Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Marquis Kennedy sought employment as a police officer with the City of Arlington, Texas, and enrolled in the Arlington Police Academy after passing a physical exam. During a mandatory training exercise known as Gracie Survival Tactics, which involved intense self-defense scenarios, Marquis reportedly complained of fatigue, thirst, and lightheadedness, but was not permitted breaks or water. He continued participating, allegedly due to fear of failing and repeating the training. During the final scenario, Marquis signaled distress, but the instructors continued the exercise until he could not proceed. After the simulation ended, Marquis requested an ambulance, was assisted to a break room, and subsequently suffered cardiac arrest. Emergency services were called, and Marquis was taken to a hospital, where he died two days later. The autopsy listed cardiac arrest as the cause of death, likely due to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.Kennedy, Marquis’s widow, brought suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the City and several officers, asserting Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including claims for excessive force, deliberate indifference to medical needs, bystander liability, and municipal liability for failure to train officers. The City moved to dismiss and submitted video evidence of the training, which Kennedy referenced in her claims. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of all claims, finding no plausible constitutional violation, no constitutional seizure, and no duty of medical care in an employment setting. The district court adopted these findings and dismissed the case.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Fifth Circuit held that Kennedy failed to plausibly allege a Fourth Amendment seizure or substantive due process violation, and that no constitutional duty of medical care existed in this employment context. The court also found no basis for bystander or municipal liability. View "Kennedy v. City of Arlington, Texas" on Justia Law

Fourteen children who were removed from their biological parents by New York City officials are the plaintiffs in this case. After their removal, relatives sought certification to become foster or adoptive parents for these children, but their applications were denied due to criminal history or reports of child abuse or mistreatment. The children allege that New York’s certification scheme violates their substantive due process rights to family integrity and freedom from harm, and that procedural due process was violated because they were not given notice or an opportunity to challenge the denial of a relative’s application.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed the complaint. It ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing, reasoning that most of the children did not have a cognizable injury since they were living with relatives, and others could not trace their separation from relatives to the defendants. The district court also found that the plaintiffs were asserting the rights of third-party relatives rather than their own, and that prudential standing barred their claims. The court did not address the procedural due process claims directly.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the plaintiffs have standing to pursue both substantive and procedural due process claims. The court found that denial of certified placement with a relative constituted a concrete and particularized injury, traceable to the defendants, and redressable by a favorable ruling. The court also determined that the plaintiffs were asserting their own rights, not those of their relatives, and rejected the district court’s prudential standing analysis. However, some claims were deemed moot: two plaintiffs are now in the care of a relative foster parent and another has aged out of foster care. Only one plaintiff has standing to challenge the adoption certification rules. The Second Circuit reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "B.B. v. Hochul" on Justia Law

A group of individuals traveling through Kansas were stopped by Kansas Highway Patrol (KHP) troopers while driving on interstate highways, primarily I-70. In each instance, the drivers and passengers were from out of state, often driving to or from Colorado, and were stopped for alleged traffic violations. After the initial traffic stop was concluded, troopers used a tactic known as the “Kansas Two-Step”—they would briefly disengage, then reinitiate conversation in an attempt to gain consent for further questioning or searches. These stops often led to extended detentions and searches, but no contraband was discovered. The troopers testified that they considered the drivers’ out-of-state status, travel to or from Colorado, and other factors in developing reasonable suspicion.The individuals sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, alleging violations of their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures and their constitutional right to travel. Some plaintiffs also brought damages claims, resulting in jury verdicts in their favor. For their claims for injunctive relief, the district court conducted a bench trial and found that KHP had a pattern and practice of targeting out-of-state drivers and using the Two-Step in a manner violating the Fourth Amendment. The court granted a permanent injunction, requiring changes in KHP’s training, documentation, consent procedures, and supervision.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed whether the plaintiffs had standing for injunctive relief and whether the district court abused its discretion in issuing the injunction. The Tenth Circuit held that the plaintiffs had standing because there was a substantial risk they would be stopped again and that KHP had a pattern of unconstitutional conduct. However, the Tenth Circuit found that the injunction was overly broad regarding the use of a driver’s state of origin and the Two-Step tactic. The court affirmed the injunction in part, reversed it in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Shaw v. Smith" on Justia Law

