims for lack of jurisdiction, and the court of appeals affirmed.The Supreme Court of Texas held that Hensley's suit was not barred by her decision not to appeal the Commission’s Public Warning or by sovereign immunity. The court affirmed the part of the court of appeals’ judgment dismissing one of Hensley's declaratory requests for lack of jurisdiction, reversed the remainder of the judgment, and remanded to the court of appeals to address the remaining issues on appeal. The court found that the SCR could not have finally decided whether Hensley is entitled to the relief sought in this case or awarded the relief TRFRA provides to successful claimants. View "HENSLEY v. STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT" on Justia Law

The case involves Joseph Askew, Charlie Gordon Wade III, and Curtis Washington, who sued the City of Kinston, North Carolina, alleging that the city's condemnation and demolition of their properties violated their rights under the state constitution. The plaintiffs, who are African American, claimed that the city targeted properties owned by African Americans or located in predominantly African American neighborhoods, while ignoring similarly dilapidated properties owned by Caucasians or located in predominantly Caucasian neighborhoods.The Superior Court of Lenoir County granted summary judgment in favor of the city, and the plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals vacated the lower court's decision, ruling that the plaintiffs had to exhaust all administrative remedies before bringing a direct action under the state constitution. The plaintiffs then appealed to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.The Supreme Court of North Carolina vacated the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that exhaustion of administrative remedies does not dictate jurisdiction over direct actions under the state constitution. The court explained that the authority to hear such claims flows from the constitution itself. The court also found that the Court of Appeals had erred by treating the plaintiffs' separate constitutional claims as the same. The court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for a standard de novo review of the merits of the trial court's summary judgment order. View "Askew v. City of Kinston" on Justia Law

The case involves a § 1983 excessive-force action brought by Marta Sanchez, the Estate of Stephanie Lopez, and Dominic Martinez against officers from the Littleton and Englewood Police Departments in Colorado. The plaintiffs alleged that the officers fired 66 bullets into their motionless vehicle while they were attempting to surrender, resulting in the death of Stephanie Lopez, severe injuries to Dominic Martinez, and rendering Marta Sanchez a paraplegic. The defendants, however, described a high-speed car chase following an armed carjacking, during which the plaintiffs allegedly used their vehicle as a weapon and endangered the public.The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that they were entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to carry their burden on the clearly established law issue. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court found that the plaintiffs failed to provide a record-based factual universe upon which the court could conduct a clearly established law analysis. The court held that the plaintiffs effectively waived their review of their challenge to the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to the defendants. The court concluded that without a record-based factual universe reflecting the plaintiffs' version of events, it could not opine on whether the district court committed reversible error in concluding that the plaintiffs did not satisfy the clearly established law prong of the qualified-immunity test. View "Sanchez v. Guzman" on Justia Law

Minosa Echols, a civil detainee in an Illinois facility, was seriously injured when another resident attacked him. Echols filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that three security officers present during the assault violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by failing to protect him. The case went to trial, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defense. Echols appealed, arguing that the district court committed a legal error in its jury instruction.The district court had instructed the jury that to succeed on a failure-to-protect claim, Echols needed to show that the officer in question was subjectively aware that the other resident presented a risk of harm to Echols. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed that the jury instruction was erroneous. The court stated that Echols did not need to prove subjective awareness of the risk of harm to establish liability. Instead, the jury should have been instructed to determine whether a reasonable officer in the defendant’s position would have appreciated that the conditions within the dayroom put Echols at risk of harm, and whether the defendant acted in an objectively unreasonable way in addressing that risk.However, to prevail on appeal, Echols also needed to show that the error prejudiced him. The court found that Echols failed to do so. The court concluded that the attack was so unexpected that no reasonable officer, in the circumstances before them, would have anticipated the surprise attack or taken different measures to protect Echols. Therefore, the court affirmed the lower court's decision. View "Echols v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The case involves Shannon Blick, a former principal of an elementary school in the Ann Arbor Public School District. In 2019, Blick was placed on paid leave while the school district investigated her role in a custodian's over-billing scheme. The leave lasted two years, and the school district eventually terminated Blick's contract. Blick filed a lawsuit while still on leave, alleging that various officials violated her freedoms of speech and association under the First Amendment. She also brought race-discrimination, due-process, and conspiracy claims against these officials. The district court rejected Blick's First Amendment claims at the summary-judgment stage and dismissed the other claims on the pleadings.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that Blick failed to show a reversible error. She argued that the school district violated the First Amendment by imposing a prior restraint that barred her from speaking during her leave and by taking harmful actions against her in retaliation for her speech. However, the court found that Blick's lawyers did not provide sufficient information about what she wanted to say or what she did say. The court also found that Blick's opening brief did not preserve her challenges to much of the district court's motion-to-dismiss decision. As a result, the court affirmed the district court's decision. View "Blick v. Ann Arbor Public School District" on Justia Law

