Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

A police officer, David Stanley, was suspended and transferred by the Lafayette Police Department (LPD) following an investigation into his Facebook posts. Stanley took sick leave for about a year and appealed his suspension to the Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board. He also filed two petitions in state court seeking to enjoin the suspension and transfer. The state district court granted a temporary restraining order (TRO), but the state appellate court dismissed LPD’s appeal of the TRO. Stanley re-filed his petition, but the state district court found he needed to finalize his appeal with the Civil Service Board first. The Civil Service Board later reduced his suspension but upheld his transfer.Stanley then filed a lawsuit in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging First Amendment violations and retaliation. The district court dismissed his claims as time-barred, determining that the one-year prescriptive period began when Stanley was notified of his suspension on June 11, 2021. The court also concluded that Stanley’s state court petitions did not interrupt the prescription period because they did not assert federal claims or seek monetary damages.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Stanley’s § 1983 claims accrued when he received notice of the adverse actions, not when the administrative appeal concluded. The court also found that Stanley’s state court petitions did not interrupt the prescription period because they did not provide adequate notice of his federal claims or demand monetary damages. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Stanley’s claims as prescribed. View "Stanley v. Morgan" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to a Mississippi statute that allows absentee ballots to be received up to five days after the federal Election Day. The plaintiffs, including the Republican National Committee and the Mississippi Republican Party, argued that this state law conflicts with federal statutes that establish a uniform Election Day for federal elections. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin state officials from enforcing the post-election ballot deadline.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi consolidated two lawsuits and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, which included various state election officials. The district court held that Mississippi's statute did not conflict with federal law and thus was not preempted. The plaintiffs appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's judgment. The Fifth Circuit held that the federal Election Day statutes preempt Mississippi's law because federal law mandates that all ballots must be received by Election Day. The court emphasized that the term "election" includes both the casting and receipt of ballots, and that the election is not consummated until all ballots are received. The court also noted that historical practices and other federal statutes support this interpretation. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine appropriate relief, considering the proximity to upcoming elections. The court also vacated the district court's summary judgment on the plaintiffs' § 1983 claims and remanded for reconsideration. View "Republican National Committee v. Wetzel" on Justia Law

A man was unable to purchase a firearm because a background check revealed he was subject to a long-term domestic violence protective order (DVPO). He sued the State, claiming he was no longer subject to a protective order as defined by federal statute and sought a permanent injunction and declaratory judgment to have the Department of Public Safety (DPS) notify a national database that he was no longer subject to a protective order under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). He filed a motion for summary judgment, which the State opposed, filing a cross-motion for summary judgment. The superior court granted the State’s cross-motion, and the man appealed.The superior court found that the DVPO had not expired and remained a qualifying order under Section 922(g)(8). It also concluded that the man’s constitutional claims were not ripe because he had not initiated modification or dissolution of the order. The court entered a final judgment in favor of the State.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case and affirmed the superior court’s decision. The court held that the DVPO remained in effect and was a qualifying order under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). The court found that the legislative history supported the interpretation that DVPOs issued under AS 18.66.100(c)(1) are effective until further order of the court. The court also concluded that the man’s remaining claims were not ripe for adjudication because he had not attempted to dissolve or modify the DVPO. View "Eng v. State" on Justia Law

Donald Floyd Detimore was convicted of sexually abusing his step-granddaughter, MD, when she was between seven and nine years old. MD disclosed the abuse during a medical checkup at age sixteen, leading to an investigation where she detailed the abuse, including inappropriate touching and forced sexual acts. Detimore denied the allegations but admitted to behaviors that could be seen as inappropriate.The District Court of Fremont County denied Detimore's pretrial motion to introduce evidence under the rape shield statute, which he argued was crucial to his defense. This evidence pertained to an "embarrassing and shameful situation" involving MD, which Detimore claimed would show a motive for MD to fabricate the allegations. The court found the evidence's probative value did not substantially outweigh its prejudicial effect and thus excluded it. Detimore was subsequently found guilty by a jury and sentenced to 40-50 years in prison.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and upheld the lower court's decision. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence under the rape shield statute, as Detimore failed to show a direct link between the "embarrassing and shameful situation" and MD's motive to lie. The court also determined that Detimore's constitutional rights to confront witnesses and present a complete defense were not violated, as he was able to challenge MD's credibility through other means during the trial. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "Detimore v. State" on Justia Law

