Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

On July 29, 2007, Noel Dean’s wife, Shannon, died from a gunshot wound at their home after she became severely intoxicated and after Noel confronted her with evidence of an affair. Noel reported that Shannon shot herself, but law enforcement suspected homicide. The next day, Dr. Darshan Phatak, an assistant medical examiner, performed the autopsy. Initially, he could not determine whether the death was a homicide or suicide and marked the cause as “pending.” After meeting with colleagues and reviewing police interviews and other evidence, Dr. Phatak concluded the gun’s orientation at the time of the shooting was inconsistent with Noel’s account and classified the death as a homicide in the official autopsy report. This report contributed to Noel’s arrest and indictment for murder. During a subsequent trial, photographic overlays created by Dr. Phatak’s supervisor suggested the gun orientation matched Noel’s story, prompting a change in the autopsy report’s classification to “undetermined” and a dismissal of charges.Noel Dean then filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Dr. Phatak intentionally fabricated the autopsy report. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied Dr. Phatak’s summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity, relying on allegations rather than evidence. On initial appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded for proper consideration of the summary judgment record. After further briefing and significant delay, the district court again denied summary judgment, applying a “deliberate indifference” standard.On this second interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the district court applied the wrong legal standard by using a “deliberate indifference” test rather than determining whether a rational juror could find Dr. Phatak intentionally misstated his conclusions. The appellate court vacated the denial of summary judgment and remanded for reconsideration under the correct standard. View "Dean v. Phatak" on Justia Law

A group of unhoused veterans with severe disabilities and mental illnesses sued the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), seeking to restore the West Los Angeles VA Grounds for its intended use: housing disabled veterans. The VA had leased portions of this land to third parties—including the Regents of the University of California, Brentwood School, and Bridgeland Resources LLC—for uses that did not principally benefit veterans. Plaintiffs argued that the lack of supportive housing denied meaningful access to VA healthcare, violated the Rehabilitation Act, and placed them at serious risk of institutionalization. They also challenged VA policies that counted disability benefits as income, restricting access to supportive housing, and claimed that certain land-use agreements violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Additionally, they asserted that the original 1888 Deed created a charitable trust that the VA had breached.The United States District Court for the Central District of California held a four-week bench trial, finding that the VA’s land-use leases with UCLA, Brentwood School, and Bridgeland Resources LLC were unlawful, voided these leases, and enjoined the VA from renegotiating them. The court certified a plaintiff class, ordered the VA to build supportive housing, found the VA and HUD violated the Rehabilitation Act in several respects, and determined that the VA had breached fiduciary duties under a charitable trust theory, invalidating certain leases on that basis as well.On review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The Ninth Circuit held that federal courts retained jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ Rehabilitation Act claims, upheld class certification, and affirmed findings of meaningful access, Olmstead, and facial discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act against the VA. The court reversed judgment against HUD, and also reversed the charitable trust claim, finding no judicially enforceable fiduciary duties under the Leasing Act. The court vacated related injunctive relief and judgments based on the charitable trust theory, including those against UCLA, Brentwood, and Bridgeland. The injunctions were modified, allowing the VA to renegotiate leases if compliant with statutory requirements. View "Powers v. McDonough" on Justia Law

Israel Ruiz was convicted by an Illinois jury of first-degree murder and aggravated discharge of a firearm for an offense he committed at age 18 in 1998. In 2000, he received a 40-year prison sentence without the possibility of parole for murder and a concurrent 15-year sentence for the firearm offense. In 2019, Illinois enacted a law (Public Act 100-1182) allowing parole eligibility for young adults convicted of first-degree murder committed under age 21, but only for those sentenced on or after June 1, 2019. Ruiz, sentenced before that date, is ineligible for parole under the Act.Ruiz filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against Illinois’s governor and other state officials. He alleged that the Act’s prospective application violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause and the Eighth Amendment. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that established Seventh Circuit precedent foreclosed Ruiz’s Fourteenth Amendment claim and that the Act’s prospective-only application did not render his sentence cruel or unusual under the Eighth Amendment. Ruiz appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. It held that the Act’s limitation to offenders sentenced on or after its effective date did not violate the Equal Protection Clause, as rational-basis review permits such prospective legislative distinctions, consistent with prior circuit decisions such as United States v. Speed and United States v. Sanders. The court also held that Ruiz’s sentence was not unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment, as Supreme Court precedent limiting life without parole for offenders under 18 did not apply to Ruiz. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Ruiz v. Pritzker" on Justia Law

