Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Michael Rivera, a prisoner, filed a complaint alleging that his constitutional rights were violated by police officers during a traffic stop and subsequent search. Initially, Rivera named the New Castle County Police Department and several unidentified “John Doe” officers as defendants. After the police department identified the officers involved, Rivera amended his complaint to name them specifically.The United States District Court for the District of Delaware screened Rivera’s complaint, dismissed the claim against the police department as frivolous, but allowed the claims against the Doe defendants to proceed. The court ordered the police department to identify the officers, which it did. Rivera then amended his complaint to add the identified officers. The officers moved to dismiss, arguing that the amendment was untimely and did not relate back to the original complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c), because Rivera allegedly knew their identities when he filed the original complaint. The District Court agreed, finding that Rivera “indisputably knew” the officers’ names and thus the amendment did not relate back, rendering the claims untimely. Rivera’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and he appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s decision de novo. The Third Circuit held that the District Court applied the wrong legal standard by focusing on Rivera’s knowledge rather than on what the officers knew or should have known, as required by Rule 15(c) and the Supreme Court’s decision in Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A. The Third Circuit also found that the District Court improperly resolved factual disputes against Rivera at the motion to dismiss stage. The Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Rivera v. New Castle County Police Department" on Justia Law

A private company operating a federal immigration detention facility in Washington State challenged the enforcement of several provisions of a state law that imposed health, safety, and inspection requirements on private detention centers. The law required the state Department of Health to adopt rules ensuring sanitary and safe conditions, authorized unannounced inspections, provided for civil penalties for violations, and created a private right of action for detainees. The company argued that these provisions violated the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity and were preempted by federal law, claiming they improperly targeted federal contractors and conflicted with federal standards.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted a preliminary injunction, finding that the challenged sections of the law violated intergovernmental immunity by discriminating against the federal government and its contractor. The court compared the requirements imposed on the federal facility to those imposed on state prisons and concluded that the law treated the federal contractor less favorably. The state appealed, and while the appeal was pending, the Washington legislature amended the law, but the changes did not materially alter the issues on appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings. The Ninth Circuit held that the appropriate comparison for determining discrimination under intergovernmental immunity is between the federal immigration facility and other civil detention facilities in the state, not state prisons. The court directed the district court to make this comparison in the first instance. The Ninth Circuit also held that the challenged provisions were not preempted by federal law and that the district court erred in enjoining the private right of action, as the state officials named as defendants had no enforcement authority under that provision. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "THE GEO GROUP, INC. V. INSLEE" on Justia Law

A high school student in the District of Columbia was sexually assaulted by a classmate in a school bathroom. The student’s mother reported the incident to school officials, prompting an investigation by the District. The District ultimately found the assault claim credible and took steps to support the student, including offering counseling and a school transfer. However, the school principal, before any investigation, expressed disbelief in the student’s claim, made derogatory remarks about her, and attempted to undermine the investigation, even after video evidence corroborated the student’s account. The principal’s conduct included misleading superiors and withholding information. The student and her mother later learned of these actions, which caused them significant distress.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the student’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) for failure to state a claim, finding that the school-student relationship alone did not create a special duty under D.C. law. After discovery, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) and Title IX claims, holding that the District’s response was not deliberately indifferent and that the principal’s conduct did not meet the standard for IIED because the remarks were made outside the student’s presence.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the NIED claim and the grant of summary judgment to the District on the Title IX claims, finding the District’s overall response was not clearly unreasonable and that the principal’s actions could not be attributed to the District for Title IX retaliation. However, the appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment on the IIED claim against the principal, holding that a reasonable jury could find her conduct was extreme and outrageous, intended or recklessly caused severe emotional distress, and remanded for further proceedings on that claim. View "Doe v. DC" on Justia Law

