Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

In June 2020, a local newspaper in Polk County published an article criticizing a local assistant district attorney, Tommy Coleman. The article claimed that Coleman had "assisted with the prosecution of Michael Morton" while he was a prosecutor in Williamson County. Michael Morton was wrongfully convicted in 1987 due to prosecutorial misconduct, a conviction that occurred before Coleman began practicing law. Morton was exonerated in 2011 after spending nearly 25 years in prison. The article specifically highlighted an instance during a post-conviction hearing where Coleman mocked requests for DNA testing of evidence that would eventually exonerate Morton. Coleman sued the newspaper and its author for defamation, arguing that the claim that he assisted in Morton's prosecution was false and defamatory.The Supreme Court of Texas held that the article's statement that Coleman "assisted with the prosecution of Michael Morton" was substantially true given Coleman’s public involvement in his office’s efforts to resist DNA testing of the evidence that exonerated Morton. The Court ruled that even if the article was not precise in its characterization of Coleman's role, the "gist" of the article - that Coleman supported the efforts to keep Morton behind bars by resisting DNA testing - was substantially true and therefore not actionably defamatory. As such, Coleman's claims were dismissed. View "POLK COUNTY PUBLISHING COMPANY v. COLEMAN" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois affirmed the lower courts' decisions denying Darrell Fair's claim of torture. Fair, who had been convicted of a felony, appealed the circuit court’s denial of his claim of torture under the Illinois Torture Inquiry and Relief Commission Act. The Supreme Court held that a court analyzing a claim of torture under the Act must consider the totality of the circumstances, including any allegations of constitutional violations that would not by themselves support a freestanding claim of torture under the Act. However, the court ultimately concluded that the circuit court’s determination that Fair failed to prove his claim of torture was not manifestly erroneous. The court found that Fair had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that under the totality of the circumstances, the combination of acts alleged were sufficiently severe to constitute torture. The court emphasized the circuit court’s credibility determinations as the fact finder at the evidentiary hearing, where it found Fair to be a "wholly incredible witness," while another witness was "extremely" credible. View "People v. Fair" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York's dismissal of a lawsuit brought by BMG Monroe I, LLC. BMG, a developer, had sued the Village of Monroe, New York, alleging that the Village's denial of its applications for building permits on five lots violated the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Protection Clause due to a discriminatory animus towards the Hasidic Jewish community. The Village denied the applications due to non-compliance with the architectural criteria established in the Smith Farm Project's approval conditions. The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that the claims were unripe because BMG had not exhausted its administrative remedies. In order to satisfy the finality requirement under ripeness doctrine, BMG needed to appeal the adverse planning-board decision to a zoning board of appeals and submit at least one meaningful application for a variance. BMG could not claim that further actions were futile based on the Village's indication that it would likely not be receptive to a variance request that had yet to be made. View "BMG Monroe I, LLC v. Village of Monroe" on Justia Law

The appellant, Jordon J. Miller, was convicted and sentenced for second degree murder following a plea agreement. The charge stemmed from an incident when shots were fired at a passing vehicle, resulting in the death of Jade Lea. Miller appealed, claiming that the district court erred in overruling his motion to withdraw his plea, that his statutory right to a speedy trial was violated, that the court imposed an excessive sentence, and that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The Nebraska Supreme Court found no abuse of discretion in the overruling of Miller's motion to withdraw his plea, noting that a defendant’s change of mind alone is not a fair and just reason to withdraw a guilty or no contest plea. The court also found that the record on appeal was not sufficient to review Miller's claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Finally, the court found no abuse of discretion in Miller's sentencing. As such, the court affirmed Miller’s conviction and sentence. View "State v. Miller" on Justia Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada, the plaintiff, Steve Wynn, a prominent figure in Nevada gaming and politics, filed a defamation claim against the defendants, The Associated Press and its reporter, Regina Garcia Cano. The claim arose from an article that reported on two separate citizens' complaints alleging sexual assault by Wynn in the 1970s. The defendants responded with a special motion to dismiss the claim under Nevada's anti-SLAPP statutes, which aim to protect the right to free speech and prevent meritless lawsuits intended to chill the exercise of these rights.The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that the article was a good faith communication in furtherance of the right to free speech in connection with an issue of public concern and that Wynn failed to establish a probability of prevailing on the merits of his claim. Wynn appealed this decision, arguing that the district court erred in its analysis under the two-prong anti-SLAPP framework.The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. Under the first prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis, the court found that the defendants had established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the claim was based on a good faith communication in furtherance of the right to free speech in direct connection with an issue of public concern.Under the second prong, the court clarified that a public figure defamation plaintiff must provide sufficient evidence for a jury, by clear and convincing evidence, to reasonably infer that the publication was made with actual malice. In this case, the court determined that Wynn failed to meet this burden. Hence, he could not establish with prima facie evidence a probability of prevailing on his claim, leading to the affirmation of the district court's order granting the defendants' special motion to dismiss the complaint. View "Wynn v. The Associated Press" on Justia Law

