Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Tuscaloosa City Council passed an ordinance limiting the maximum occupancy of certain restaurants, affecting a sports bar owned by CMB Holdings Group. The ordinance required establishments with restaurant liquor licenses to maintain occupancy limits based on their configuration as restaurants, not as bars or entertainment venues. This change reduced the sports bar's maximum occupancy from 519 to 287, negatively impacting its revenue. CMB Holdings Group sued the City of Tuscaloosa, the mayor, city council members, and the fire marshal, alleging racial discrimination and other claims.The Tuscaloosa Circuit Court dismissed most of CMB's claims, including those for money damages against the City and personal-capacity claims against the mayor and councilors due to legislative immunity. The court also dismissed claims for procedural and substantive due process, equal protection, and others, leaving only claims for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Alabama Constitution's Contracts Clause. CMB requested the court to alter or amend its judgment or certify it as final for appeal purposes. The court denied the request to alter or amend but granted the Rule 54(b) certification, allowing CMB to appeal the dismissed claims.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case and determined that the Rule 54(b) certification was improper. The court found that the adjudicated and unadjudicated claims were closely intertwined, particularly regarding whether the ordinance affected vested rights or mere privileges and whether it served a legitimate public interest. The court concluded that separate adjudication could lead to inconsistent results and dismissed the appeal for lack of a final judgment. View "CMB Holdings Groupv. City of Tuscaloosa" on Justia Law

In 1998, Khyle Armando Briscoe, then 21, participated in a robbery with Shaun P. During the robbery, Briscoe and Shaun P. both had guns. A struggle ensued, resulting in Ben P., the robbery victim, fatally shooting Shaun P. Briscoe was charged with first-degree murder, robbery, and burglary, with firearm-use enhancements and a special circumstance of murder during a robbery and burglary. A jury convicted Briscoe on all counts, and he was sentenced to life without parole.Briscoe filed a motion in 2022 for a parole hearing under Penal Code section 3051, which allows certain youth offenders to seek parole but excludes those sentenced to life without parole for special circumstance murder. He argued that this exclusion violated equal protection under the California and U.S. Constitutions. The trial court denied his motion, adhering to the majority view that section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Briscoe appealed.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court noted that section 3051’s exclusion of youth offenders sentenced to life without parole for special circumstance murder was previously upheld in People v. Hardin. However, Briscoe raised a narrower challenge, arguing that excluding youth offenders sentenced under section 190.2, subdivision (d) for special circumstance murder, while including those convicted of first-degree felony murder under section 189, subdivision (e)(3), violated equal protection. The court agreed, finding no rational basis for treating these equally culpable offenders differently.The court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded the case for a Franklin proceeding and a section 3051 parole hearing, holding that section 3051’s exclusion of youth offenders sentenced under section 190.2, subdivision (d) for murder during a robbery or burglary violated equal protection. View "People v. Briscoe" on Justia Law

Eric Poemoceah, an Oklahoma resident and member of the Comanche Nation, participated in a protest against the Dakota Access Pipeline at the Standing Rock Reservation in North Dakota. On February 22, 2017, while attempting to negotiate with law enforcement officers for the peaceful exit of elders from the protest site, Poemoceah was tackled and arrested by officers, including Benjamin Swenson. He sustained injuries, including a pelvic fracture, and was charged with obstruction of a government function, a charge that was later dismissed.The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota dismissed Poemoceah’s complaint with prejudice, granting the defendants' motions to dismiss. The court found that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the First and Fourth Amendment claims and dismissed the remaining claims as inadequately pled. Poemoceah’s request for leave to amend his complaint was also denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Poemoceah plausibly alleged a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim against Swenson, as the facts suggested that Swenson's use of force was not objectively reasonable. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Poemoceah’s deliberate indifference to medical needs claim, First Amendment retaliation claim, supervisory liability claims, Monell claim against Morton County, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim under North Dakota law. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Poemoceah’s motion to amend his complaint. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings on the Fourth Amendment claim against Swenson. View "Poemoceah v. Morton County" on Justia Law

