Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

A woman from North Carolina was found raped and murdered in a Washington, D.C. apartment in March 2017. The victim’s body was discovered bound and stabbed, with evidence of sexual assault. Surveillance footage and ATM records showed her car and credit cards being used in the days following her death. The investigation led to the arrest of El Hadji A. Toure, whose DNA was found at the crime scene and on items used to bind the victim. Video evidence placed Toure near the victim’s apartment shortly before the crime, and he was later seen using her credit and debit cards, always entering the correct PIN. After the murder, Toure’s financial situation improved markedly, as he paid cash for a hotel stay and a car.A jury in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia convicted Toure of multiple offenses, including first-degree murder, sexual abuse, kidnapping, and related charges. He was sentenced to life without release. While his appeal was pending, Toure moved for a new trial, arguing that the government failed to timely disclose disciplinary records (QCARs) for forensic witnesses, in violation of Brady v. Maryland. The Superior Court denied the motion, finding that, even assuming suppression of favorable evidence, there was no reasonable probability the outcome would have been different given the strength of the other evidence.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed both the convictions and the denial of a new trial. The court held that, although the government failed to timely disclose impeachment evidence, the suppressed material was not material under Brady because the remaining evidence against Toure was overwhelming. The court also found that the prosecutor’s conduct in eliciting certain testimony violated Toure’s confrontation and due process rights, but concluded that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The convictions and denial of a new trial were affirmed, with a remand for merger and resentencing as necessary. View "Toure v. United States" on Justia Law

A shelter providing housing to individuals experiencing homelessness terminated a client's services on an emergency basis, alleging that the client posed an imminent threat to the health or safety of others. The client, who had previously been removed from the shelter without proper notice, returned to the shelter and was involved in a confrontation with security officers. The shelter claimed the client was hostile, pushed a security officer, and made threats. The client challenged the termination, leading to an evidentiary hearing.The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) reviewed the case. The administrative law judge (ALJ) found that the shelter had previously attempted to terminate the client without proper notice and that the client was within his rights to be at the shelter at the time of the incident. The ALJ determined that the security officers escalated the situation by provoking the client, who only pushed the officer after being provoked. The ALJ did not credit the shelter's witness's testimony that the client made threats, finding it uncorroborated and inconsistent with video evidence.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case. The court upheld the ALJ's decision, agreeing that the ALJ correctly applied the law and that the client's actions were not severe enough to warrant emergency termination under the Homeless Services Reform Act. The court found that the ALJ's credibility determinations were supported by substantial evidence and that the shelter's arguments regarding the client's prior misconduct were unpreserved for appeal. The court affirmed the OAH's order, rejecting the shelter's arguments. View "Catholic Charities--801 East Men's Shelter v. Byrd" on Justia Law

The Heidi Group, Inc. alleged that several Texas officials violated the Fourth Amendment and Texas law by conspiring with a private citizen to steal documents from a cloud-based file storage system. The officials moved for judgment on the pleadings and asserted various immunity defenses. The district court denied the motions in relevant part.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas reviewed the case and denied the defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings. The defendants then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The appeal involved four distinct groups of orders: the denial of qualified immunity for individual capacity defendants on the Fourth Amendment claim, the denial of judgment on the pleadings for the official capacity Fourth Amendment claim, the denial of state law immunity for the individual capacity defendants on the unlawful-access claim, and the denial of judgment on the pleadings for the state law religious-discrimination claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal regarding the religious-discrimination claim and declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over the official capacity Fourth Amendment claim. The court held that only Gaylon Dacus engaged in state action and was not entitled to qualified immunity for the Fourth Amendment claim. The court found that Dacus used a former employee to access Heidi's documents without proper authorization, violating clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. The court also affirmed the denial of state law immunity for the individual capacity defendants on the unlawful-access claim, as their actions were not in good faith. The court reversed the denial of judgment on the pleadings for Johnson and Kaufman on the individual capacity Fourth Amendment claim and remanded for further proceedings. View "Heidi Group v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission" on Justia Law

