Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

In this case, two organizations and four individuals brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Phoenix and several police officers, alleging violations of their constitutional rights during a protest outside a rally held by then-President Trump at the Phoenix Convention Center on August 22, 2017. The plaintiffs claimed that the police used excessive force and violated their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by dispersing the protesters with tear gas, chemical irritants, and flash-bang grenades.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona certified two classes and granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims except for the individual Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims asserted by three plaintiffs against certain officers. The court found that there was no "seizure" of the class members under the Fourth Amendment and evaluated the excessive-force claims under the Fourteenth Amendment's "shocks-the-conscience" test. The court also granted summary judgment to the defendants on the First Amendment claims, finding no evidence of retaliatory intent.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's summary judgment for the defendants on the class claims. The Ninth Circuit agreed that the use of airborne and auditory irritants did not constitute a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment and that the Fourteenth Amendment's "purpose to harm" standard applied. The court found no evidence of an improper purpose to harm by the officers.The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of summary judgment to the individual defendants on the excessive-force claims asserted by the three plaintiffs, holding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that the officers acted reasonably under the circumstances or did not violate clearly established law. The court also affirmed the district court's summary judgment for the individual defendants on the First Amendment claims, finding that the officers had objectively reasonable grounds to disperse the crowd due to a clear and present danger.Finally, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment for Police Chief Williams and the City of Phoenix, concluding that there was no evidence that Williams caused or ratified the use of excessive force or that the City was deliberately indifferent to the plaintiffs' constitutional rights. View "PUENTE V. CITY OF PHOENIX" on Justia Law

Enriqueta Diaz, a former county judge and resident of Maverick County, opposed the issuance of certificates of obligation for water and sewer improvements by the Maverick County Commissioners Court. She collected signatures on a petition to force an election on the issue. Despite her petition, the commissioners decided to issue the certificates without holding an election. During the meeting, Diaz heckled the commissioners, leading County Judge English Cantu to hold her in contempt and order her removal. Diaz was detained outside in the rain for several hours and later sentenced to 24 hours in jail, though she was released without being confined.Diaz filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, seeking damages for false imprisonment and bystander liability against County Judge English Cantu and three county commissioners. The district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, rejecting their claims of state sovereign immunity, judicial immunity, and qualified immunity. The defendants appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that constitutional county judges in Texas are not entitled to state sovereign immunity as they are considered local rather than state officers. The court also determined that English Cantu was not entitled to judicial immunity because he was acting in an administrative capacity, not a judicial one, during the commissioners court meeting. Additionally, the court found that English Cantu was not entitled to qualified immunity because he acted without discretionary authority in holding Diaz in contempt. However, the court reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity for the commissioners on the bystander liability claims, as the law was not clearly established that they had a duty to intervene. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Diaz v. Cantu" on Justia Law

Lloyd Gerald Napouk was fatally shot by two Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department officers after they responded to reports of a man behaving suspiciously in a residential neighborhood with what appeared to be a long, bladed weapon. The officers attempted to engage Napouk, who refused to follow their commands and advanced towards them multiple times. When Napouk came within nine feet of one of the officers, both officers fired their weapons, killing him. The weapon turned out to be a plastic toy fashioned to look like a blade.Napouk’s parents and estate sued the officers and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, deprivation of familial relations in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, municipal liability based on Monell v. Department of Social Services, and Nevada state law claims. The United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted summary judgment for the defendants, determining that the officers’ use of force was reasonable as a matter of law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment. The court held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity from the Fourth Amendment excessive force claim because Napouk posed an immediate threat to the officers, and no rational jury could find the officers’ mistake of fact regarding the weapon unreasonable. The court also held that the plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment claim failed because there was no evidence that the officers acted with anything other than legitimate law enforcement objectives. Additionally, the plaintiffs’ Monell claims failed due to the absence of a constitutional violation, and the state law claims failed because the officers were entitled to discretionary-function immunity under Nevada law. View "Napouk v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department" on Justia Law