The case involves Holston Banks, a convicted prisoner, who sued John Spence for excessive use of force in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. The incident occurred in 2017, and Banks filed his lawsuit in October 2019. In April 2022, Spence moved to extend the deadline for filing an amended pleading, which was initially set for May 2, 2022. The court denied the motion but later extended the deadline to May 25, 2022, after a joint motion for an agreed amended scheduling order. On May 24, Spence filed an amended answer to Banks's complaint.Spence moved for judgment on the pleadings in September, arguing that Banks's Fourteenth Amendment claim was not applicable to convicted prisoners. He also claimed that Banks failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim. Banks's counsel became aware of the Eighth/Fourteenth Amendment distinction in August. On October 6, 134 days after the deadline and 38 days after Banks's counsel became aware of the issue, Banks moved to amend his claim to assert an Eighth Amendment claim. The district court denied the motion and granted judgment on the pleadings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court applied the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), which requires the party seeking relief to show that the deadlines could not reasonably be met despite their diligence. The court found that Banks's counsel's failure to understand the applicable law until after the deadline had passed was not an adequate explanation for the delay in amending the claim. The court cited previous cases where a lack of explanation for delay was sufficient to deny amendment. Therefore, the court affirmed the denial of Banks's motion to amend. View "Banks v. Spence" on Justia Law

Raynard Jackson, a prisoner at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility (WSPF), was placed in a cell without running water for five days. He alleged that Lieutenant Dane Esser, among other WSPF staff, knew that he did not have water and yet failed to turn the water on. After Jackson showed another staff member that he did not have water, the water was promptly turned on; however, he claimed Lt. Esser and other WSPF staff failed to provide him with medical care for his dehydration. Jackson filed grievances pertaining to these issues. After he exhausted his administrative remedies within the WSPF, he sued Lt. Esser and other WSPF staff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.The district court, only considering the processed grievances, and without holding an evidentiary hearing, found that Jackson had not exhausted his administrative remedies as to certain claims and defendants. Additional defendants, Nurse Beth Edge and Captain Dale Flannery, were dismissed at summary judgment, leaving only the claims against Lt. Esser for trial. The jury found for Lt. Esser on both claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed with Jackson that the district court should not have disregarded his allegedly unprocessed grievances without holding an evidentiary hearing. However, the court found no error in the district court’s conclusion that Jackson’s processed grievances did not exhaust remedies as to all his claims. The court also found no error in the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Nurse Edge or its evidentiary rulings before trial. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a hearing on the allegedly unprocessed grievances. View "Jackson v. Esser" on Justia Law

The case involves a group of plaintiffs who filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Independent School District 194 and its superintendent. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated their First Amendment rights by discriminating against their political viewpoints. The controversy arose when the school district allowed the display of Black Lives Matter (BLM) posters in classrooms but rejected requests to display "All Lives Matter" and "Blue Lives Matter" posters and shirts. The district court dismissed the plaintiffs' First Amendment claims and denied the unnamed plaintiffs' motion to proceed under pseudonyms.The district court ruled that the unnamed plaintiffs had not sufficiently established a threat of a hostile public reaction to their lawsuit that would warrant anonymity. It also concluded that the BLM posters constituted government speech that is not subject to scrutiny under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. The plaintiffs appealed both orders.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to proceed under pseudonyms, finding that the unnamed plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence of a compelling fear of retaliation. However, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of the complaint, concluding that the plaintiffs had pleaded sufficient facts to allow a court to draw the plausible inference that the BLM posters are expressions of private persons, not government speech. The court also found that the district had engaged in viewpoint discrimination by allowing the display of BLM posters but rejecting "All Lives Matter" and "Blue Lives Matter" posters and shirts. View "Cajune v. Independent School District 194" on Justia Law