A motorist on Interstate 10 near Deming, New Mexico, reported a man in the median with a firearm who may have fired shots. Police officers encountered Gilbert Valencia in a nearby mesquite field, matching the description and holding what appeared to be an AR-style rifle. Valencia did not consistently comply with officers' commands and moved his hand on the weapon, prompting five officers to shoot him. Valencia died from his wounds. His estate brought federal and state law claims against the City of Deming, individual officers, Luna County, and the New Mexico Department of Public Safety.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico granted summary judgment for the officers, asserting qualified immunity, and dismissed the Estate’s claims under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act. The Estate appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their use of lethal force was objectively reasonable based on the circumstances. The court found that the Estate failed to identify a dispute of material fact that precluded summary judgment on the state law claims. The court held that the officers' actions were reasonable given the perceived threat and the totality of the circumstances, including Valencia's non-compliance and the officers' belief that he was armed and dangerous. The court also determined that the New Mexico Tort Claims Act did not apply to the City of Deming, as it only applies to law enforcement officers. View "Cruz v. City Of Deming" on Justia Law

Carey Jackson was found guilty by a DeKalb County jury of felony murder, aggravated assault, first-degree criminal damage to property, and a violation of the Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act in connection with the shooting death of Arnold Leslie and the assaults of seven other individuals. The crimes occurred on April 6, 2020, and Jackson was indicted on December 1, 2020. The jury found Jackson not guilty of malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony but guilty of the remaining counts. Jackson was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole for felony murder, along with additional consecutive and concurrent prison terms for the other charges.Jackson filed a motion for a new trial on January 18, 2022, which was amended through new counsel on April 9, 2024. The trial court denied the motion on June 26, 2024. Jackson then filed a notice of appeal on July 16, 2024, and the case was docketed in the Supreme Court of Georgia for the term beginning in December 2024.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed Jackson's claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to a jury instruction related to the Street Gang Act. Jackson argued that the instruction created a constitutionally impermissible mandatory presumption. The court found that the instruction did not create a mandatory presumption or shift the burden of proof to the defendant. Instead, it explained the meaning of the phrase "further the interests of the gang" and required the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime committed was the sort of crime the gang engaged in. Consequently, the court held that Jackson's trial counsel was not deficient for failing to object to the instruction and affirmed the trial court's decision. View "JACKSON v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and defendant were married in 2019 and have one son together. Plaintiff moved out of the marital home in January 2023 and initiated divorce proceedings in March 2023. In April 2023, defendant was arrested and charged with weapon offenses after threatening a process server with a handgun. Plaintiff filed a civil complaint in July 2023 under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) based on allegations of stalking and harassment. The court issued a TRO prohibiting defendant from contacting plaintiff, granting her temporary custody of their son, and denying defendant parenting and visitation time.During the final restraining order (FRO) hearing, plaintiff called defendant as a witness. Defendant invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, but the trial court ordered him to testify. Defendant refused to answer questions beyond stating his name, invoking the Fifth Amendment. The trial court ruled that defendant could not invoke the privilege and that an adverse inference could be drawn from his refusal to testify. Defendant appealed the decision.The Appellate Division denied leave to appeal. While defendant's motion for leave to appeal was pending, the Appellate Division published T.B. v. I.W., addressing a similar issue. The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted defendant leave to appeal.The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that while the Fifth Amendment does not provide blanket immunity in PDVA FRO hearings, a defendant may invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in response to specific questions that pose reasonable risks of self-incrimination. The court ruled that no adverse inference may be drawn from the exercise of this right. The PDVA immunity provision in N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(a) is not coextensive with the Fifth Amendment and does not adequately protect a defendant's rights. The trial court's ruling was reversed, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings. View "M.A. v. J.H.M." on Justia Law

A group of businesses and individuals in the vision care industry challenged Texas House Bill 1696, which regulates managed vision care plans by limiting the information these plans can provide to their enrollees. The plaintiffs argued that the bill imposed unconstitutional burdens on their rights of commercial speech, associational freedom, and equal protection under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. They sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the bill's enforcement and the defendants, Texas officials, moved to dismiss the case, claiming sovereign immunity.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied the defendants' motion to dismiss and granted the preliminary injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their commercial speech claims and that the equities favored a preliminary injunction. The defendants appealed both the denial of their sovereign immunity defense and the grant of the preliminary injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision to deny the motion to dismiss as it related to Texas Insurance Commissioner Cassie Brown, finding that she had a specific duty to enforce the statute. However, the court vacated the denial of the motion to dismiss as it related to Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton, determining that they did not have a sufficient connection to the enforcement of the statute. The court also affirmed the preliminary injunction against Commissioner Brown, concluding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their commercial speech claim and that the balance of equities favored the injunction. The court vacated the preliminary injunction as it applied to Governor Abbott and Attorney General Paxton and remanded the case for modification of the orders. View "Healthy Vision Association v. Abbott" on Justia Law