On June 3, 2017, Deputy Alexander Hawley of the King County Sheriff’s Office conducted an illegal stop of Malcolm Otha McGee, suspecting a drug transaction. During the stop, Hawley obtained McGee’s identity, phone number, and seized drugs. McGee agreed to become a confidential informant but never followed up. The next day, a 911 caller reported gunfire, and a month later, the body of Keith Ayson, who had a drug dealing relationship with McGee, was found. Police used evidence from the illegal stop to obtain warrants for McGee’s phone records, which linked him to the crime scene.The trial court ruled the June 3 stop was illegal and suppressed the drug evidence, dismissing the drug charge. However, it allowed the State to use evidence from the stop to establish McGee’s motive for murder. McGee’s first trial ended in a mistrial. Before the second trial, McGee moved to suppress evidence obtained from subsequent warrants, arguing they were based on the illegal stop. The trial court denied the motion, finding the evidence was sufficiently attenuated from the illegal stop. McGee was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 298 months plus a 60-month firearm enhancement.The Washington State Court of Appeals reversed McGee’s conviction, holding that the evidence obtained from the illegal stop should have been suppressed, as it was not sufficiently attenuated. The court found that subsequent warrants relied on tainted evidence, necessitating suppression of all derived evidence and McGee’s statements to police.The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that the attenuation doctrine did not apply because the new criminal act did not sever the causal connection between the illegal stop and the discovery of evidence. The court emphasized the strong privacy protections under the Washington State Constitution and rejected the State’s argument to expand the attenuation doctrine. The case was remanded for a new trial. View "State v. McGee" on Justia Law

The case involves a petition challenging the public release of a grand jury report by the 30th County Investigating Grand Jury. The petitioner argued that the report did not meet the statutory definition of an "investigatory grand jury report" under the Investigatory Grand Jury Act (IGJA) and that the supervising judge erred in ordering its release. The petitioner also contended that the report's criticism of named, unindicted individuals violated their due process rights and the fundamental right to reputation under the Pennsylvania Constitution.The Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas initially accepted the report and ordered its public release. The supervising judge provided notice and an opportunity to respond to some, but not all, named, unindicted individuals criticized in the report. The petitioner, along with others, sought to have the report permanently sealed or redacted. The supervising judge made some redactions but ultimately ordered the report to be unsealed.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and concluded that the report did not satisfy the IGJA's definition of an "investigatory grand jury report" because it neither related to organized crime or public corruption nor proposed recommendations for legislative, executive, or administrative action in the public interest. The court found that the report focused on punishing specific individuals and providing answers to the deceased-accused's family, rather than addressing broader public concerns.The court also determined that due process requires notice and an opportunity to respond for all named, unindicted individuals criticized in a grand jury report. The supervising judge's failure to provide such notice to all criticized individuals was deemed an error. Consequently, the Supreme Court vacated the supervising judge's order and remanded the case with instructions to permanently seal the report. View "In Re: The Thirtieth County Investigating Grand Jury" on Justia Law

Lisa Smith, the appellant, lived with her boyfriend, Keiff King, and her four-year-old son, Tahjir, in a home in Abington Township, Pennsylvania. On January 22, 2018, after Tahjir spilled cereal, he was subjected to severe punishment by Smith and King, including being forced to hold difficult positions and being beaten. Tahjir was also placed in a hot shower, resulting in severe burns. Later, when Tahjir showed signs of severe distress, Smith and King delayed seeking medical help. Eventually, Smith called 911, but Tahjir was pronounced dead at the hospital. An autopsy revealed that Tahjir died from "crush syndrome" due to severe beatings and burns.Smith and King were charged with first-degree murder, endangering the welfare of a child, and criminal conspiracy. Smith's motion to suppress her statements to the police was partially granted, excluding statements made before receiving Miranda warnings. At trial, King's redacted statement, which replaced Smith's name with feminine pronouns, was admitted. The trial court instructed the jury to consider King's statement only against him. Both Smith and King were convicted, and Smith was sentenced to life in prison without parole, plus additional years.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed whether Smith's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated by admitting King's redacted statement. The court held that there was no violation, as the redacted statement did not directly or powerfully implicate Smith in the crime. The court emphasized that the statement did not identify Smith as a participant in the abuse and that the jury was properly instructed to consider the statement only against King. Consequently, the court affirmed the Superior Court's decision, upholding Smith's conviction and sentence. View "Commonwealth v. Smith" on Justia Law

