Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Indiana enacted a law prohibiting physicians from altering a child's sex characteristics through medication or surgery as treatment for gender dysphoria. Plaintiffs, including transgender children, their parents, and a physician, argued that the law violated their rights under the Equal Protection Clause, substantive due process, and the First Amendment. The district court found these arguments likely to succeed and issued a preliminary injunction against the law. Indiana appealed the decision.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause and the First Amendment. The court concluded that the law discriminated based on sex and transgender status and that the aiding and abetting provision regulated speech based on its content. The court also found that the balance of harms favored the plaintiffs and that they would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Seventh Circuit held that the law did not classify based on sex or transgender status in a way that warranted heightened scrutiny. The court applied rational basis review and found that the law was rationally related to the state's legitimate interest in protecting children from uncertain and potentially harmful medical treatments. The court also held that the law's aiding and abetting provision did not violate the First Amendment, as it regulated speech integral to unlawful conduct. The court vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "K.C. v. Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board" on Justia Law

In August 2021, New York City’s Department of Education mandated COVID-19 vaccinations for all staff and contractors working in school settings. This mandate was updated over time, including a religious exemption process. The plaintiffs, New York City public sector employees, challenged the constitutionality of the mandate and the exemption process, both facially and as applied.The Southern District of New York denied a preliminary injunction and dismissed the consolidated amended complaint on the merits. The Eastern District of New York also denied a similar preliminary injunction motion. The plaintiffs appealed these decisions, leading to a consolidated review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.The Second Circuit affirmed in part and dismissed in part the denials of preliminary injunctions, affirmed the dismissal of the facial challenges, and affirmed in part while vacating and remanding in part the dismissal of the as-applied challenges. The court found that the request to rescind the vaccine mandate was moot due to its official rescission and denied the request for reinstatement and backpay, as the plaintiffs could not show irreparable harm post-termination. The court upheld the dismissal of the facial challenges, finding no evidence that the Citywide Panel process preferred certain religions or was infected with religious animus. However, the court vacated and remanded the as-applied challenges for plaintiffs Natasha Solon and Heather Clark, who plausibly alleged that their religious accommodation requests were improperly denied. View "New Yorkers for Religious Liberty v. City of New York" on Justia Law

Thomas Eugene Creech, sentenced to death in 1995, faced a failed execution attempt in early 2024 due to the inability to establish reliable intravenous access. Following this, Creech filed a petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that any further attempt to execute him would violate his constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause and the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of Idaho dismissed Creech’s petition, construing his Eighth Amendment argument as a challenge to the method of execution, which it determined could not be litigated in a post-conviction action. The court suggested that Creech could pursue his Eighth Amendment challenge through other legal avenues, such as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The court also addressed the merits, finding that a second execution attempt did not violate the Fifth Amendment as it did not impose more punishment than authorized, nor did it violate the Eighth Amendment as the failed attempt did not involve intentional or malicious infliction of unnecessary pain.The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the district court’s dismissal. It held that Creech’s claims were properly raised under Idaho Code section 19-2719 but found no genuine issue of material fact warranting an evidentiary hearing. The court determined that the failed execution did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, as the psychological strain and pain experienced were inherent in any execution method. Additionally, the court ruled that a second execution attempt did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, as the initial attempt did not complete the punishment authorized by the legislature. Creech’s state constitutional claims were not considered as they were not adequately preserved for appeal. View "Creech v. State" on Justia Law

Cedric Allen Ricks was convicted of capital murder in Texas state court for killing his girlfriend and her eight-year-old son and was sentenced to death. After his direct appeal and state habeas petition were denied, Ricks filed a federal habeas petition, which the district court also denied, including a certificate of appealability (COA).Ricks sought a COA from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on several claims. The district court had denied his Batson claim, which alleged racial discrimination in jury selection, finding no prima facie case of discrimination and accepting the prosecution's race-neutral justifications. The district court also found no pattern of racially disparate questioning. The Fifth Circuit agreed, noting that reasonable jurists would not find the district court's assessment debatable or wrong, and thus denied the COA on this claim.Ricks also claimed ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for not raising the Batson claim on appeal. The state court had denied this claim on the merits. The Fifth Circuit found that since the Batson claim was meritless, the appellate counsel's failure to raise it was neither unreasonable nor prejudicial, and denied the COA on this claim as well.Ricks argued that his due process rights were violated when the jury saw him in shackles. The district court rejected this claim, noting that Ricks exposed his shackles himself and failed to show any substantial influence on the jury's verdict. The Fifth Circuit found this claim procedurally defaulted because it was not raised on direct appeal and was barred by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Consequently, no COA was issued for this claim.Lastly, Ricks claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel for not objecting to the shackling and for not challenging the State's peremptory strikes against female venire members. The Fifth Circuit found the trial counsel's decisions reasonable and strategic, and thus denied the COA on these claims.The Fifth Circuit denied the motion for a COA on all claims. View "Ricks v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law

