Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

A firefighter in Forrest City, Arkansas, was terminated after posting a provocative anti-abortion image on his personal Facebook page. The image, intended to express his pro-life views, was interpreted by some as racially insensitive, particularly because it included the caption “I can’t breathe!”—a phrase associated with protests following George Floyd’s death. After complaints from a retired fire supervisor and others, the firefighter deleted the post. However, the mayor placed him on administrative leave and, following a brief investigation, fired him, citing the public outcry and concerns about the city’s ability to provide public services. The firefighter, who had served over four years without prior incident, learned of his termination through a press release.The firefighter filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, alleging First Amendment retaliation against the mayor in both his individual and official capacities, and against the city for an alleged unwritten policy allowing officials to censor employee speech. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, holding that the mayor was entitled to qualified immunity and that there was no evidence of an unwritten policy justifying the official-capacity and policy-based claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the firefighter’s Facebook post addressed a matter of public concern and was made as a private citizen. The court found insufficient evidence of actual or reasonably predicted disruption to the fire department’s operations to justify summary judgment for the defendants. The court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the First Amendment retaliation claims against the mayor and the city, affirmed the dismissal of the unbridled-discretion claim, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Melton v. City of Forrest City, Arkansas" on Justia Law

Several individuals with developmental disabilities, along with Disability Rights New York (DRNY), an advocacy organization, alleged that New York State agencies responsible for services to people with developmental disabilities caused them to remain in restrictive institutional settings for extended periods, despite being eligible for community-based residential placements. The individual plaintiffs claimed they waited from nine months to six years for such placements, resulting in physical and psychological harm. DRNY, as the state’s designated Protection and Advocacy System, joined the suit, asserting authority to represent the interests of individuals with disabilities under federal law.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York first addressed the defendants’ motion to dismiss DRNY’s claims for lack of standing, agreeing that DRNY had not suffered an injury in fact and rejecting its argument that federal statutes conferred “congressionally authorized representational standing.” The district court also dismissed the individual plaintiffs’ claims as moot, based on pre-motion letters from the defendants indicating that all individual plaintiffs had since been moved out of institutional facilities. Additionally, the court denied a motion by other individuals seeking to intervene as plaintiffs, finding the motion untimely.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of DRNY’s claims, holding that DRNY lacked standing because it had not suffered a concrete injury and that Congress could not override Article III’s standing requirements by statute. The Second Circuit also affirmed the denial of the motion to intervene, finding no abuse of discretion in the district court’s timeliness determination. However, the Second Circuit vacated the dismissal of the individual plaintiffs’ claims as moot, holding that the district court erred by dismissing those claims based solely on pre-motion letters without full briefing or a hearing. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the individual plaintiffs’ claims. View "A.H. v. N.Y. State Dep't of Health" on Justia Law

In the summer of 2020, Maurice Wells participated in a protest outside the Alamance County courthouse in North Carolina, which focused on issues including solidarity with George Floyd and opposition to the local sheriff. During the protest, a confrontation occurred between Wells and counterprotestors over the ringing of a courthouse bell. Sheriff Terry Johnson, concerned about escalating tensions, ordered the crowd to disperse. When Wells refused to comply and continued shouting, Johnson arrested him. Wells was subsequently charged with failure to disperse and disorderly conduct. He was convicted in North Carolina District Court after the judge rejected his First Amendment defense, and his appeal of that conviction remains pending.While his state criminal appeal was ongoing, Wells filed a civil suit against Sheriff Johnson, alleging that his arrest was unconstitutional and constituted retaliation for protected speech. He sought only a declaratory judgment stating that the arrest violated his First Amendment rights, arguing that such a declaration would address both past and potential future harms. Johnson removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The district court granted summary judgment for Johnson, holding that Wells’s state conviction established probable cause and precluded his claims, and that Wells lacked evidence for his alternative theory of viewpoint discrimination. The court dismissed the case with prejudice.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed whether Wells had standing to seek the declaratory relief requested. The Fourth Circuit held that Wells lacked standing because the declaratory judgment he sought would not provide constitutionally adequate redress for his alleged injuries, either past or future. The court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to return it to state court, as required when federal jurisdiction is lacking in a removed case. View "Wells v. Johnson" on Justia Law

