Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

A group of plaintiffs filed suit against the Secretary of the Alabama Department of Workforce, alleging that the Department’s handling of their unemployment benefits applications during the COVID-19 pandemic was unlawful. The plaintiffs claimed that the Department’s policies and practices resulted in unreasonable delays and inadequate communication, violating both the Social Security Act and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They sought various forms of injunctive relief, including orders requiring prompt decisions on applications, timely payment of approved claims, and clearer communication with claimants.The Montgomery Circuit Court granted the Secretary’s motion to dismiss the case, without specifying the grounds for dismissal. The plaintiffs’ motion to alter or vacate the judgment was denied. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the dismissal, holding that the plaintiffs had not exhausted their administrative remedies and that the courts lacked the power to address the merits of their claims. The plaintiffs then sought review by the United States Supreme Court.The United States Supreme Court reversed the Alabama Supreme Court’s judgment, holding that the state’s administrative exhaustion requirement could not be used to bar federal due process claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged delays in processing unemployment benefits. On remand, the Supreme Court of Alabama considered supplemental briefing on whether the case had become moot, as the Secretary asserted that all plaintiffs had either been paid or received final denials. The plaintiffs disputed this and requested a remand for a factual determination. The Supreme Court of Alabama remanded the case to the Montgomery Circuit Court to determine whether the case is now moot, instructing the lower court to resolve the factual dispute regarding mootness. View "Johnson v. Reed" on Justia Law

A 78-year-old inmate in a Texas men’s prison, who identifies as a transgender woman, sought sex-reassignment surgery after being diagnosed with gender dysphoria in 2013. The inmate received hormone therapy and was chemically castrated, but was ultimately denied surgery by prison medical staff. The inmate alleged that state officials discriminated by providing reconstructive vaginoplasty to female inmates while denying similar surgery to transgender inmates, claiming a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas initially denied motions to dismiss based on sovereign immunity, finding that the inmate was similarly situated to cisgender female inmates and that the claims met the requirements of the Ex parte Young exception to sovereign immunity. On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s orders, holding that the inmate had not adequately pled that any defendant was sufficiently connected to enforcement of the challenged policy. On remand, after further proceedings and discovery, the district court granted judgment on the pleadings, concluding that the defendants were either improper under Ex parte Young or that the requested relief was not permitted, and dismissed the lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal, holding that the inmate lacked standing. The court found that the alleged injury was not fairly traceable to the defendants, as there was no evidence that any treating physician had determined the inmate was a suitable candidate for surgery or would refer the inmate for the procedure. Without such evidence, the injury could not be redressed by a favorable judicial decision against the defendants. View "Haverkamp v. Linthicum" on Justia Law

Christina Henry, a Licensed Practical Nurse at Southern Ohio Medical Center (SOMC), refused to comply with SOMC’s COVID-19 policy requiring either vaccination or weekly nasopharyngeal testing, citing religious objections. SOMC granted her a religious exemption from vaccination but denied her request for an exemption from all forms of COVID testing. Henry maintained that her religious beliefs prohibited her from undergoing any COVID test, including non-invasive methods, and proposed self-screening as an alternative. After continued refusal to test or vaccinate, SOMC placed her on unpaid leave. Henry did not request alternative testing methods during her leave and later declined to return to SOMC after the testing requirement was lifted.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted summary judgment in favor of SOMC. The court found that Henry’s communications to SOMC indicated she sought exemption from all COVID testing, not just nasopharyngeal testing. It held that accommodating her request would impose an undue hardship on SOMC by endangering vulnerable patient populations. The court also determined that even if Henry had requested saliva testing, this would still constitute an undue hardship due to delays in obtaining test results and reduced effectiveness. Additionally, the court found that Henry failed to show SOMC’s stated reasons for placing her on unpaid leave were pretextual.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Sixth Circuit held that Henry did not provide sufficient notice to SOMC of a limited objection to only certain types of testing and that either exempting her from all testing or providing saliva testing would impose an undue hardship on SOMC. The court also held that Henry failed to establish pretext in her retaliation claim. View "Henry v. Southern Ohio Medical Center" on Justia Law

