Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

A commercial trucking business owner, who is white, learned about a $25,000 grant program administered by two insurance companies in partnership with another company. The program offered grants to ten small businesses to help them purchase commercial vehicles but was limited to black-owned businesses. After receiving an email invitation to apply, the business owner began the online application but stopped and did not submit it upon realizing that only black-owned businesses were eligible. He later alleged that he would have otherwise applied and met all requirements except for the race-based criterion.Following the application deadline, the business owner and his company filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, claiming that the grant program’s racial eligibility requirement violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981 by denying them the opportunity to enter into two contracts: one at the application stage and one at the grant award stage. The complaint sought damages and injunctive relief. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they had not suffered a cognizable injury caused by the defendants’ conduct.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The Sixth Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed the causation requirement for standing because the business owner chose not to submit the application, resulting in any alleged injury being self-inflicted rather than fairly traceable to the defendants’ actions. The court clarified that the judgment was without prejudice and affirmed the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Roberts v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The case centers on a defendant who, while on parole for a prior cocaine dealing conviction, orchestrated the murder of a confidential informant who had previously testified against him, with the assistance of an accomplice. The murder involved luring the victim to an apartment complex, shooting him multiple times, and later threatening potential witnesses to prevent their testimony. After the murder, the defendant made threats against the accomplice and another witness and attempted to solicit the killing of the accomplice. He also admitted his involvement to several individuals and described the crime in written letters.In proceedings before the Wayne Superior Court, the State charged the defendant with murder and sought a life without parole (LWOP) sentence, alleging aggravating circumstances. During jury selection, the defendant, who is African American, objected to the lack of minority representation in the jury venire and ultimately to the empaneling of an all-white jury, but the trial court found the selection process was random and denied his objections. The trial court admitted out-of-court statements by unavailable witnesses after finding the defendant had threatened them, and permitted another witness’s statement as an excited utterance. The jury convicted the defendant of murder and recommended LWOP, which the trial court imposed.On direct appeal, the Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case. The Court held that the defendant was not denied his Sixth Amendment right to a jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community because he failed to show systematic exclusion of African Americans from the jury selection process. It further found no error in admitting the unavailable witnesses’ statements, as the defendant forfeited his confrontation rights through his threats, and that any error was harmless given other substantial evidence. The Court also found no fundamental error in the jury instructions and declined to revise the LWOP sentence, affirming both the conviction and sentence. View "Carr v. State of Indiana" on Justia Law

A group of activists and the Chinook Center, a nonprofit organization, participated in a housing-rights march in Colorado Springs. After the march, the Colorado Springs Police Department (CSPD) launched an investigation targeting some participants. CSPD obtained three search warrants: two related to Jacqueline Armendariz, a protester accused of obstructing an officer by dropping her bike, and one targeting the Chinook Center’s Facebook account. The first Armendariz warrant authorized a search of her home and seizure of her electronic devices. The second allowed a search of data on those devices, including a broad keyword search. The third warrant authorized obtaining all posts, messages, and events from the Chinook Center’s Facebook account for a seven-day period.Armendariz and the Chinook Center filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against the City, individual CSPD officers, the FBI, and others, alleging that the warrants were overbroad in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement. They also brought state-law claims, and the Chinook Center alleged a violation of the Stored Communications Act. The district court granted motions to dismiss all claims, concluding that the officers were protected by qualified immunity, the plaintiffs failed to allege plausible constitutional violations, and that municipal liability was unsupported.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s ruling that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity regarding the warrant to seize Armendariz’s electronic devices. However, the court reversed the grant of qualified immunity to the officers for the second warrant (searching data on Armendariz’s devices) and the Facebook warrant, holding that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged these warrants were overbroad in violation of their clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. The court also reversed the dismissal of related claims against the City and remanded for further proceedings. The dismissals of Armendariz's claims against the FBI and the United States were affirmed. View "Armendariz v. City of Colorado Springs" on Justia Law

