Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court held that certain statements made on air by a radio talk show host about a political figure could not serve as a basis for a defamation action given each statement's content, the overall context, and the protections afforded to core political speech by the First Amendment.Respondent Daniel McCarthy, a "Republican political hopeful," sued James Harris, a radio host on a local station owned by iHeartMedia, Inc. (collectively, Petitioners), alleging that statements made by Harris on his radio show were defamatory. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the statements were rhetorical hyperbole incapable of being proved false and thus protected by the First Amendment. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that none of the statements at issue were actionable because none of them could be reasonably interpreted as asserting or implying false statements of fact that defamed McCarthy. View "Harris v. Honorable Warner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of two counts of possessing firearms by a felon and one count of possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute but reversed his conviction of one count of driving with a suspended license, holding that the evidence did not support the suspended license conviction.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err in finding that Defendant's statements during an interrogation were voluntary and admissible at trial; (2) the district court's failure to obtain a jury trial waiver before an elemental stipulation was not structural, and the error did not affect the trial's outcome; (3) the lower courts did not err in holding that trial counsel was not ineffective in pursuing a guilt-based defense; (4) there was no clear error in the jury instructions; and (5) the State failed to present evidence of a necessary element of the crime of driving while Defendant's license was suspended. View "State v. Bentley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence on one count of assault in the second degree and one count of negligent child abuse, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on her claims of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were unavailing; (2) Defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his argument that the trial court erred by excepting from its sequestration order an eyewitness to the crimes who was the wife of one victim and mother of the other; (3) the trial court did not err by refusing to give a self-defense instruction; and (4) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Defendant was not a suitable candidate for probation. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

This appeal concerns whether several organizations may sue the governor and attorney general of Florida in federal court to challenge a state law that requires local law enforcement to cooperate with federal immigration officials. The state law provides that local officials shall support the enforcement of federal immigration law and cooperate with federal immigration initiatives and officials and that local officials may transport aliens subject to an immigration detainer to federal custody. Several plaintiff organizations sued the Florida governor and the Florida attorney general to enjoin enforcement of the law. The organizations alleged that the provisions about support and cooperation were adopted with the intent to discriminate based on race and national origin in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. And they maintained that the transport provision is preempted by federal law. After a bench trial, the district court permanently enjoined the governor and attorney general from enforcing compliance with these provisions.The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remand with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that this controversy is not justiciable because the organizations lack standing. The organizations have not established a cognizable injury and cannot spend their way into standing without an impending threat that the provisions will cause actual harm. Moreover, the organizations’ alleged injury is neither traceable to the governor or attorney general nor redressable by a judgment against them because they do not enforce the challenged provisions. Instead, local officials, based on state law, must comply with federal immigration law. View "City of South Miami, et al v. Governor of the State of Florida, et al" on Justia Law

Williams was a key facilitator in a years-long cocaine trafficking scheme. In 2001, he was convicted of federal drug and conspiracy charges, 18 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 846 and given life sentences. Williams appealed the denial of his 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for a reduced sentence, arguing that the district court erred in holding that it was not permitted to consider whether Williams’s unconstitutionally imposed mandatory life sentence contributed to “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for the reduction of his sentence.The Seventh Circuit affirmed, declining to reconsider its 2021 "Thacker" decision, stating it would make no difference to Williams’s case. The district court held in the alternative that even if Williams was eligible for a reduction in his sentence, this relief was not warranted in light of 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)'s factors. The court acknowledged different approaches among the circuits regarding the bounds of court discretion to find extraordinary and compelling reasons for early release— specifically, whether the two-step process employed by the Seventh Circuit is correct or if a more holistic approach is called for. The court noted that the U.S. Sentencing Commission is in the process of studying the issue, and recently has proposed defining “extraordinary and compelling reasons” to include circumstances in which “[t]he defendant is serving a sentence that is inequitable in light of changes in the law.” View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree murder and sentence of death, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on any of his claims of error.Defendant pleaded guilty to first degree murder. After a penalty-phase trial, the court concluded that the aggravating circumstances far outweighed the mitigating circumstances, warranting a sentence of death. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant Defendant's motion to continue; (2) the trial court did not err in rejecting two statutory mitigating circumstances; (3) Defendant failed to establish a constitutional defect with Florida's death-penalty statute; (4) Defendant's guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily given; and (5) Defendant's remaining arguments were without merit. View "Wells v. State" on Justia Law