A group of foster children in Oregon, through their representatives, brought a class action lawsuit against the Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS) and state officials, alleging violations of their substantive due process rights due to serious abuses experienced while in ODHS’s legal custody. The plaintiffs sought relief on behalf of all children for whom ODHS had or would have legal responsibility, including those in ODHS’s legal custody but physically placed with their parents, either because they had not been removed from their homes or because they were on a temporary “Trial Home Visit” after removal.The United States District Court for the District of Oregon certified a general class that included all children in ODHS’s legal or physical custody. After extensive litigation, the parties reached a settlement agreement, but disagreed on whether the term “Child in Care” in the agreement included children in ODHS’s legal custody who were physically with their parents (the “Disputed Children”). The district court concluded that these children were not covered by the settlement, reasoning that children living with their biological parents did not have substantive due process rights to be free from serious abuses while in ODHS’s legal custody.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s interpretation of the settlement agreement and the scope of substantive due process protections. The Ninth Circuit held that the Disputed Children—those in ODHS’s legal custody but physically with their parents—are entitled to substantive due process protections. The court found that once the state assumes legal custody, it has an affirmative duty to provide reasonable safety and minimally adequate care, regardless of the child’s physical placement. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s order and remanded for further proceedings. View "WYATT B. V. KOTEK" on Justia Law

The petitioner was convicted by an Arizona jury of child molestation after he helped bathe young girls who were in his and his wife’s care through the foster system. The relevant Arizona statute defined child molestation as any direct or indirect touching of a child’s private parts, and, at the time, allowed a defendant to raise an affirmative defense by proving he was not motivated by sexual interest. The petitioner admitted to the touching but argued he lacked sexual motivation.After his first trial ended in a mistrial, the Arizona Supreme Court decided State v. Holle, which held that sexual motivation was not an element of the crime and that the lack of sexual interest was an affirmative defense the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence. At the petitioner’s second trial, the court instructed the jury accordingly, and he was convicted on some counts. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on Holle, and the Arizona Supreme Court denied review. The United States Supreme Court also denied certiorari. The petitioner then sought federal habeas relief in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, arguing that the statutory scheme unconstitutionally shifted the burden of disproving an essential element of the crime to him. The district court denied relief, finding the state courts’ application of federal law was not objectively unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. It held that Arizona’s statutory scheme violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by shifting to the defendant the burden of disproving sexual motivation, which is the critical fact distinguishing criminal from innocent conduct. The court concluded that the Arizona Court of Appeals’ decision upholding the conviction was an objectively unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent. The Ninth Circuit ordered the district court to grant the writ of habeas corpus. View "BIEGANSKI V. SHINN" on Justia Law

Michael and Susan Mockeridge purchased a remote 40-acre property in northern Michigan, where they installed five prefabricated mini-cabins near their main cabin for family use. After neighbors became concerned that the property was being operated as a public campground, they filed complaints with local authorities. In response, three government officials—Harry Harvey, David Schmidt, and Kenneth Gibson—entered the Mockeridges’ property without a warrant or consent, inspected the mini-cabins and their surroundings, and gathered information regarding potential code violations. The officials’ entry was not via the customary driveway but through adjacent private land and dense woods, and at the time, the cabins were unoccupied.The Mockeridges subsequently received a letter from the county classifying their property as a campground and requiring licensing. After applying for permits and being told they would face penalties for prior unpermitted work, the Mockeridges filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Mockeridges on liability, denied qualified immunity to the officials, and found the only remaining issue was damages. The officials appealed the denial of qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. The court held that the officials’ warrantless entry into the curtilage of the Mockeridges’ mini-cabins for the purpose of gathering information about code compliance constituted an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. The court further held that the right to be free from such a warrantless search was clearly established at the time of the officials’ conduct. The court dismissed the Mockeridges’ cross-appeal and denied as moot a motion by Alcona County. View "Mockeridge v. Harvey" on Justia Law

Two children, E.R. and G.S., have severe, complex medical conditions that require constant, skilled care. Their mothers, who are their primary caregivers and sole financial supporters, have been trained by medical professionals to provide the necessary care at home. For years, Indiana’s Medicaid program reimbursed these mothers for providing “attendant care services” under a waiver program designed to keep individuals out of institutions. In July 2024, the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (FSSA) implemented a policy change that would make parents ineligible to be paid providers of attendant care for their children, threatening to force E.R. and G.S. into institutional care due to the lack of available in-home nurses.The Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission, along with E.R. and G.S., sued to block the policy change and require FSSA to secure in-home nursing. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana initially granted a preliminary injunction requiring FSSA to take steps to obtain in-home nurses and to pay the mothers for a different, lower-paid service. After further proceedings, the court modified its order, ultimately requiring FSSA to pay the mothers for attendant care at the previous rate until in-home nursing could be secured.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s October 1 injunction. The court held that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act’s integration mandate, which requires states to provide services in the most integrated setting appropriate. The court found that prohibiting the mothers from providing paid attendant care placed the children at serious risk of institutionalization and that FSSA had not shown that allowing such care would fundamentally alter the Medicaid program or violate federal law. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Comm'n v Indiana Family and Social Services Administration" on Justia Law