A student organization at West Texas A&M University, focused on supporting LGBT+ students, planned a charity drag show to raise funds for a suicide prevention initiative. The event was to be held in a university venue that had previously hosted a wide range of student and community events, including a prior drag show. The organizers took steps to ensure the show would be appropriate for a general audience, restricting lewd content and requiring minors to be accompanied by adults. Shortly before the event, the university president canceled the show, citing concerns that drag performances were discriminatory against women and did not align with the university’s values.Following the cancellation, the student group and two of its officers filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, seeking a preliminary injunction to allow future drag shows on campus. The district court denied the injunction, holding that drag shows were not inherently expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment and that the university president was entitled to qualified immunity. The court also found that the plaintiffs had standing against certain university officials but not others, and rejected the claim of irreparable harm.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the denial of the preliminary injunction de novo. The Fifth Circuit held that the planned drag show was expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment, as it conveyed a clear message of support for the LGBT+ community in its context. The court determined that the university venue was a designated public forum, making the content-based restriction on the drag show subject to strict scrutiny, which the university did not attempt to justify. The court found the plaintiffs faced irreparable harm from the ongoing ban and that the balance of equities and public interest favored an injunction. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction against the university president and a vice president, affirmed the denial as to the chancellor for lack of standing, and remanded for entry of the injunction. View "Spectrum WT v. Wendler" on Justia Law

Two brothers with developmental disabilities, Gaven and Jared, live with their parents, who are certified to provide in-home care. Both brothers qualified for Maine’s “Single Member Services,” which would allow each to receive one-on-one care from a designated provider. The family requested that each parent be reimbursed for providing care to one brother. However, the Maine Department of Health and Human Services determined that, because the brothers lived together, they were only eligible for “Two Member Services,” meaning a single provider would be reimbursed to care for both, at half the total rate. The parents continued to provide one-on-one care to both brothers, but were only reimbursed for one provider, resulting in a significant financial shortfall.The family challenged this determination in Maine Superior Court, which ruled in their favor, finding that the Department’s interpretation of its rules was arbitrary and inconsistent with its policies. Following this decision, the Department began reimbursing both parents for providing one-on-one care. The family then filed a federal lawsuit seeking damages for the period before the state court’s ruling, alleging discrimination under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The United States District Court for the District of Maine dismissed the case, holding that the Department was protected by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal. The First Circuit held that the Department was not entitled to sovereign immunity because Congress validly abrogated such immunity under Title II of the ADA in this context. The court found that the Department’s policy violated the brothers’ equal protection rights, as there was no rational basis for providing reduced services solely because the brothers lived together. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "McKenna v. Maine Department of Health and Human Services" on Justia Law

A nonprofit Christian ministry that provides youth programs in Oregon applied for state grant funding from the Oregon Department of Education’s Youth Development Division. The Division had recently added a rule requiring all grant applicants to certify that they do not discriminate based on religion in employment, vendor selection, subcontracting, or service delivery. The ministry, whose mission is to share Christian teachings, requires all employees and volunteers to affirm a Christian Statement of Faith and be involved in a local church. After initially awarding the ministry a conditional grant, the Division withdrew the award upon discovering the ministry’s religious hiring requirements.The United States District Court for the District of Oregon denied the ministry’s request for a preliminary injunction to reinstate the grant and enjoin enforcement of the rule, finding the ministry unlikely to succeed on the merits of its First Amendment claims. The court also dismissed all claims, including those for damages, based on qualified immunity, even though the defendants had only moved to dismiss the damages claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Ninth Circuit held that the rule, as applied to grant-funded initiatives, is likely neutral and generally applicable, thus not violating the Free Exercise Clause, and is a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral condition for participation in the grant program. The court also found that the ministry’s religious autonomy claims were unlikely to succeed, as the relevant doctrines are affirmative defenses, not standalone claims. However, the court held that applying the rule to the ministry’s non-grant-funded initiatives likely imposes an unconstitutional condition on expressive association. The Ninth Circuit directed the district court to enjoin enforcement of the rule as to non-grant-funded initiatives, affirmed the dismissal of damages claims due to qualified immunity, and reversed the dismissal of claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. View "YOUTH 71FIVE MINISTRIES V. WILLIAMS" on Justia Law

A medical school graduate, age 36 at the time of graduation, applied to the neurological surgery residency program at a university medical center but was not ranked or accepted by the program in two consecutive years. The applicant alleged that the refusal to rank him was due to age-based discrimination and retaliation for prior complaints about age-related harassment and discrimination during medical school. The university maintained that the decision was based on the applicant’s mediocre academic performance and poor evaluations during sub-internships, emphasizing the highly competitive nature of the residency program.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment in favor of the university. The court determined that the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (Age Act) did not apply to the residency selection process because it constituted an “employment practice” of an “employer,” which is expressly exempted from the Act’s coverage. The court also found that, even if the Age Act were applicable, there was no genuine dispute of material fact supporting the applicant’s claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, holding that the university’s decision not to rank or admit the applicant to its residency program was an “employment practice of an employer” and therefore not subject to the Age Act. The court further concluded that, to the extent any other allegedly discriminatory or retaliatory acts were identified, the applicant failed to present evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "SPATZ V. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA" on Justia Law