Joseph Segrain, an inmate at Rhode Island's Adult Correctional Institutions, filed a civil lawsuit against the Rhode Island Department of Corrections and several correctional officers, alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment rights and various state laws. Segrain claimed that on June 28, 2018, officers used excessive force by executing a leg-sweep maneuver, spraying him with pepper spray, and delaying his decontamination. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the officers on all claims, leading Segrain to appeal.The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island initially reviewed the case. The court found that no reasonable jury could conclude that the officers' conduct constituted an Eighth Amendment violation. It granted summary judgment on the basis that the force used was minimal and necessary to maintain order. The court also dismissed the state law claims, concluding that the officers' actions did not meet the legal standards for battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or excessive force under Rhode Island law.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court's judgment regarding the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim that Officer Walter Duffy's use of pepper spray violated Segrain's Eighth Amendment rights. It found that a reasonable jury could conclude that Duffy's use of pepper spray was excessive and not in good faith. The court vacated the district court's judgment on the Rhode Island Constitution Article I, Section 8 claim regarding Duffy's use of pepper spray and remanded for further proceedings. However, the court affirmed the district court's judgment on all other claims, including the leg-sweep maneuver and the delayed decontamination, granting qualified immunity to the officers on those issues. View "Segrain v. Duffy" on Justia Law

In this case, the petitioner, a state prisoner, challenged the dismissal of his federal habeas petition, which alleged violations of his constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The petitioner, along with two accomplices, planned and executed a robbery that resulted in the murder of a pizza delivery driver. The petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder, armed robbery, and breaking and entering, and was sentenced to life in prison without parole.The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) affirmed the petitioner's conviction, rejecting his claims of insufficient evidence, improper admission of redacted statements from a co-defendant, and errors in jury instructions. The SJC found that the evidence was sufficient to support the petitioner's conviction under theories of felony-murder and extreme atrocity or cruelty. It also held that the redacted statements did not violate the petitioner's Confrontation Clause rights and that the trial court's jury instructions were appropriate.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court's denial of the habeas petition de novo. The court applied the standards set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), which requires deference to state court decisions unless they are contrary to or involve an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, or are based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.The First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the SJC's rulings were not unreasonable. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the petitioner's conviction, the redacted statements did not violate the Confrontation Clause, and the jury instructions were proper. The court also concluded that any errors in the trial court's rulings were harmless and did not prejudice the petitioner. View "St. Jean v. Marchilli" on Justia Law

The case involves Robert Holman, who challenged a debt-relief program under the American Rescue Plan Act that provided benefits to "socially disadvantaged" farmers and ranchers based on racial categories. Holman, a farmer, argued that he was excluded from the program solely due to his race and sought a preliminary injunction to halt the program. The district court granted the preliminary injunction, finding that the program did not meet the strict scrutiny standard required for racial classifications under the Fifth Amendment. However, before a final judgment was reached, Congress repealed the program, leading Holman to seek attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).The United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee denied Holman's request for fees, ruling that he was not a "prevailing party" under the EAJA because the preliminary injunction did not provide him with lasting relief. The court also noted that the injunction was temporary and revocable, and thus did not materially alter the legal relationship between the parties.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court did not definitively rule on whether Holman was a "prevailing party" but found that the Government's position during the litigation was "substantially justified" under the EAJA. The court noted that the Government had presented substantial evidence to defend the program's constitutionality, including historical discrimination against minority farmers by the USDA. The court concluded that a reasonable person could find the Government's position justified, thereby precluding Holman's entitlement to attorney's fees and expenses. View "Holman v. Vilsack" on Justia Law