Louisiana passed the Truth in Labeling of Food Products Act (the “Act”) to “protect consumers from misleading and false labeling of food products that are edible by humans.” The Act bars, among other things, the intentional “misbranding or misrepresenting of any food product as an agricultural product” through several different labeling practices. Turtle Island Foods, S.P.C. (d/b/a Tofurky), markets and sells its products in Louisiana. Tofurky believes it operates under a constant threat of enforcement. Tofurky sued Louisiana’s Commissioner of Agriculture and Forestry, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the district court sided with Tofurky. It held that Tofurky had standing to challenge the Act and that the statute was an unconstitutional restriction on Tofurky’s right to free speech. The State appealed.   The Fifth Circuit reversed. The court explained that nothing in the statute’s language requires the State to enforce its punitive provisions on a company that sells its products in a way that just so happens to confuse a consumer. The State’s construction limits the Act’s scope to representations by companies that actually intend consumers to be misled about whether a product is an “agricultural product” when it is not. This interpretation is not contradictory to the Act, and the court thus accepted it for the present purposes of evaluating Tofurky’s facial challenge. The district court erred in ignoring the State’s limiting construction and in implementing its own interpretation of the Act. View "Turtle Island Foods v. Strain" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former pretrial detainee in the custody of the Ozark County Sheriff’s Department, filed an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 claiming that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs by denying him prescription medication. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated that Defendants were subjectively aware of but disregarded a serious medical need. The facts construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff show that the “defendants, who are not medical personnel, substituted their controlled substance ‘policy’ and their schedule for administering or failing to administer medication for that of a treating physician.” Further, Defendants failed to administer or misadministered the medication to Plaintiff despite knowing a doctor prescribed them and despite Plaintiff’s repeated requests for his medication. Construing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, his “right to adequate treatment was clearly established, and the district court properly denied Defendants qualified immunity. View "Tracy Presson v. Darrin Reed" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court’s judgment dismissing all claims against Defendants-Newburgh Enlarged City School District, Superintendent, and Assistant Superintendent. Plaintiff, an African American woman of West Indian descent who served as principal of South Middle School, asserts claims of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.   The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the Title VII claim to the extent the claim is based on alleged adverse employment actions in May 2019 and vacated the district court’s judgment to the extent it dismissed the Section 1983 claim and the remainder of the Title VII claim. The court remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings, including a determination as to whether Plaintiff should be provided with an extension of time to effectuate proper service as to the Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent. The court explained that taking the allegations in the FAC as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, the FAC meets that pleading standard with respect to the denial of the position for RISE administrator, the denial of her application to administer the summer-school program, and the termination of her position as SMS principal. Accordingly, the court explained that Plaintiff has stated plausible discrimination claims under Title VII and Section 1983, and the district court erred in dismissing them. Therefore, Plaintiff may proceed with her Section 1983 claim as to all three alleged adverse employment actions and with her Title VII claim against the School District. View "Buon v. Spindler, et al." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's challenge to his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255, holding that Appellant did not meet his burden of showing that his counsel's performance during the underlying criminal trial was deficient.Appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy to distribute a substance containing cocaine base and one count of malicious damage or destruction of property by fire. At sentencing, the trial court determined that Appellant was a career offender in part because his prior Maine state court conviction for unlawful trafficking in scheduled drugs qualified as a "controlled substance offense" under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. In this collateral challenge to his sentence, Appellant argued that he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel during his sentencing hearing based on his counsel's failure to object to the use of the Maine drug conviction as a predicate offense for the career offender enhancement. The First Circuit denied relief, holding that Appellant's ineffective assistance claim failed. View "Thompson v. United States" on Justia Law