Dagoberto Machado was convicted by a jury of multiple offenses related to the inappropriate touching of I.A., his girlfriend’s young niece. The incidents allegedly occurred during the summers of 2016 and 2017 when I.A. was staying with Machado and his girlfriend. I.A. testified that Machado touched her inappropriately on several occasions, including at a public pool and in their home. She did not immediately report the incidents due to uncertainty and fear of affecting family relationships. The government introduced expert testimony from Dr. Stephanie Wolf, a child psychologist, to provide context for I.A.'s delayed reporting, including cultural barriers within Latino communities.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia admitted Dr. Wolf’s testimony over Machado’s objections. Machado argued that Dr. Wolf’s statements about “machismo” in Latino culture were prejudicial. The trial court qualified Dr. Wolf as an expert and allowed her to testify about cultural norms that might impede a child from disclosing abuse. Dr. Wolf mentioned that in Latino culture, men might have a higher standing, which could impact how sexuality and abuse are viewed. The jury found Machado guilty on all counts.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and found that the trial court erred in admitting Dr. Wolf’s testimony about Latino culture. The court held that the testimony had minimal probative value and was substantially outweighed by its potential to unfairly prejudice the jury against Machado based on ethnic stereotypes. The court emphasized that such testimony could lead the jury to view Machado as more likely to have committed the abuse simply because of his ethnicity. Consequently, the court reversed Machado’s convictions and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Machado v. United States" on Justia Law

The case involves Warren Balogh, who participated in the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. The rally, organized to protest the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue, quickly turned violent between protesters and counterprotesters. Balogh alleged that the Charlottesville Police, under Chief Al Thomas, and the Virginia State Police, under Lieutenant Becky Crannis-Curl, failed to protect his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by not intervening in the violence and declaring an unlawful assembly, which he claimed amounted to a heckler's veto.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed Balogh's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court found that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established right to police intervention to protect First Amendment rights from third-party violence. The court also held that Balogh failed to state a plausible claim for relief under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, noting that the police did not selectively enforce the unlawful assembly order and that Balogh's allegations of intentional discrimination were conclusory.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The Fourth Circuit held that the First Amendment does not obligate police to protect protesters' constitutional rights amid violence, explicitly stating that the First Amendment is a shield against invasive speech regulations, not a sword to wield against violent disruptions. The court also found that Balogh's equal protection claim under the Fourteenth Amendment failed because he did not provide sufficient facts to show intentional or purposeful discrimination. Additionally, the court rejected Balogh's Monell claim against the City of Charlottesville, as he did not demonstrate that the City Manager, the final policymaker, had ratified or delegated authority to Chief Thomas. View "Balogh v. Virginia" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, parents of minor children, challenged a public act that eliminated the religious exemption from vaccination requirements for school enrollment. They argued that the act violated their constitutional rights to free exercise of religion, equal protection, and a free public education, as well as their statutory rights under Connecticut law. The defendants, state and municipal officials, moved to dismiss the case on the grounds of sovereign immunity.The trial court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss, concluding that the plaintiffs' constitutional claims satisfied the substantial claim exception to sovereign immunity, and their statutory claim under Connecticut law satisfied the statutory waiver exception. The defendants appealed this decision.The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that the trial court must assess the legal sufficiency of the plaintiffs' allegations to determine whether they have asserted a substantial claim of a constitutional violation. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' constitutional claims failed as a matter of law. The act was deemed a neutral law of general applicability, rationally related to the state's interest in protecting public health. The court also found that the act did not violate the plaintiffs' right to a free public education, as it imposed a reasonable vaccination requirement.However, the court agreed with the trial court that the plaintiffs' statutory free exercise claim under Connecticut law satisfied the statutory waiver exception to sovereign immunity. The court found that the scope of the waiver extended to free exercise challenges to the enforcement of legislation and that applying the statute to the public act did not violate any constitutional principles.The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision in part, directing the dismissal of the constitutional claims, but affirmed the decision regarding the statutory claim, allowing it to proceed. View "Spillane v. Lamont" on Justia Law