Dr. Tara Gustilo, an Asian American obstetrician-gynecologist of Filipino descent, was demoted from her position as Chair of the OBGYN Department at Hennepin Healthcare System, Inc. (HHS) in April 2021. Following her demotion, she filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and subsequently sued HHS, alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), as well as a First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted summary judgment in favor of HHS, finding no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the race discrimination, retaliation, and First Amendment claims. The court concluded that Dr. Gustilo failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination and that there was no evidence she opposed an unlawful employment practice. Additionally, the court found no material fact dispute regarding whether the HHS Board considered her Facebook posts in its decision to demote her.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the First Amendment retaliation claim, finding that there was a material fact dispute regarding whether the HHS Board ratified the MEC's decision and the basis for it, which included consideration of Dr. Gustilo's Facebook posts. The court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine if the posts were protected speech and to apply the Pickering balancing test.The court declined to review the district court's summary judgment rulings on the Title VII and MHRA claims at this time, as they are now interlocutory. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "Gustilo v. Hennepin Healthcare System, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Tati Abu King and Toni Heath Johnson were unable to register to vote in Virginia due to felony convictions. King was convicted of felony drug possession in 2018, and Johnson was convicted of multiple felonies, including drug possession, in 2021. Virginia's constitution disenfranchises individuals convicted of felonies unless their civil rights are restored by the Governor or other appropriate authority. King and Johnson argued that this disenfranchisement violated the Virginia Readmission Act, a federal statute from 1870, which they claimed restricted Virginia from amending its constitution to disenfranchise individuals for crimes that were not felonies at common law in 1870.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed three of the four counts in the plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim but allowed one count based on the Virginia Readmission Act to proceed. The defendants, including various state election officials and the Governor of Virginia, moved to dismiss the complaint on sovereign immunity grounds, which the district court rejected.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the plaintiffs' claim met the requirements of the Ex parte Young doctrine, which allows suits for prospective relief against state officials to prevent ongoing violations of federal law. The court affirmed the district court's decision to allow the claim to proceed against most defendants but reversed the decision regarding the Governor of Virginia and the Secretary of the Commonwealth, finding that they lacked enforcement responsibility for the challenged state action. The court concluded that the Governor and Secretary must be dismissed from the case on sovereign immunity grounds. The district court's order was thus affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "King v. Youngkin" on Justia Law

After the death of George Floyd, large-scale protests occurred in Kansas City, Missouri. On May 30, 2020, the Kansas City Police Department requested assistance from the Missouri State Highway Patrol to manage the protests, which turned violent. Law enforcement used tear gas and other munitions to disperse the crowd. Sergeant Jeffrey Spire deployed various crowd control measures, including smoke grenades and projectiles. Around 11:47 p.m., Spire fired projectiles indiscriminately into the crowd, one of which allegedly struck Sean Stearns, causing him to lose vision in his left eye.Stearns sued Sergeant Spire under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation and excessive force under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. He also brought claims under Missouri law and a Monell claim against the Board of Police Commissioners. The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that Spire was entitled to qualified immunity and that Stearns could not establish a Monell claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that Spire was entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment retaliation claim because Stearns failed to demonstrate a causal connection between his injury and retaliatory animus. The court also found that Stearns waived his Fourth Amendment claim by not providing a meaningful argument. Regarding the Fourteenth Amendment claim, the court concluded that Spire's actions did not shock the conscience and thus did not constitute a substantive due process violation. Consequently, the Monell claim failed due to the absence of a constitutional violation. The court affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss the state law claims without prejudice, finding no abuse of discretion. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Stearns v. Dean" on Justia Law

The case involves Idaho's abortion trafficking statute, Idaho Code §18-623, which criminalizes procuring an abortion or obtaining an abortion-inducing drug for an unemancipated minor by recruiting, harboring, or transporting the minor with the intent to conceal the abortion from the minor’s parents or guardian. Plaintiffs, including an Idaho attorney and two advocacy organizations, sought to counsel pregnant minors and provide material support for accessing legal abortions in other states. They challenged the statute, arguing it violated the First Amendment and was void for vagueness.The United States District Court for the District of Idaho granted a preliminary injunction against the statute, finding that the plaintiffs had standing and that the Idaho attorney general was a proper defendant under Ex parte Young. The court concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment and void-for-vagueness claims. The district court also partially granted and denied Idaho’s motion to dismiss, dismissing only the claim regarding the right to intrastate travel.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s finding that the plaintiffs had standing and that the Idaho attorney general was a proper defendant. The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on their claims that the statute was void for vagueness or that it infringed on their rights to expressive association. However, the court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that the statute’s “recruiting” prong unconstitutionally infringed on their protected speech. The court determined that the “recruiting” provision was overbroad and could be severed from the rest of the statute. Consequently, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction against enforcing the “recruiting” prong but reversed the district court’s decision regarding the other claims and remanded for modification of the preliminary injunction. View "Matsumoto v. Labrador" on Justia Law