Ulysses Feagin was involved in a police encounter after driving erratically, nearly causing a collision with a marked police cruiser, and subsequently leading officers on a brief pursuit. Upon stopping in a parking lot, Feagin ignored repeated commands to exit his vehicle, rolled up the windows, and appeared to reach toward the center console. When officers attempted to remove him, bullets fell from his pocket, and he physically resisted their efforts. Officer Moore deployed a taser to subdue Feagin, who was then handcuffed and placed in a police cruiser. While detained, Feagin continued to resist by kicking the cruiser’s window, prompting Moore to use pepper spray. A subsequent search of Feagin’s vehicle revealed drugs and firearms, leading to his conviction on multiple charges.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted summary judgment to the defendants on most claims but denied it on two: Feagin’s excessive force claim related to the use of a taser and his deliberate indifference claim regarding medical care after being pepper sprayed. The district court found a genuine dispute over whether Feagin’s resistance was active or passive at the time of the tasing, but granted summary judgment on the pepper spray claim, citing Feagin’s continued resistance. The deliberate indifference claim was set for trial because defendants had not moved for summary judgment on that issue.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The Sixth Circuit reversed the denial of qualified immunity for the excessive force claim, holding that Officer Moore’s use of a taser was reasonable under the circumstances and did not violate clearly established law. The court dismissed the appeal regarding the deliberate indifference claim for lack of jurisdiction, as the issue had not been raised below, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Feagin v. Mansfield Police Dep't" on Justia Law

A hotel in the Town of Newburgh, New York, agreed to provide long-term housing to asylum seekers as part of a program initiated by New York City. In response, the Town alleged that the hotel’s actions violated local zoning and occupancy ordinances, which limited hotel stays to transient guests for no more than 30 days. The Town inspected the hotel, found modifications suggesting long-term use, and filed suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Orange County, seeking to enjoin the hotel from housing asylum seekers for extended periods. The state court issued a temporary restraining order, but allowed the asylum seekers already present to remain pending further orders.The hotel removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, arguing that the Town’s enforcement was racially motivated and violated Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, thus justifying removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). The district court found that removal was improper because the hotel had not sufficiently pleaded grounds for removal under § 1443(1), and remanded the case to state court.While the hotel’s appeal of the remand order was pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the underlying state court action was discontinued with prejudice after the asylum seekers left and the City ended its program. The Second Circuit determined that, because the state court case was permanently terminated, there was no longer a live controversy regarding removal. The court held the appeal was moot and, following standard practice when mootness occurs through no fault of the appellant, vacated the district court’s remand order and dismissed the appeal. View "Town of Newburgh v. Newburgh EOM LLC" on Justia Law

Robert Miller died at his home in Cape Cod in 2019 following an encounter with Barnstable police officers Sean Roycroft and Spencer Jackson. The officers responded to a 911 call from Miller’s girlfriend, who requested a psychiatric evaluation but did not report any crime. Upon arrival, a struggle ensued as the officers attempted to handcuff Miller, who ended up face-down on the floor with Roycroft’s arm pinned beneath him. During the struggle, Jackson delivered two punches to Miller in an effort to facilitate handcuffing. Miller’s girlfriend witnessed one of the officers drive a knee into Miller’s back and heard Miller say, “I can’t breathe” and “Amy, help me.” After Miller was handcuffed, he became unresponsive and was later pronounced dead. The medical examiner attributed the death to cardiac dysrhythmia in the setting of excited delirium, while the plaintiff’s expert opined that Miller died from prone restraint cardiac arrest due to pressure on his back.The plaintiff, Miller’s son, brought a federal excessive force claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the officers in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. After discovery, the officers moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The district judge denied summary judgment, finding that there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether the officers used excessive force, particularly after Roycroft freed his arm and Miller was restrained. The judge concluded that clearly established law prohibited kneeling on a restrained person’s back and that a reasonable jury could find the officers’ conduct violated Miller’s constitutional rights.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the denial of qualified immunity for the officers’ conduct while Roycroft’s arm was pinned (Phase One), affirmed the denial for conduct after Miller was restrained and a knee was placed on his back (Phase Two), and dismissed the appeal in part for fact-based arguments not suitable for interlocutory review. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Miller v. Roycroft" on Justia Law

After the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which struck down New York’s “proper cause” requirement for public handgun carry, New Jersey enacted Chapter 131. This law removed its own “justifiable need” standard but imposed new licensing requirements, increased permit fees, mandated liability insurance for handgun carriers, and designated numerous “sensitive places” where firearms are prohibited, such as parks, entertainment venues, healthcare facilities, and private property without express consent. Two groups of plaintiffs, including individuals and gun rights organizations, challenged these provisions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing they violated the Second Amendment.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey consolidated the cases and allowed legislative leaders to intervene as defendants. The District Court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of several “sensitive place” restrictions, the vehicle carry ban, the liability insurance requirement, and the private property default rule, finding these likely unconstitutional under Bruen’s historical tradition test. The State and some plaintiffs appealed, and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals granted a partial stay, allowing most of the law to take effect pending appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s preliminary injunction, applying de novo review to the underlying Second Amendment questions. The Third Circuit held that most of New Jersey’s “sensitive place” restrictions—such as those covering parks, entertainment venues, healthcare facilities, libraries, museums, and places serving alcohol—are likely constitutional, finding them consistent with a historical tradition of regulating firearms in locations set aside for civic, educational, or recreational purposes. However, the court affirmed the injunction against the liability insurance mandate, the portion of the permit fee allocated to the Victims of Crime Compensation Office, the private property default rule as applied to places open to the public, and the ban on carrying operable firearms in private vehicles, holding these provisions likely violate the Second Amendment. The court vacated the injunction as to film sets and certain hunting regulations for lack of standing or mootness, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Koons v. Attorney General New Jersey" on Justia Law