Roy Lee Williams, a death-row inmate with a history of mental illness, was held in solitary confinement for twenty-six years. Williams filed a lawsuit claiming that his prolonged solitary confinement without penological justification violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, ruling that the former Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) was entitled to qualified immunity on the Eighth Amendment claim and that Williams could not prove deliberate indifference under the ADA.Before the summary judgment, the District Court dismissed Williams' Fourteenth Amendment claim for failure to state a claim. Williams appealed both the summary judgment and the dismissal of his Fourteenth Amendment claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that the Secretary had "fair and clear warning" that keeping Williams in solitary confinement without penological justification was unconstitutional, thus rejecting the qualified immunity defense. The court held that it was clearly established that someone with a known preexisting serious mental illness has a constitutional right not to be held in prolonged solitary confinement without penological justification.Regarding the ADA claim, the court found that the District Court erred in concluding that a trier of fact could not find the DOC deliberately indifferent to the risk of harm caused by placing and keeping Williams in solitary confinement despite his mental illness. The court vacated the District Court's grant of summary judgment on both the Eighth Amendment and ADA claims and remanded for further proceedings. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Williams' Fourteenth Amendment claim. View "Williams v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Transgender residents of Alabama sought to change the sex designation on their driver’s licenses without undergoing sex-change surgery, as required by Alabama’s Policy Order 63. This policy mandates that individuals wishing to change the sex on their driver’s license must submit either an amended birth certificate or a letter from the physician who performed the reassignment surgery. Plaintiffs argued that this policy violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring Policy Order 63 unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. The district court found that the policy classified individuals by sex and applied intermediate scrutiny, concluding that Alabama had not provided an adequate justification for the policy.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that Policy Order 63 does not impose a sex-based classification and therefore does not trigger heightened scrutiny. Instead, the policy was subject to rational basis review, which it survived. The court found that the policy rationally advances Alabama’s legitimate interest in maintaining consistent requirements for amending sex designations on state documents.The appellate court also rejected the plaintiffs’ due process and First Amendment claims. It held that the policy does not violate the right to informational privacy or the right to refuse medical treatment, as it does not force individuals to undergo surgery to obtain a driver’s license. Additionally, the court determined that the policy does not compel speech, as the information on driver’s licenses constitutes government speech, not private speech. Thus, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and upheld the constitutionality of Policy Order 63. View "Corbitt v. Secretary of the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency" on Justia Law

In this case, three plaintiffs—Christian Healthcare Centers, Sacred Heart of Jesus Parish, and St. Joseph Parish St. Johns—challenged aspects of Michigan’s antidiscrimination laws, alleging that these laws violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The plaintiffs argued that the laws chilled their speech and conduct, particularly regarding their religious beliefs and practices related to gender identity and sexual orientation.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan dismissed each case for lack of standing. The court reasoned that none of the plaintiffs had shown that Michigan’s laws arguably proscribed their speech or conduct, nor had they demonstrated a credible threat of enforcement against them. Consequently, the district court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decisions. The appellate court agreed in part, finding that Michigan’s laws arguably forbade several of the plaintiffs’ pleaded activities. The court concluded that Christian Healthcare and Sacred Heart had plausibly established a credible threat of enforcement against them for some of the challenged provisions of Michigan’s laws. However, the court found that St. Joseph Parish had not plausibly established standing, as it failed to show a credible threat of enforcement.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the claims related to the Equal Accommodations Act (EAA) but reversed the dismissal of the claims related to the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA) for Christian Healthcare and Sacred Heart. The court remanded the cases to the district court to evaluate the plaintiffs’ requests for injunctive relief. The district court’s decisions were thus affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Christian Healthcare Centers v. Nessel" on Justia Law

The appellants, Meredith O'Neil, Jessica Svedine, Deanna Corby, and Roberto Silva, sued various officials from the Canton Police Department and the Town of Canton, Massachusetts, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the enforcement of Massachusetts witness intimidation statutes, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 268 §§ 13A and 13B. They claimed that these statutes violated their First Amendment rights, fearing prosecution for their actions during a November 5, 2023 protest and alleging that their speech would be chilled for a planned protest on November 12, 2023. The appellants moved for emergency relief to enjoin the enforcement of these statutes.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied the emergency motion on November 10, 2023. The court assumed the plaintiffs had standing but found they did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of their claims. The court held that the statutes served compelling interests in protecting the administration of justice and were narrowly tailored. The court also found that the plaintiffs had not shown they faced a risk of irreparable harm, noting that the plaintiffs had other public forums to express their views. The balance of harms and public interest considerations also weighed against granting the injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and dismissed the appeal as moot. The court noted that the state court had dismissed the charges against the appellants for lack of probable cause, and no ongoing conduct remained for the court to enjoin. The court also found that the appellants' general allegations of future protests did not show a credible threat of prosecution, failing to establish standing for their pre-enforcement challenges. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings as appropriate. View "O'Neil v. Canton Police Department" on Justia Law