Max and Peggy Lancaster transferred approximately $3.8 million in property to a family LLC owned by their adult children, receiving a promissory note and other loan-related documents in exchange. They subsequently applied for Medicaid benefits in Oklahoma but were found ineligible due to their financial resources exceeding Medicaid’s asset limit. The Lancasters challenged this determination in federal court, arguing that the Oklahoma Department of Human Services and the Oklahoma Health Care Authority violated 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(8) of the Medicaid Act, which requires prompt provision of benefits to eligible individuals. They sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, contending that the Agencies’ asset calculation was erroneous and deprived them of a federally protected right.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma granted the Agencies’ motion to dismiss. The court found that the promissory note received from the LLC was a countable resource under state law and not a bona fide loan. As a result, the court concluded the Lancasters were not eligible for Medicaid benefits because their assets exceeded the threshold set by law. The Lancasters appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.While the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, which clarified the standard for determining whether provisions of the Medicaid Act confer individually enforceable rights under § 1983. The Tenth Circuit held that, under Medina, 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(8) does not clearly and unambiguously confer a private right enforceable via § 1983. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the Lancasters’ claims, holding that there is no individually enforceable right under § 1396a(a)(8) for the purposes of this lawsuit. View "Lancaster v. Cartmell" on Justia Law

Stericycle, Inc. reorganized its sales department in 2021, creating a new position called Key Account Director (KAD) in both its national and hospital divisions. Cheryl Lane and Adrienne Hause, both female employees, were promoted to the National KAD role. Prior to being promoted, Lane and Hause were National Account Managers with base salaries of $92,784 and $95,026. After expressing concerns about salary disparities between themselves and male Hospital KADs, they received raises increasing their salaries to $98,000. The male Hospital KADs, some promoted and some transferred, generally received higher salaries, with promoted males receiving immediate raises and transferred males retaining their previous, often higher, salaries.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted summary judgment to Stericycle, finding that Lane and Hause had established a prima facie case under the Equal Pay Act but that Stericycle’s pay practices were justified by a sex-neutral factor: prior salary history. The court found Stericycle had satisfied its affirmative defense for all comparators, concluding that salary disparities were not based on sex. The court also granted summary judgment on the Title VII claim, holding that Lane and Hause had failed to show intentional discrimination.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether Lane and Hause received raises at the time of promotion, as their male counterparts did. The court held that summary judgment was improper in relation to the two promoted male Hospital KADs, as Stericycle failed to prove its affirmative defense as a matter of law, and there was a material factual dispute as to pretext under Title VII. The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Lane v Stericycle, Inc." on Justia Law

C.B., a 34-year-old man with developmental and psychiatric disabilities, died while residing at the Valley Ridge Center for Intensive Treatment, a secure state-run facility operated by the New York State Office for People with Developmental Disabilities. Although C.B. was admitted voluntarily, the facility imposed substantial restrictions on his liberty, including limits on leaving the premises and accessing medical care. In the days leading up to his death from cardiomyopathy, C.B. exhibited clear symptoms of heart failure and repeatedly asked staff for help, but his pleas were allegedly ignored or inadequately addressed by his caretakers.J.M., C.B.’s mother and administrator of his estate, brought suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, alleging violations of C.B.’s substantive due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as state law claims for negligence and medical malpractice. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the federal claim, holding that C.B., as a voluntarily admitted resident, had no constitutional right to adequate medical care, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The court also denied J.M.’s motion to amend her complaint to add a new defendant, finding lack of diligence.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that C.B. was entitled to substantive due process protections regardless of his voluntary admission status. The court clarified that when the state exercises sufficient control over a resident’s life such that the individual cannot care for himself, due process guarantees apply, consistent with Youngberg v. Romeo, Society for Good Will to Retarded Children, Inc. v. Cuomo, and DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. The Second Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "J.M. v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Kelsey Fitzsimmons, a North Andover police officer, was indicted in Essex County on one count of assault by means of a dangerous weapon. The Commonwealth alleged that during the service of an abuse prevention order, Fitzsimmons deceived officers regarding firearms in her home, drew a firearm, pointed it at an officer, and pulled the trigger, though the gun did not discharge. She then allegedly attempted to chamber a round before being shot by an officer. The Commonwealth presented further evidence of Fitzsimmons’s prior alcohol-related violence, mental health struggles, and a 2019 misdemeanor conviction for intoxicated and disruptive behavior. Fitzsimmons relied on medical and psychological evidence suggesting she was suitable for outpatient care and posed no credible risk of harm.Initially, the District Court ordered Fitzsimmons held on dangerousness grounds. A Superior Court judge subsequently found her dangerous but released her subject to strict conditions, including house arrest, GPS monitoring, and alcohol abstinence monitored by SCRAM testing. When Fitzsimmons claimed she could not physically comply with SCRAM testing due to injuries, the judge vacated the release order and detained her pretrial. Fitzsimmons moved for reconsideration, proposing urine testing as an alternative, but the judge denied the motion, finding that urine testing would interfere with house arrest requirements.Fitzsimmons then petitioned a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts for extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, arguing the judge erred in refusing less restrictive alternatives and in her conduct. The single justice denied the petition, concluding there was no error or abuse of discretion. On appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that neither the hearing judge nor the single justice abused their discretion in ordering detention when Fitzsimmons could not comply with the least restrictive conditions necessary for community safety. The Court also found no requirement for de novo review and rejected Fitzsimmons’s arguments under the Americans with Disabilities Act and other statutes. Judgment was affirmed. View "Fitzsimmons v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Two long-time residents of Nashua, New Hampshire, sought to fly various flags on a designated "Citizen Flag Pole" located at City Hall Plaza. The City had previously allowed private citizens and groups to fly flags representing diverse causes and cultural events on this pole, with minimal oversight and no substantive review of flag content. After one of the plaintiffs flew a "Save Women's Sports" flag, the City received complaints, revoked permission, and removed the flag, stating that it was discriminatory toward the transgender community. Subsequently, the City adopted a written policy in 2022 asserting that the flagpole’s use constituted government speech and reserving the right to deny flags not aligned with City policies.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent viewpoint-based denials of flag applications. Before the City filed its opposition, it enacted a new policy to exercise exclusive government control over the flagpoles. The magistrate judge recommended denying the injunction, finding the flag program to be government speech, and the district court adopted that recommendation and denied relief. The plaintiffs then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.The First Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial for abuse of discretion and legal conclusions de novo. Applying the government speech test from Shurtleff v. City of Boston, the court held that Nashua’s Citizen Flag Pole program was not government speech, but rather operated as a forum for private expression. Because Nashua conceded that, absent a government speech determination, its actions constituted impermissible viewpoint discrimination, the First Circuit reversed the district court. The case was remanded with instructions to enter interim declaratory relief in favor of the plaintiffs. View "Scaer v. City of Nashua" on Justia Law