A county public guardian sought to place an individual, A.H., under a conservatorship pursuant to the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act, alleging that A.H. was gravely disabled due to a mental disorder. After the initial petition was filed in February 2023, the trial court imposed a temporary conservatorship. A.H. requested a trial, which by statute should have commenced within 10 days, but the trial was repeatedly continued due to court and counsel unavailability, ultimately beginning months later. As the first temporary conservatorship neared expiration, the public guardian filed a second petition and obtained a new temporary conservatorship, further extending A.H.’s involuntary confinement. A.H. objected to the continuances and sought dismissal of both petitions, arguing that the delays violated statutory deadlines and his due process rights.The Superior Court of Contra Costa County denied A.H.’s motions to dismiss, continued the trials multiple times, and ultimately dismissed the first petition at the public guardian’s request. The trial on the second petition began approximately ten weeks after the statutory deadline, and the court found A.H. gravely disabled, ordering a one-year conservatorship with various restrictions. The public guardian did not seek to renew the conservatorship after it expired.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, held that the statutory deadline for commencing trial under the LPS Act is directory, not mandatory, and does not require automatic dismissal if missed. The court also found that, although the trial court abused its discretion by repeatedly granting continuances without good cause, this error was harmless as it did not affect the outcome of the conservatorship order. However, the appellate court concluded that the cumulative delay—over ten months of involuntary confinement before a final adjudication—violated A.H.’s due process rights, particularly since none of the delay was attributable to A.H. and he had never previously been found gravely disabled. The conservatorship order was therefore reversed. View "Conservatorship of A.H." on Justia Law

An inmate in Georgia, who practices veganism as part of his religious beliefs, was enrolled in a prison program that provided vegan meals to accommodate religious diets. He was removed from this program twice after prison officials discovered he had purchased non-vegan food items from the prison store, such as chicken soup and Cheetos. The inmate claimed he bought these items to sell to other prisoners and would have stopped if he had known it could result in removal from the program. At the time of his removals, the prison’s policy did not explicitly list non-vegan purchases as grounds for removal, though this was later added. The inmate also alleged that only Black inmates were removed from the program, while similarly situated white inmates were not.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia granted summary judgment to the prison officials on the inmate’s claims under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as most of his claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The court found that the officials were entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment and due process claims, that there was no evidence of discriminatory intent or similarly situated comparators for the equal protection claim, and that the non-vegan meals provided were nutritionally adequate. The court also dismissed the remaining RLUIPA claim as moot after the inmate was reenrolled in the vegan meal program.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the officials were entitled to qualified immunity, that there was insufficient evidence to support the equal protection and Eighth Amendment claims, and that the RLUIPA claims either failed on the merits or were moot because the inmate had been reinstated in the vegan meal program. View "Sumrall v. Georgia Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

A private Christian school in Vermont forfeited a girls’ basketball playoff game because it objected, on religious grounds, to playing against a team with a transgender athlete. The school believes that requiring its female athletes to compete against biological males would violate its religious convictions about the immutability of sex. Following the forfeit, the Vermont Principals’ Association (VPA), which oversees extracurricular activities for Vermont schools, expelled the school from all state-sponsored extracurricular activities, including both athletic and non-athletic events.After the expulsion, the school and several students and parents filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, seeking a preliminary injunction to reinstate the school’s VPA membership and alleging a violation of their rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The district court denied the motion, finding that the VPA’s policies regarding transgender athletes were neutral and generally applicable, and thus subject only to rational-basis review. The court concluded that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction. The Second Circuit held that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in showing that the VPA’s expulsion was not neutral, as it was accompanied by official expressions of hostility toward the school’s religious beliefs. The court found that the plaintiffs also satisfied the requirements of irreparable harm and public interest. Accordingly, the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case with instructions to grant a preliminary injunction reinstating the school’s VPA membership pending further proceedings. View "Mid Vermont Christian School v. Saunders" on Justia Law