Houston police officers Manual Salazar and Nestor Garcia, members of the Gang Division Crime Reduction Unit, fatally shot David Anthony Salinas on July 14, 2021, following a pursuit in a sting operation. His widow, Brittany Salinas, filed a lawsuit against Officers Salazar and Garcia and the City of Houston, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Texas Tort Claims Act, and the state-created danger theory of constitutional liability.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in full. The court found that Brittany Salinas had standing to bring her claims but concluded that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity and that the claims against the City of Houston were meritless. Brittany Salinas timely appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court found that the officers had reasonable suspicion to detain Salinas based on the identifying information on his vehicle and his refusal to stop when the officers engaged their lights. The court also found that the officers did not violate Salinas' Fourth Amendment rights, as they reasonably believed he posed an immediate threat when he continuously reached within his vehicle despite their commands to show his hands. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the § 1983 claims against the officers, finding that they were entitled to qualified immunity.Regarding the claims against the City of Houston, the court found no constitutional injury and affirmed the dismissal of the § 1983 claims. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the Texas Tort Claims Act claims, as they were foreclosed by the ruling on qualified immunity and barred by case law. The court concluded that the City of Houston's sovereign immunity had not been waived. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of all claims. View "Salinas v. City of Houston" on Justia Law

Cheryl Butler was hired as an assistant law professor at Southern Methodist University (SMU) in 2011. After a mandatory third-year performance review, her contract was renewed, and she became eligible for tenure consideration in the fall semester of 2015. Due to illness, Butler requested an extension of the tenure vote, which was denied, but she was later granted leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for the spring semester of 2016. Her tenure committee, chaired by Professor Roy Anderson, concluded that Butler met tenure standards for scholarship and service but not teaching. Consequently, the law faculty voted not to recommend tenure, and Butler's appeals to the SMU Law School Dean and the Provost were unsuccessful. Butler completed the 2016-2017 academic year without teaching any classes.Butler filed a lawsuit against SMU and several of its employees, alleging racially discriminatory tenure standards and processes, and retaliation for her internal complaints about race, disability, and FMLA discrimination. She brought federal statutory claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title IX, and the FMLA. Additionally, she asserted state-law discrimination and retaliation claims under Texas Labor Code Chapter 21, along with state common law claims for breach of contract and negligent supervision. Against the employee defendants, she claimed defamation, conspiracy to defame, and fraud.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed Butler's defamation and fraud claims against the employee defendants, citing preemption by Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code. The court held that the gravamen of these claims was unlawful employment discrimination and retaliation, which Chapter 21 specifically addresses. Butler appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit certified a question to the Supreme Court of Texas regarding whether Chapter 21 preempts common law defamation and fraud claims against employees based on the same conduct as discrimination claims against the employer.The Supreme Court of Texas held that Chapter 21 does not preempt common law defamation and fraud claims against employees. The court reasoned that Chapter 21 subjects only employers to liability for discriminatory and retaliatory conduct and does not immunize individuals from liability for their own tortious actions. Therefore, Butler's defamation and fraud claims against the employee defendants are not foreclosed by Chapter 21. View "BUTLER v. COLLINS" on Justia Law

The defendant was pulled over by deputies in Des Moines County after they responded to a reckless-driver complaint and observed her driving erratically. The deputies noted symptoms of intoxication and conducted field sobriety tests, which the defendant failed to complete. She requested an attorney when asked to submit to a preliminary breath test and was arrested. At the jail, she was given her phone and informed of her rights, including the right to contact an attorney, but she did not make any attempt to do so.The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI), first offense. She filed a motion to suppress evidence, claiming her rights were violated under Iowa Code section 804.20 when the deputies did not permit her to call an attorney. The Iowa District Court for Des Moines County denied her motion, and the case proceeded to a jury trial. The district court also denied her motion in limine to suppress alleged hearsay evidence. The jury found the defendant guilty, and she appealed the decision, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the denial of her motions.The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decisions. The Iowa Supreme Court granted further review but adopted the court of appeals' opinion for all claims except the motion to suppress issue concerning Iowa Code section 804.20. The Supreme Court determined that Iowa Code section 804.20 was not violated, as the defendant was given a reasonable opportunity to contact an attorney without unnecessary delay. The decision of the court of appeals and the district court judgment were affirmed. View "State of Iowa v. Clark" on Justia Law