In the State of Nevada, Alexander M. Falconi, operating as the press organization Our Nevada Judges, petitioned against the Eighth Judicial District Court, the Honorable Charles J. Hoskin, District Judge, and parties in interest, Troy A. Minter and Jennifer R. Easler. Falconi challenged local rules and a statute that required certain court proceedings to be closed to the public.Falconi filed a media request for camera access in a child custody proceeding between Minter and Easler. Minter opposed the request, arguing it was not in the child's best interest to have his personal information publicly available. The district court denied Falconi's request, citing that the case was sealed and thus required to be private according to local rules.The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada held that the public has a constitutional right to access court proceedings. The local rules and the statute, NRS 125.080, requiring the district court to close proceedings, bypassed the exercise of judicial discretion and were not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. Thus, the court held that these local rules and NRS 125.080 were unconstitutional to the extent they permitted closed family court proceedings without exercising judicial discretion.The court instructed the district court to reverse its order denying media access in the underlying child custody case. The court emphasized the importance of public access to court proceedings, including family court proceedings, which historically have been open to the public. The court rejected the automatic closure of such proceedings and emphasized the necessity of case-by-case judicial discretion in deciding whether to close proceedings. View "Falconi v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct." on Justia Law

In a case heard before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, plaintiff Jeffrey Hughes, an inmate in a Tennessee state prison, sued the Tennessee Board of Parole, alleging that the Board's refusal to move up his parole hearing date resulted in his overincarceration. Hughes believed that a recent change in state law entitled him to an earlier parole hearing. The Board refused his request, and he was paroled about three months after the date he believed he became eligible for release. The district court dismissed the case on the ground that the defendants, members of the Board, were absolutely immune from suit for their acts. Hughes then appealed.The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the members of the Tennessee Board of Parole were entitled to absolute immunity from damages suits challenging its decision on when to hold a parole hearing. The court found that the Board's decision to schedule (or not to reschedule) a parole hearing was a judicial act, akin to a judge scheduling a court hearing. As such, the defendants were acting in a quasi-judicial capacity and were entitled to absolute immunity. The court also rejected Hughes's arguments of judicial estoppel and res judicata, stating that the defendants could not have raised their immunity defense in the previous state suit and thus were not barred from raising it in the present federal suit. View "Hughes v. Duncan" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was faced with the claims of Cameron Cooper, an employee with Tourette Syndrome, who sued his former employer, Coca-Cola Consolidated, Inc. (CCCI), under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Cooper's Tourette Syndrome caused him to involuntarily utter racist and profane words. He alleged that CCCI failed to provide him with reasonable accommodations and constructively discharged him by forcing him into an undesirable position.Cooper had been working as a delivery merchandiser for CCCI, a role which required excellent customer service. However, his condition led to complaints from customers due to his use of offensive language. CCCI attempted various accommodations, including having Cooper work alongside another employee and ultimately transferring him to a warehouse position with no customer contact. Cooper claimed that CCCI could have accommodated him by assigning him to a non-customer-facing delivery route.The court held that providing excellent customer service was an essential function of Cooper's job and, given his condition, he could not perform this function without an accommodation. The court further held that Cooper's proposed accommodation (assigning him to a non-customer-facing delivery route) was not objectively reasonable because the suggested delivery route did involve customer contact and there were no other non-customer-facing routes available at the time. Additionally, the court found that the warehouse position offered by CCCI was a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.As to the constructive discharge claim, the court held that Cooper failed to show that CCCI deliberately created intolerable working conditions with the intention of forcing him to quit. The court concluded that CCCI provided Cooper with reasonable accommodations each time he requested, thus, there was no evidence to support a constructive discharge claim.The court affirmed the lower court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of CCCI. View "Cooper v. Dolgencorp, LLC" on Justia Law

In the case at hand, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims brought by a group of students and Children’s Health Defense, Inc. against Rutgers University. The plaintiffs challenged the university's COVID-19 vaccination policy, which required in-person students to be vaccinated or else enroll in online programs or seek exemptions for medical or religious reasons. The court found that the university's policy did not violate the plaintiffs' constitutional or statutory rights.The court held that there is no fundamental right to refuse vaccination. It applied the rational basis review and concluded that Rutgers University had a rational basis for its policy given the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' claim that the policy was ultra vires under New Jersey law, determining that Rutgers was authorized to require COVID-19 vaccinations under state law. Furthermore, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' equal protection claim, concluding that Rutgers had a rational basis for its differential treatment of students and staff, as well as vaccinated and unvaccinated students. View "Children's Health Defense Inc. v. Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey" on Justia Law

This case involved a dispute over the rights of retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms in New Jersey. The plaintiffs, three retired officers and two organizations, sued New Jersey officials, arguing that a federal statute, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA), gives them a federal right to carry a concealed firearm anywhere in the United States, including within New Jersey, and that LEOSA preempts any more burdensome state requirements. The state countered that the federal statute does not provide such an enforceable right, and even if it did, it would only apply to officers who retired from federal or out-of-state law enforcement agencies. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that LEOSA does provide certain retired officers with an enforceable right to carry concealed firearms, and that this right extends equally to officers who retired from New Jersey agencies and those who retired from federal or out-of-state agencies. The court concluded that LEOSA also preempts contrary aspects of New Jersey law. Therefore, the court affirmed the District Court’s order granting declaratory and injunctive relief to the retired officers. View "Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association v. Attorney General New Jersey" on Justia Law