An individual reported to police that a debit card had been stolen from his car and used at a Southaven, Mississippi, Best Buy. The Southaven Police Department obtained receipt evidence and surveillance footage but did not immediately identify a suspect. Separately, police in another Mississippi county arrested Stephen Lewis for an unrelated burglary and searched his cell phone without a warrant, discovering images of receipts from the Southaven Best Buy. The investigating officer from the Washington County Sheriff’s Department shared these images with Detective Walley of the Southaven Police Department, informing her that a search warrant had been completed, though in reality, no warrant had been issued at the time. Walley reviewed the images, which matched the fraudulent purchase, and secured an arrest warrant for Lewis, who was later indicted; charges were eventually remanded.Lewis brought multiple constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Walley in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. The district court dismissed all but one claim, allowing Lewis’s Fourth Amendment search claim to proceed. The district court found that Walley’s review of the photographs constituted a warrantless search, violating the Fourth Amendment, and denied Walley’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, as well as her qualified immunity defense.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the denial of qualified immunity de novo. The appellate court held that it was not clearly established at the relevant time that reviewing images of receipts from a phone, sent by another officer, constituted a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant. The court found that Walley’s reliance on information provided by the other officer was objectively reasonable. Therefore, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and rendered a judgment of dismissal in Walley’s favor. View "Lewis v. Walley" on Justia Law

A mother and the Connecticut Fair Housing Center sued a company that provides tenant screening reports, alleging that its practices contributed to the denial of a housing application for the mother’s disabled son. The apartment manager used the defendant’s screening platform to review applicants’ criminal histories, and the son’s application was denied based on a flagged shoplifting charge. The mother later had the charge dismissed. She also sought a copy of her son’s screening report from the defendant, but was told she needed to provide a power of attorney. She instead submitted documentation of her conservatorship, but the defendant rejected it as facially invalid due to a missing court seal.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut held a bench trial. It found that the Fair Housing Act (FHA) did not apply to the defendant because it was not the decision-maker on housing applications; only the housing provider made those determinations. The district court also found the defendant’s requirement for a valid conservatorship certificate reasonable and not discriminatory toward handicapped individuals. However, the district court found the defendant liable under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) for a period when it insisted on a power of attorney, making it impossible for the mother to obtain her son’s consumer file.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded that the Connecticut Fair Housing Center lacked standing because its diversion of resources to address the defendant’s actions did not constitute a concrete injury. The court also held that, although the FHA does not exclude certain defendants, the defendant here was not the proximate cause of the housing denial, and the mother failed to establish a prima facie case of disparate-impact discrimination. Furthermore, because she never provided a facially valid conservatorship certificate, she could not show that the defendant’s documentation requirements prevented her from obtaining the report. The court vacated, affirmed, and reversed in part, dismissing the Center’s claims, affirming no FHA liability, and reversing FCRA liability. View "CFHC v. CoreLogic Rental Prop. Sols." on Justia Law

In 2000, Tommie Lawson Lynex, an African American man, was convicted by a jury of first degree murder and received a firearm enhancement under California Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (d), resulting in a sentence of 50 years to life. Twenty years later, California enacted the Racial Justice Act, allowing prisoners to seek habeas relief if their conviction or sentence was influenced by race, ethnicity, or national origin. Lynex filed a habeas petition under this Act, including statistical evidence showing racial disparities in the prosecution of murder charges with firearm enhancements in Los Angeles County.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County initially denied Lynex’s habeas petition and his request for appointment of counsel, finding the petition procedurally barred as successive and concluding that Lynex had not made a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief under the Racial Justice Act. The court also determined that Lynex did not sufficiently allege facts indicating racial animus or bias in the police investigation or prosecution.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. It held that the trial court applied the wrong legal standard by requiring a prima facie showing for appointment of counsel. Under the Racial Justice Act and section 1473, subdivision (e), a petitioner need only plead a plausible allegation of a violation to obtain counsel. The appellate court also found that the trial court erred by not recognizing its discretion to permit amendment of the petition and by improperly invoking procedural bars at the initial stage. The Court of Appeal issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its denial and conduct further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "In re Lynex" on Justia Law

The defendant, while on supervised release following a federal conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, was arrested in May 2023 for new state charges involving drug trafficking, possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia, and being a felon in possession of a handgun. These events occurred after violations that led to his second supervised release revocation but before the hearing for those violations, and were not discovered by the federal probation office until several months later. Upon learning of the May 2023 incident, after the defendant had completed his sentence and was again on supervised release, the probation office initiated the proceedings at issue, seeking a third revocation based on the new conduct.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky held a hearing to determine if the defendant could knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to counsel in the revocation proceeding, ultimately allowing him to represent himself. After a subsequent hearing, the district court found violations of supervised release, classified the new conduct as a Grade A violation, and imposed a 24-month term of imprisonment, the statutory maximum. The defendant timely appealed, challenging the validity of his waiver of counsel, the sentencing procedure, and the constitutionality of his underlying conviction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the right to counsel in a supervised release revocation is not derived from the Sixth Amendment but is governed by statutory and due process considerations. The court reviewed the waiver of counsel for abuse of discretion and found the district court’s inquiry sufficient under the totality of the circumstances. The court also found no procedural error in sentencing, concluding that the district court did not improperly rely on prohibited factors. Finally, the court declined to consider the challenge to the underlying conviction, holding that such arguments must be raised on direct appeal or collateral review. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Spence" on Justia Law