In 2005, an individual was convicted of endangering the welfare of a child and placed on Parole Supervision for Life (PSL) in New Jersey. The State Parole Board imposed two special conditions: a ban on accessing social media and a ban on viewing or possessing pornography. In 2018, the individual was arrested on a parole warrant for allegedly violating both conditions. After a hearing, the Parole Board found violations, revoked PSL, and ordered twelve months of incarceration. The individual challenged the constitutionality of the conditions, arguing they violated First Amendment rights. While an appeal was pending, the Parole Board vacated the revocation in February 2020 and later discharged the conditions. On June 1, 2020, the Board issued a decision stating there was no clear and convincing evidence of violations.The complainant and spouse then filed suit under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (CRA) and the Tort Claims Act (TCA) against the State and others, alleging substantive due process violations, gross negligence, deliberate indifference, and false arrest/imprisonment. The trial court dismissed all claims as time-barred, holding that the statute of limitations began to run at various points before June 2020. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding that the claims accrued earlier and that even under the favorable-termination rule from Heck v. Humphrey, the relevant accrual event was the Board's February 2020 vacatur of the revocation.The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the favorable-termination rule from Heck v. Humphrey applies to claims under the CRA and the TCA, meaning that civil rights claims that necessarily challenge the validity of a criminal or quasi-criminal proceeding do not accrue until that proceeding is terminated in the plaintiff’s favor. The Court determined that substantive due process and related claims accrued on June 1, 2020, making them timely, but that any false arrest/imprisonment claim accrued earlier and was time-barred. The Court reversed the dismissal of the first three counts and affirmed the dismissal of the false arrest/imprisonment claim. View "C.A.L. v. State of New Jersey" on Justia Law

While serving a portion of his sentence at the Federal Correctional Complex in Terre Haute, Indiana, Derek Thomas was repeatedly assaulted by his cellmate, suffering serious physical and psychological harm. Thomas initially sought protective custody after other inmates threatened him due to his conviction as a sex offender. Despite being placed in the Special Housing Unit, he experienced continued threats, food tampering, and was eventually housed with an inmate who violently assaulted and allegedly raped him. Thomas reported these incidents through notes to prison staff and verbally to counselors and psychologists, yet he was not removed from his cell until after the alleged rape. Following his removal, Thomas sought medical and psychological care, but claims his injuries and trauma were not adequately addressed.After filing a pro se complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Thomas was allowed to proceed with claims that certain prison officials failed to protect him and were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, both in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The defendants moved for summary judgment, raising qualified immunity as a defense. Thomas’s counsel did not address qualified immunity in the response to the motion, and Thomas later confirmed reliance on counsel’s submission. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding Thomas’s claims either presented a new Bivens context not recognized by precedent or failed because Thomas did not overcome the qualified immunity defense.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that Thomas’s failure-to-protect claim could not proceed because it sought to expand Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics beyond existing precedent. Regarding the deliberate indifference claim, the court held that Thomas forfeited his opposition to qualified immunity by not raising it in the district court and did not meet the criteria for appellate review of a forfeited argument. View "Thomas v. Carmichael" on Justia Law

The case concerns a California statute that makes it a crime to knowingly file a false allegation of police misconduct and requires complainants to sign an advisory warning of potential criminal liability before their complaint is accepted. The Los Angeles Police Protective League sought an injunction compelling the City of Los Angeles to enforce this advisory requirement. The City had previously entered into a consent decree with the federal government prohibiting enforcement of the advisory, and even after the consent decree expired, continued not to require the advisory due to concerns about the statute’s constitutionality.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, relying on the California Supreme Court’s earlier decision in People v. Stanistreet, granted the injunction and ordered the City to require the statutory advisory. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, adhering to Stanistreet’s reasoning that had upheld the statute’s constitutionality. The City then petitioned to the Supreme Court of California, arguing that subsequent federal decisions—especially Chaker v. Crogan by the Ninth Circuit—cast serious doubt on the continuing validity of Stanistreet and the constitutionality of the statute.Reviewing the case, the Supreme Court of California reconsidered its prior Stanistreet decision in light of more recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings, including United States v. Alvarez and Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton. The court held that the statutory scheme—combining criminal penalties with a mandatory and prominently worded advisory—created a consequential risk of chilling truthful or well-intentioned complaints of police misconduct. The court concluded that this risk triggered heightened constitutional scrutiny under the First Amendment. The statute failed intermediate scrutiny because it was not narrowly tailored and burdened substantially more speech than necessary to serve the state’s legitimate interests. The court therefore reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal. View "L.A. Police Protective League v. City of L.A." on Justia Law