Ferdinand E. Marcos, former President of the Philippines, deposited approximately $2 million in a New York Merrill Lynch account in 1972, which grew to over $40 million. These funds, known as the Arelma Assets, were proceeds of Marcos’s criminal activities. After Marcos’s ouster, multiple parties—including the Republic of the Philippines, a class of nearly 10,000 human rights victims, and the estate of Roger Roxas (from whom Marcos had stolen treasure)—asserted competing claims to these assets. The Republic obtained a forfeiture judgment from a Philippine court and requested the U.S. Attorney General to enforce it under 28 U.S.C. § 2467.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York reviewed the enforcement application. The court rejected the class’s affirmative defenses, which included arguments based on statute of limitations, subject matter jurisdiction, lack of notice, and fraud. The court also found that Roxas lacked Article III standing because she failed to show a sufficient interest in the Arelma Assets, and denied her leave to amend her answer. The court entered judgment for the Government, allowing the assets to be returned to the Republic of the Philippines.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Second Circuit held that the class failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to any of its affirmative defenses and that Roxas lacked standing to participate as a respondent. The court also upheld the denial of intervention by Golden Budha Corporation, finding its interests adequately represented and lacking standing. The main holding is that the Government’s application to enforce the Philippine forfeiture judgment was timely and proper, and that neither the class nor Roxas could block enforcement or claim the assets. View "In re: Enforcement of Philippine Forfeiture Judgment" on Justia Law

Two New York residents applied for concealed carry firearm licenses under the state’s licensing laws. Their applications were reviewed by a county court judge acting as a statutory licensing officer, who denied both applications. The judge found that one applicant’s criminal arrest history and failure to disclose it demonstrated a lack of maturity and responsibility, while the other applicant’s criminal history, including a youthful-offender adjudication for robbery, similarly indicated he was not qualified for a license.After their applications were denied, the applicants filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. They sued the judge in both his individual and official capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court dismissed the claims against the judge in his individual capacity, holding that absolute judicial immunity applied because the judge was acting in a judicial role. The court also dismissed the official-capacity claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, finding that Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement and § 1983’s limitations barred such claims against a judge acting in this capacity.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Second Circuit held that judges deciding firearms license applications under New York law act in a judicial capacity and are therefore entitled to absolute immunity from individual-capacity suits for damages. The court further held that Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement bars claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against state court judges in their official capacity when they act as neutral adjudicators without a personal or institutional stake in the challenged law. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Kellogg v. Nichols" on Justia Law

The case concerns the parents of a pre-kindergarten student who alleged that their daughter was sexually abused by a substitute teacher at Lorena Primary School during the 2020-2021 academic year. Multiple school employees reported the teacher’s inappropriate behavior—such as allowing the child to sit on his lap, wear his clothes, and lie under a blanket with him—to the school principal, April Jewell. Despite these reports, Jewell did not investigate, warn the teacher, inform the child’s parents, or report the conduct to law enforcement. Instead, she reprimanded staff who raised concerns and reassigned a vigilant aide, which may have increased the child’s exposure to the abuser. The abuse continued throughout the school year, culminating in the teacher’s arrest, conviction, and lengthy prison sentence.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas reviewed the parents’ claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the child’s Fourteenth Amendment right to bodily integrity. The district court denied Jewell’s motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, finding that the complaint sufficiently alleged that Jewell was deliberately indifferent to a known risk of sexual abuse and that her inaction caused the child’s injuries. Jewell appealed the denial of qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the denial de novo and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Fifth Circuit held that the plaintiffs’ allegations, if proven, would establish that Jewell violated clearly established constitutional rights by acting with deliberate indifference to repeated reports of sexual misconduct, thereby causing the child’s injuries. The court also found that Jewell’s conduct could be considered conscience-shocking under substantive due process standards. Accordingly, the denial of qualified immunity was affirmed. View "Doe v. Jewell" on Justia Law