Karl Rabenhorst, a former Navy officer employed by FEMA, alleged that he was subjected to age and sex discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation after being removed from a Puerto Rico disaster relief operation and later suspended without pay. The incidents leading to these adverse actions included reprimands for inappropriate interactions with state officials and insubordination, such as sending unauthorized emails and making disrespectful remarks. During the Puerto Rico deployment, Rabenhorst used derogatory language toward younger female coworkers, which prompted his removal from the operation.After his removal, Rabenhorst filed internal complaints, including a grievance with the DHS Office of Equal Rights, alleging discrimination and retaliation. FEMA investigated and ultimately denied his claims, issuing a final agency decision in 2021. Rabenhorst then brought suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, asserting violations of Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment for the Secretary of Homeland Security, finding that Rabenhorst failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as he did not meet his employer’s legitimate expectations and could not show that similarly situated employees outside his protected classes were treated more favorably. The court also concluded that Rabenhorst provided no evidence of an objectively hostile work environment or that any adverse conduct was based on his age or sex. Regarding retaliation, the court found no causal link between his protected activity and the suspension decision. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo and affirmed, holding that Rabenhorst did not provide sufficient evidence to support claims of discrimination, hostile work environment, or retaliation. View "Rabenhorst v. Noem" on Justia Law

HRT Enterprises owned an 11.8-acre parcel adjacent to Detroit’s Coleman A. Young International Airport, with about 20 percent of the property falling within a regulated runway “visibility zone” that restricted development. Over time, the City of Detroit acquired other properties in a nearby area for airport compliance but did not purchase HRT’s. By late 2008, HRT’s property had become vacant and vandalized, and HRT alleged it could no longer use, lease, or sell the property due to City actions and regulatory restrictions.HRT first sued the City in Michigan state court in 2002, alleging inverse condemnation, but the jury found for the City; the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. In 2008, HRT sued in federal court, but the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed the action without prejudice because HRT had not exhausted state remedies. HRT then filed a second state suit in 2009, which was dismissed on res judicata grounds; the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. HRT did not seek further review.In 2012, HRT filed the present action in federal court, alleging a de facto taking under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court denied the City’s preclusion arguments, granted summary judgment to HRT on liability, and held that a taking had occurred, leaving the date for the jury. A first jury found the taking occurred in 2009 and awarded $4.25 million; the court ordered remittitur to $2 million, then a second jury, after a new trial, awarded $1.97 million.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings, holding that HRT’s claim was ripe, not barred by claim or issue preclusion, that the district court properly granted summary judgment on liability, and that its remittitur decision was not an abuse of discretion. View "HRT Enterprises v. City of Detroit" on Justia Law