Two police officers responded to a report of an armed suspect in a Cleveland boarding house. While searching the darkened building, the officers encountered the suspect, leading to a confrontation and retreat down the stairs. One officer, Gannon, fired his weapon twice; the first, intentional shot struck his fellow officer, Kilnapp, causing significant injury. The officers did not identify themselves as police during the incident, and the body camera footage did not clearly depict critical moments. Both sides disputed details such as whether the suspect fired first, but agreed that Gannon’s first shot, meant to stop the suspect, hit Kilnapp as she followed behind him.Kilnapp sued Gannon, the City of Cleveland, and its Chief of Police, alleging excessive force under both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Gannon sought qualified immunity and dismissal, arguing his actions did not violate clearly established rights. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied his motion to dismiss and later his motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The Sixth Circuit previously affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss, but Gannon continued to challenge the denial of summary judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of summary judgment de novo. The court held that when an officer intentionally fires a weapon in circumstances objectively manifesting an intent to restrain, any person struck is seized under the Fourth Amendment, regardless of whether they were the officer’s specific intended target. However, because the Supreme Court’s decision in Torres v. Madrid (2021) clarified this principle after Kilnapp’s shooting, the law was not clearly established at the time. The Sixth Circuit vacated the district court’s decision and remanded with instructions to grant Gannon qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claim and for further proceedings on the Fourteenth Amendment claim. View "Kilnapp v. City of Cleveland" on Justia Law

Three individuals living with well-managed HIV, whose infections are controlled by daily medication and who have undetectable viral loads, sought to join or rejoin the U.S. Army. They were denied enlistment based on Department of Defense and Army policies that list HIV infection as a disqualifying medical condition, alongside numerous other chronic or communicable diseases. A nonprofit organization, Minority Veterans of America, also supported their challenge. The plaintiffs argued that these policies violate their equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment and are arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs. The court issued a permanent injunction barring the Military from denying accession to asymptomatic HIV-positive individuals with undetectable viral loads, prohibiting enforcement of HIV-specific policy provisions, and ordering reevaluation of prior decisions made under these policies. The district court concluded that the Military’s justifications—based on medical, cost, and diplomatic concerns—were irrational, arbitrary, and capricious.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the judgment. Applying rational basis review with heightened deference to military judgments, the Fourth Circuit found that the Military’s policies were rationally related to legitimate military purposes, including maintaining deployable, medically fit servicemembers, minimizing complications from chronic conditions, controlling costs, and addressing diplomatic issues with foreign host nations. The court distinguished this case from Roe v. Department of Defense, which concerned policies for current servicemembers rather than initial entry. The Fourth Circuit held that the Military’s HIV accession policy did not violate the Fifth Amendment or the APA and reversed the district court’s judgment, remanding with instructions to enter judgment for the Military. View "Wilkins v. Hegseth" on Justia Law

Daqua Ritter was indicted for three federal crimes connected to the murder of Ernest “Dime” Doe, a transgender woman in rural South Carolina. Ritter and Doe had a secretive sexual relationship, and Ritter was sensitive about public knowledge of this relationship, especially since Doe openly referred to Ritter as her boyfriend. Evidence at trial showed Ritter pressured Doe to keep their relationship hidden and reacted angrily when others mentioned it. Doe was found shot dead in a car, and Ritter was last seen with her hours before her death. After the murder, Ritter disposed of his gun and burned his clothes. A federal grand jury indicted Ritter for willfully causing bodily injury based on Doe's gender identity resulting in death, using a gun during a crime of violence, and making false statements to investigators.The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina presided over Ritter’s trial. A jury convicted Ritter on all charges, and the district court sentenced him to life in prison. Ritter moved for a new trial, claiming juror bias and prejudicial hearsay testimony, and challenged the sufficiency of evidence for two counts. The district court held an evidentiary hearing regarding juror bias and denied the motion for a new trial, finding the juror credible and impartial. It also denied the motion for a mistrial based on hearsay, issuing a curative instruction to disregard the testimony.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding no juror bias or in denying a mistrial based on hearsay, as the curative instruction was sufficient. The court also found that, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to convict Ritter on all counts, including motive based on gender identity and the likelihood that false statements would be communicated to federal law enforcement. The judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Ritter" on Justia Law