An Arizona state inmate, Michael Ray Fuqua, who identifies as a Christian-Israelite, requested a religious dietary accommodation to observe Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The prison chaplain, Jeffrey Lind, denied this request, arguing that Fuqua did not substantiate his request with appropriate documentation and that his beliefs were theologically inconsistent. Fuqua claimed that this denial forced him to either starve or spend significant money on commissary food, causing him physical and financial hardship.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted summary judgment in favor of Lind on Fuqua’s First Amendment Free Exercise, Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection, and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) claims. The court found that Fuqua failed to show a substantial burden on his religious exercise and that Lind had legitimate reasons for denying the request. The court also held that RLUIPA only authorizes equitable relief, which was moot in Fuqua’s case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court’s summary judgment on Fuqua’s First Amendment and Equal Protection claims, finding that a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that Lind’s denial was based on his own theological assessment rather than a neutral procedural rule. This could constitute a substantial burden on Fuqua’s religious exercise and intentional discrimination. However, the court affirmed the summary judgment on the RLUIPA claim, citing the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Wood v. Yordy, which precludes suits seeking monetary damages under RLUIPA against state officers, and Fuqua’s equitable claims were moot. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "FUQUA V. RAAK" on Justia Law

A transgender woman, who had legally changed her name and gender marker in 2018, sought to have the entire record of her name change and gender marker correction sealed in 2023. She argued that the public availability of these records had led to harassment and threats after her transgender status was disclosed on social media, revealing her personal information and former name. The trial court denied her request to seal the entire record but did seal her application to seal, its supporting documentation, and a physician’s letter attached to her initial petition.The Superior Court of Stanislaus County initially granted her petition for a name and gender change in 2018 without any objections. In 2023, she filed an application to seal the entire record, citing harassment and threats due to the public availability of her records. The trial court denied the request to seal the entire record, reasoning that there was no evidence the harassment was initiated by the court’s records and that sealing the records would not necessarily solve the problem. The court also noted the strong presumption that name changes be public to prevent fraud and ensure creditors and others can locate individuals who have changed their names.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case and found that the trial court’s findings were not supported by substantial evidence. The appellate court concluded that the appellant’s privacy and safety interests in concealing her transgender identity outweighed the public’s right of access to the records. The court held that the entire record should be sealed to protect her privacy and safety, as there was no less restrictive means to achieve these interests. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded the case with instructions to seal all records revealing the appellant’s name change or gender marker correction. View "In re M.T." on Justia Law

Two defendants, Martin Field and John Asher, were found to be sexually violent predators (SVPs) by separate juries and committed indefinitely to a state hospital. They were compelled to testify against themselves during their commitment trials. Both argued on appeal that they were similarly situated to individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGIs), who are not required to testify against themselves at their commitment trials. They claimed that this disparity violated equal protection principles.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, had previously determined that Field’s equal protection argument had merit and remanded the case to the Superior Court of San Bernardino County for an evidentiary hearing. The same conclusion was reached for Asher’s case by Division Three of the Fourth Appellate District. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing and found that the People had not satisfied their burden to justify the disparate treatment of SVPs and NGIs. Consequently, the court concluded that equal protection principles were violated by requiring Field and Asher to testify during their commitment trials and ordered new commitment trials for both.The People appealed the new trial orders, arguing that the trial court erred in finding that the disparate treatment of SVPs was not justified. The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court’s orders. The appellate court held that the People had not demonstrated that the testimony of SVPs was more necessary than that of NGIs to justify the disparate treatment under the strict scrutiny standard. The court emphasized that there were sufficient records and other means to evaluate SVPs without compelling their testimony, and thus, the orders for new trials were affirmed. View "P. v. Field" on Justia Law

Several contractors and an employee, who regularly handle public works projects for PennDOT and SEPTA, challenged Philadelphia's requirement for project labor agreements (PLAs) on public projects. These PLAs mandated union recognition and membership, and set workforce diversity goals. The plaintiffs argued that these requirements violated their First Amendment rights and the Equal Protection Clause, as well as 42 U.S.C. § 1981. They were ineligible to bid on certain city projects due to their existing collective bargaining agreements with the United Steelworkers, which is not affiliated with the required unions.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment to Philadelphia. The court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the union-eligibility requirement and failed to show that the diversity requirement caused them harm based on race. The court also concluded that the plaintiffs' § 1981 claim failed because race was not a but-for cause of their inability to work on city projects with PLAs.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and found that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the union-eligibility requirement under the First Amendment. The court determined that the plaintiffs suffered a concrete and particularized injury by being ineligible to bid on city projects due to the PLAs. The court also found that the plaintiffs' claims were not moot despite Philadelphia's subsequent changes to the PLAs, as the plaintiffs sought damages for past violations and prospective relief.The Third Circuit also found that the plaintiffs had standing to raise an Equal Protection claim, as they demonstrated an intent to bid on future projects covered by the PLAs. The court vacated the District Court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to consider the merits of the plaintiffs' First Amendment, Equal Protection Clause, and § 1981 claims. View "Road-Con Inc v. City of Philadelphia" on Justia Law

Three practicing Muslim men alleged that federal agents asked them to serve as informants in Muslim communities. When they refused, the agents placed or retained them on the "No Fly List" and suggested they could be removed from the list if they agreed to work as informants. The plaintiffs sought damages under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), claiming that their religious beliefs precluded them from serving as informants and that the agents substantially burdened their exercise of religion by conditioning their removal from the No Fly List on actions that violated those beliefs.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the complaint on qualified immunity grounds, concluding that the agents were entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established right not to be pressured to inform on members of one's religious community through the coercive or retaliatory use of the No Fly List.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that the agents were entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable person in their position would not have understood that their conduct implicated the plaintiffs' religious beliefs. The court noted that the plaintiffs did not disclose their religious objections to the agents, and there were no facts plausibly supporting the conclusion that the agents knew the plaintiffs' objections were grounded in their religious beliefs. Therefore, the agents were entitled to qualified immunity from damages in their personal capacities. View "Tanvir v. Tanzin" 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