Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff and defendant were married in 2019 and have one son together. Plaintiff moved out of the marital home in January 2023 and initiated divorce proceedings in March 2023. In April 2023, defendant was arrested and charged with weapon offenses after threatening a process server with a handgun. Plaintiff filed a civil complaint in July 2023 under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) based on allegations of stalking and harassment. The court issued a TRO prohibiting defendant from contacting plaintiff, granting her temporary custody of their son, and denying defendant parenting and visitation time.During the final restraining order (FRO) hearing, plaintiff called defendant as a witness. Defendant invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, but the trial court ordered him to testify. Defendant refused to answer questions beyond stating his name, invoking the Fifth Amendment. The trial court ruled that defendant could not invoke the privilege and that an adverse inference could be drawn from his refusal to testify. Defendant appealed the decision.The Appellate Division denied leave to appeal. While defendant's motion for leave to appeal was pending, the Appellate Division published T.B. v. I.W., addressing a similar issue. The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted defendant leave to appeal.The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that while the Fifth Amendment does not provide blanket immunity in PDVA FRO hearings, a defendant may invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in response to specific questions that pose reasonable risks of self-incrimination. The court ruled that no adverse inference may be drawn from the exercise of this right. The PDVA immunity provision in N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(a) is not coextensive with the Fifth Amendment and does not adequately protect a defendant's rights. The trial court's ruling was reversed, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings. View "M.A. v. J.H.M." on Justia Law

A group of businesses and individuals in the vision care industry challenged Texas House Bill 1696, which regulates managed vision care plans by limiting the information these plans can provide to their enrollees. The plaintiffs argued that the bill imposed unconstitutional burdens on their rights of commercial speech, associational freedom, and equal protection under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. They sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the bill's enforcement and the defendants, Texas officials, moved to dismiss the case, claiming sovereign immunity.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied the defendants' motion to dismiss and granted the preliminary injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their commercial speech claims and that the equities favored a preliminary injunction. The defendants appealed both the denial of their sovereign immunity defense and the grant of the preliminary injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision to deny the motion to dismiss as it related to Texas Insurance Commissioner Cassie Brown, finding that she had a specific duty to enforce the statute. However, the court vacated the denial of the motion to dismiss as it related to Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton, determining that they did not have a sufficient connection to the enforcement of the statute. The court also affirmed the preliminary injunction against Commissioner Brown, concluding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their commercial speech claim and that the balance of equities favored the injunction. The court vacated the preliminary injunction as it applied to Governor Abbott and Attorney General Paxton and remanded the case for modification of the orders. View "Healthy Vision Association v. Abbott" on Justia Law

Houston police officers Manual Salazar and Nestor Garcia, members of the Gang Division Crime Reduction Unit, fatally shot David Anthony Salinas on July 14, 2021, following a pursuit in a sting operation. His widow, Brittany Salinas, filed a lawsuit against Officers Salazar and Garcia and the City of Houston, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Texas Tort Claims Act, and the state-created danger theory of constitutional liability.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in full. The court found that Brittany Salinas had standing to bring her claims but concluded that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity and that the claims against the City of Houston were meritless. Brittany Salinas timely appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court found that the officers had reasonable suspicion to detain Salinas based on the identifying information on his vehicle and his refusal to stop when the officers engaged their lights. The court also found that the officers did not violate Salinas' Fourth Amendment rights, as they reasonably believed he posed an immediate threat when he continuously reached within his vehicle despite their commands to show his hands. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the § 1983 claims against the officers, finding that they were entitled to qualified immunity.Regarding the claims against the City of Houston, the court found no constitutional injury and affirmed the dismissal of the § 1983 claims. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the Texas Tort Claims Act claims, as they were foreclosed by the ruling on qualified immunity and barred by case law. The court concluded that the City of Houston's sovereign immunity had not been waived. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of all claims. View "Salinas v. City of Houston" on Justia Law