Ajay, a recent immigrant from India with limited English proficiency, was investigated for alleged sexual assault and attempted sexual assault against a child under 14 in Reno, Nevada. The accusations stemmed from an incident involving a 13-year-old boy, A.P., whom Ajay met at his workplace and with whom he allegedly engaged in sexual acts. During a custodial police interrogation, Detective DeSantis read Ajay his Miranda rights in English. Ajay repeatedly expressed confusion, stated he was not good in English, and requested to speak in Hindi or have an interpreter. Despite this, DeSantis continued explaining the rights in English, using props and hypotheticals, until Ajay acquiesced and the interrogation proceeded, resulting in a confession.Ajay moved to suppress his statements before the Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, arguing he had not knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights due to his limited English proficiency. At a pretrial hearing, Ajay testified through an interpreter, detailing his lack of formal English education and unfamiliarity with the American legal system. The district court denied his motion, finding the waiver valid and voluntary, citing DeSantis’s efforts to clarify the warnings and Ajay’s apparent understanding.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed whether Ajay’s Miranda waiver was knowing and intelligent. The court found that Ajay's limited English skills and explicit requests for an interpreter demonstrated he did not understand his rights. The court held that law enforcement must recognize when a language barrier prevents meaningful waiver and provide an interpreter as necessary. The district court’s admission of Ajay’s confession was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given its significance at trial. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Nevada reversed the conviction and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ajay v. State" on Justia Law

Dustin Booth, who had a history of stable employment and no prior mental health issues, began exhibiting signs of severe mental illness in early 2022 after changes in his substance use. His erratic behavior escalated over several days, culminating in a violent incident at home and a lengthy standoff with police after he barricaded himself inside his house. Booth’s wife repeatedly sought police intervention, expressing concerns that he was a danger to himself and others, and noted his access to firearms. After attempts to calm Booth and persuade him to leave his house, he eventually left with a friend, taking a gun with him. Police stopped the vehicle, leading to a confrontation in which Booth brandished the firearm and was fatally shot by officers.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted summary judgment to the defendants on all federal claims. The district court held that the proposed accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)—that officers should have used de-escalation techniques—was unreasonable due to the safety risks posed by Booth. The court further found that the officers’ actions during the traffic stop and subsequent use of force, including the deployment of a police dog and takedown maneuver, were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. It also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.Upon review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision. The Sixth Circuit held that, as a matter of law, the ADA did not require officers to accommodate Booth’s disability in the face of objective safety risks. Additionally, the court found the officers had probable cause for a mental-health seizure and acted reasonably under the Fourth Amendment in both the stop and use of force. The judgment in favor of the defendants was affirmed. View "Booth v. Lazzara" on Justia Law

Deputy Brian Williams responded to a domestic-violence call at Tina Hight’s residence, where two dogs ran out toward him as Hight opened her door. Williams shouted warnings and fired a shot that caused the dogs to retreat. As Hight attempted to bring her dogs inside, a small Pomeranian mix ran toward Williams, prompting him to fire again in the dog’s direction. The shot missed the dog but ricocheted and struck Hight, leaving a bullet fragment in her leg.Hight filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, alleging excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court granted summary judgment to Deputy Williams on the basis of qualified immunity, concluding that Williams did not violate Hight’s constitutional rights.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, making all reasonable inferences in favor of Hight. The appellate court considered whether Deputy Williams’s actions constituted a Fourth Amendment seizure of Hight. Applying the requirement that a seizure by force must involve an officer’s objectively manifested intent to restrain the person affected, the court found no evidence that Williams intended to restrain Hight; his actions and statements were aimed at stopping the dog. The court held that accidental force, or force directed at another target, does not satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s seizure standard as articulated in Torres v. Madrid and related precedents.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that Deputy Williams did not seize Hight within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and thus did not violate her constitutional rights. The court declined to address arguments raised for the first time on appeal. View "Hight v. Williams" on Justia Law

A group of eleven current and former employees of the Woods Hole, Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority challenged the Authority’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, which required all employees to be fully vaccinated unless they qualified for a medical or religious exemption. The policy allowed for exemptions if an employee provided sufficient medical documentation or demonstrated a sincerely held religious belief, provided that reasonable accommodations could be made without undue burden to the Authority. Thirteen employees applied for religious exemptions, but only the request of one fully remote employee was granted. One employee received a temporary medical exemption but was ultimately terminated after refusing vaccination once that exemption expired. Four appellants later became vaccinated and remained employed; the remaining seven were fired for noncompliance.After the Authority enacted its policy, the plaintiffs filed suit, alleging violations of their rights under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and Massachusetts anti-discrimination law. The state court initially granted a temporary restraining order, but after removal to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the district court denied their preliminary injunction request. On a prior appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the denial as to most claims but remanded for further consideration of the First Amendment claim, instructing the district court to address the relevance of the granted medical exemption and to determine the appropriate level of scrutiny.On remand, the district court again denied a preliminary injunction, finding the policy to be generally applicable and thus subject to rational basis review, which it held the policy satisfied. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed, holding that the policy’s medical and religious exemptions were not comparable for Free Exercise purposes, the policy was generally applicable, and the Authority’s interests justified the mandate under rational basis review. View "Brox v. Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard & Nantucket Steamship Authority" on Justia Law