In 2005, Delano Hale was sentenced to death by an Ohio court for the murder of Douglas Green. Green was found dead in a motel room, wrapped in plastic bags, and had been shot multiple times. Hale was arrested driving Green's stolen vehicle and later admitted to the shooting, claiming it was in self-defense against Green's sexual advances. Hale was convicted of aggravated murder and other charges, and the jury recommended the death penalty.Hale's conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Ohio Supreme Court and the Ohio Court of Appeals. Hale filed for post-conviction relief, which was denied by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court. He then sought federal habeas relief, raising multiple claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel and sentencing errors under Blakely v. Washington.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed Hale's habeas petition. The court denied Hale's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, finding that his trial counsel's decision not to call a forensic expert was a reasonable strategic choice. The court noted that Hale's counsel had considered hiring an expert but ultimately chose a different strategy, which did not constitute deficient performance under Strickland v. Washington.The court also denied Hale's claim regarding his noncapital sentences, which were enhanced based on judicial factfinding in violation of Blakely. The Ohio Supreme Court had reviewed this claim for plain error and found no prejudice, concluding that a jury would have reached the same sentencing conclusions. The Sixth Circuit found this determination reasonable and upheld the Ohio Supreme Court's decision.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Hale's habeas petition, concluding that Hale's claims did not warrant relief under the deferential standards of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). View "Hale v. Cool" on Justia Law

Grace Smith, a high school junior, was repeatedly suspended from Laramie High School for refusing to comply with a COVID-19 indoor-mask mandate imposed by the Albany County School District No. 1 Board of Trustees. After her suspensions, she was arrested for trespassing on school grounds. Grace and her parents, Andy and Erin Smith, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming against the Board members, the superintendent, and the principal, alleging violations of Grace’s constitutional rights and state law claims.The district court dismissed the federal claims for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that Grace did not suffer an injury in fact necessary for standing. The court reasoned that her injuries were hypothetical because the mask mandate had expired and she was no longer a student at LHS, and that her injuries were self-inflicted. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and reversed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that Grace had standing to bring her claims because she suffered concrete and particularized injuries from the enforcement of the mask mandate, including suspensions and arrest. The court found that her injuries were directly inflicted by the defendants’ actions and were not self-inflicted. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s opinion. View "Smith v. Albany County School District No. 1" on Justia Law

Victor Ibhawa, a Black, Nigerian Catholic priest, was hired by the Diocese of Buffalo in 2016 as the Parish Administrator of the Blessed Trinity Church. He was reappointed in January 2019 for another three-year term but was terminated on September 28, 2020. Ibhawa filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) in November 2020, alleging racial discrimination, including incidents involving racial slurs and xenophobic remarks. He claimed that Diocesan officials failed to investigate these incidents and made offensive remarks about foreign priests. Ibhawa's employment was terminated, and his priestly faculties were removed, preventing him from applying for another priest position in the Diocese. He alleged hostile work environment and unlawful termination based on race and national origin.The DHR dismissed Ibhawa's complaint, citing the "ministerial exception" under the First Amendment, which it interpreted as a jurisdictional bar. The New York Supreme Court partially reversed this decision, finding that while the unlawful termination claim was properly dismissed, the hostile work environment claim required further consideration. The Appellate Division, however, reinstated the DHR's dismissal, emphasizing deference to the agency's expertise and noting the lack of controlling precedent on the ministerial exception's applicability to hostile work environment claims.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and determined that the DHR erred in treating the ministerial exception as a jurisdictional bar rather than an affirmative defense. The court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the ministerial exception is an affirmative defense, not a jurisdictional bar. Consequently, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's order and remitted the case to the DHR for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Ibhawa v New York State Div. of Human Rights" on Justia Law