Cheryl Butler was hired as an assistant law professor at Southern Methodist University (SMU) in 2011. After a mandatory third-year performance review, her contract was renewed, and she became eligible for tenure consideration in the fall semester of 2015. Due to illness, Butler requested an extension of the tenure vote, which was denied, but she was later granted leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for the spring semester of 2016. Her tenure committee, chaired by Professor Roy Anderson, concluded that Butler met tenure standards for scholarship and service but not teaching. Consequently, the law faculty voted not to recommend tenure, and Butler's appeals to the SMU Law School Dean and the Provost were unsuccessful. Butler completed the 2016-2017 academic year without teaching any classes.Butler filed a lawsuit against SMU and several of its employees, alleging racially discriminatory tenure standards and processes, and retaliation for her internal complaints about race, disability, and FMLA discrimination. She brought federal statutory claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title IX, and the FMLA. Additionally, she asserted state-law discrimination and retaliation claims under Texas Labor Code Chapter 21, along with state common law claims for breach of contract and negligent supervision. Against the employee defendants, she claimed defamation, conspiracy to defame, and fraud.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed Butler's defamation and fraud claims against the employee defendants, citing preemption by Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code. The court held that the gravamen of these claims was unlawful employment discrimination and retaliation, which Chapter 21 specifically addresses. Butler appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit certified a question to the Supreme Court of Texas regarding whether Chapter 21 preempts common law defamation and fraud claims against employees based on the same conduct as discrimination claims against the employer.The Supreme Court of Texas held that Chapter 21 does not preempt common law defamation and fraud claims against employees. The court reasoned that Chapter 21 subjects only employers to liability for discriminatory and retaliatory conduct and does not immunize individuals from liability for their own tortious actions. Therefore, Butler's defamation and fraud claims against the employee defendants are not foreclosed by Chapter 21. View "BUTLER v. COLLINS" on Justia Law

The defendant was pulled over by deputies in Des Moines County after they responded to a reckless-driver complaint and observed her driving erratically. The deputies noted symptoms of intoxication and conducted field sobriety tests, which the defendant failed to complete. She requested an attorney when asked to submit to a preliminary breath test and was arrested. At the jail, she was given her phone and informed of her rights, including the right to contact an attorney, but she did not make any attempt to do so.The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI), first offense. She filed a motion to suppress evidence, claiming her rights were violated under Iowa Code section 804.20 when the deputies did not permit her to call an attorney. The Iowa District Court for Des Moines County denied her motion, and the case proceeded to a jury trial. The district court also denied her motion in limine to suppress alleged hearsay evidence. The jury found the defendant guilty, and she appealed the decision, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the denial of her motions.The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decisions. The Iowa Supreme Court granted further review but adopted the court of appeals' opinion for all claims except the motion to suppress issue concerning Iowa Code section 804.20. The Supreme Court determined that Iowa Code section 804.20 was not violated, as the defendant was given a reasonable opportunity to contact an attorney without unnecessary delay. The decision of the court of appeals and the district court judgment were affirmed. View "State of Iowa v. Clark" on Justia Law

A group of parents sued their local public school district and the State of Michigan, alleging that their children were denied essential special-education services. The parents claimed that the school district failed to provide promised services, such as full-time aides and speech therapy, and that the State failed to supervise the district adequately. The parents sought damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act, and injunctive relief under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), ADA, and Rehabilitation Act.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied the State's motion to dismiss, holding that the ADA abrogated the State's sovereign immunity under the Fourteenth Amendment. The State then filed an interlocutory appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Sixth Circuit held that the parents failed to state a claim against the State under Title II of the ADA. The court explained that Title II allows lawsuits against a public entity for its own actions, not for the actions of another government entity. In this case, the school district, not the State, was responsible for the alleged denial of services. The court also noted that the State had already taken corrective actions against the school district and that the parents' claims of the State's failure to supervise were too conclusory to proceed. Therefore, the State was entitled to sovereign immunity, and the parents' ADA claim against the State was dismissed. View "Y.A. v. Hamtramck Public Schools" on Justia Law

The State of Nevada charged Matthew Desavio with a felony for making threats or conveying false information concerning an act of terrorism. Desavio was found incompetent to stand trial and was ordered to be transferred for competency restoration treatment. However, the State failed to transfer him, leading to a nearly 90-day delay. Desavio moved to dismiss the charge due to this delay, and the district court initially held the Nevada Division of Public and Behavioral Health in contempt and fined them, but eventually dismissed the criminal complaint without prejudice.The Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County reviewed the case and dismissed the criminal complaint without prejudice due to the State's failure to transfer Desavio for competency restoration treatment. The State appealed, arguing that the district court lacked a legal basis to dismiss the case under the competency statutes and the recent decision in State v. Gonzalez. The district court found that the delay violated Desavio's due process rights, which constituted ongoing prejudice.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the dismissal without prejudice was appropriate to remedy the ongoing prejudice to Desavio's due process rights. The court noted that the district court had tried lesser sanctions, such as holding the Division in contempt and imposing fines, but these measures proved ineffective. The Supreme Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the charge without prejudice, as it was a necessary step to address the violation of Desavio's due process rights. View "State v. Desavio" on Justia Law