Dorothy Bivens worked as a territory sales representative for a company that manufactures and distributes cleaning products. During a visit to a client’s motel, the client locked the office door and propositioned her, making her uncomfortable. Bivens reported the incident to her supervisor, who reassigned the client so she would not have further contact. Around the same period, the company’s president decided to reduce staff due to cost concerns, targeting positions in low-revenue territories, including Bivens’s. She was subsequently terminated.After her termination, Bivens filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging a hostile work environment, retaliation for reporting harassment, and racial discrimination under both Title VII and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. The district court denied her motion to compel production of certain documents and granted summary judgment to the employer on all claims, finding insufficient evidence to support her allegations.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment decision de novo. The appellate court held that, under Title VII, an employer can only be held liable for harassment by a non-employee (such as a client) if the employer itself intentionally caused or was substantially certain harassment would occur, rejecting the negligence standard adopted by most other circuits and the EEOC. The court found no evidence that the employer intended for Bivens to be harassed. The court also found that Bivens’s retaliation claim failed because the decisionmaker who terminated her was unaware of her complaint, and her racial discrimination claim failed due to lack of evidence that she was singled out because of her race. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment in all respects. View "Bivens v. Zep, Inc." on Justia Law

A group of individuals in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) filed a lawsuit in 2007, alleging inadequate mental healthcare. The case developed into a class action, and in 2016, the parties reached a settlement agreement that required IDOC to meet specific mental-health treatment benchmarks. The agreement included a provision for $1.9 million in attorney’s fees to be paid to plaintiffs’ counsel if the court granted relief for violations of the agreement. In 2018, the district court found IDOC in breach and issued an injunction, triggering the fee provision. While the defendants appealed, the parties entered into further agreements, resulting in the $1.9 million being paid to plaintiffs’ counsel.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois later extended its enforcement jurisdiction over the settlement agreement, but after the expiration of that jurisdiction, the court returned the case to its active docket. The parties continued to litigate, with plaintiffs filing amended complaints and defendants moving to dismiss. More than a year after resuming active litigation, the district court raised concerns about its subject-matter jurisdiction, ultimately concluding that its jurisdiction over the underlying claims ended when its enforcement jurisdiction over the settlement agreement expired. The court dismissed all claims and denied the defendants’ motion to recover the $1.9 million in attorney’s fees.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that, under the parties’ agreements, the payment of $1.9 million in attorney’s fees to plaintiffs’ counsel was proper and did not need to be returned, even after the district court’s injunction was vacated. The court also vacated the district court’s dismissal of the underlying claims, remanding for the district court to determine whether the settlement agreement moots those claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of the defendants’ motion to recover the attorney’s fees. View "Daniels v. Jones" on Justia Law

A 14-year-old student, S.B., who had a history of trauma and mental health challenges, began high school in Appomattox County, Virginia, in August 2021. S.B. identified as male at school and was advised by a counselor that he could use the boys’ restroom. Following this, S.B. was subjected to harassment, threats, and sexual assault by male students. School staff, including counselors, were aware of the harassment and S.B.’s mental health vulnerabilities but did not inform S.B.’s adoptive mother, Blair, about the gender identity issues, the bullying, or the school’s responses. Instead, staff continued to affirm S.B.’s male identity without parental notification and failed to take effective action to stop the harassment. After a series of escalating incidents, S.B. suffered a breakdown, ran away, and was subsequently victimized by sex traffickers.Blair filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia against the school board and staff, alleging deliberate indifference to sexual harassment under Title IX, Monell liability for unconstitutional policy or failure to train, and violations of substantive due process rights. The district court dismissed all claims, finding insufficient allegations of deliberate indifference or Monell liability, and granted qualified immunity to the individual defendants on the due process claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The Fourth Circuit held that Blair’s Title IX claim for deliberate indifference against the school board was sufficiently pleaded and should not have been dismissed, as the complaint alleged the school’s response to known harassment was clearly unreasonable. However, the court affirmed dismissal of the Monell and substantive due process claims, finding the allegations were conclusory or the rights not clearly established. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings on the Title IX claim. View "Blair v. Appomattox County School Board" on Justia Law