Ali Tuckett sought damages from the State of New York under Court of Claims Act § 8-b, claiming unjust conviction and imprisonment. Tuckett's 2011 conviction for sexually abusing his minor cousin, N.M., was vacated after N.M. recanted his testimony in 2013, admitting he had lied. Tuckett then filed a claim for damages, asserting his innocence and that he did not cause his conviction.The Court of Claims dismissed Tuckett's claim, concluding he did not prove his innocence by clear and convincing evidence. The court excluded polygraph evidence Tuckett wanted to present and found N.M.'s recantation not credible, relying on testimony from the original investigation and trial. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, agreeing that any reliance on hearsay was harmless and that the court's findings were supported by the record. Two justices dissented, believing the court improperly relied on evidence outside the record and hearsay.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the Appellate Division's decision. The court found that any potential hearsay error was harmless given the substantial non-hearsay evidence supporting the Court of Claims' decision. The court also determined that the findings of fact were supported by the record and that the Court of Claims did not improperly rely on evidence outside the record. Additionally, the court rejected Tuckett's argument that the Court of Claims applied an incorrect presumption regarding the reliability of recantation testimony, noting that the court provided specific reasons for finding N.M.'s recantation not credible.The Court of Appeals held that Tuckett failed to prove his innocence by clear and convincing evidence and affirmed the dismissal of his claim. View "Tuckett v State of New York" on Justia Law

Professor James Wetherbe, known for his anti-tenure views, claimed he faced retaliation from Lance Nail, the then-dean of the business school at Texas Tech University (TTU), for his public criticisms of tenure. Wetherbe alleged that Nail's retaliatory actions included removing him from teaching assignments, falsely accusing him of misconduct, and revoking his emeritus status, among other adverse actions. Wetherbe sued Nail under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violating his First Amendment rights and sought injunctive and declaratory relief against the current dean, Margaret Williams.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied the defendants' second amended Rule 12(c) motion, holding that Wetherbe sufficiently alleged a constitutional violation and that Nail’s actions were objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. The defendants appealed the denial of qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that the contours of First Amendment law regarding retaliation were not clearly established at the time the events occurred. Specifically, the court found that it was not clearly established that Wetherbe’s speech regarding tenure was on a matter of public concern. Consequently, the court reversed the district court’s order and rendered judgment in favor of the defendants, granting Nail qualified immunity from Wetherbe’s First Amendment retaliation claims. The court did not address Wetherbe’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against Williams, as the district court had not ruled on those claims. View "Wetherbe v. Texas Tech University" on Justia Law

Lawrence Davonn Foye was placed on court-supervised parole after being convicted of fleeing in a vehicle with reckless indifference. His parole conditions included not violating any laws, avoiding disreputable persons, and abstaining from drug use. In January 2023, his probation officer filed a petition to revoke his parole, alleging three violations: using marijuana, being charged with first-degree murder, and associating with a disreputable person. Following a hearing, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County revoked his parole and imposed the underlying sentence.The Circuit Court found that the State presented sufficient evidence to support the parole violations. Detective Adkins testified about the murder investigation, corroborating information from a cooperating witness with cell phone data and video footage. The court also noted that Foye did not contest the allegations of drug use and associating with a disreputable person. The court applied the "reasonable cause" standard from West Virginia Code § 62-12-10(a)(1) to revoke Foye's parole.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and affirmed the Circuit Court's decision. The court clarified that the standard of proof for a final parole or probation revocation hearing under West Virginia Code § 62-12-10(a)(1) is proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The court found that the State met this standard by presenting sufficient evidence of all three parole violations. The court also addressed the procedural due process requirements, ensuring that Foye's rights were protected during the revocation process. View "State v. Foye" on Justia Law