Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Brian Houston, representing a putative class, filed a lawsuit against Maricopa County and Sheriff Paul Penzone, alleging that the County's practice of posting arrestees' photographs and identifying information on its Mugshot Lookup website violated his substantive and procedural due process rights and his right to a speedy public trial. Houston's mugshot and personal details were posted online for three days following his arrest, even though he was never prosecuted. He claimed this caused him public humiliation, reputational harm, and emotional distress.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed Houston's claims. The court found that the Mugshot Lookup post was not a condition of pretrial detention and that Houston failed to show a cognizable liberty or property interest under state law for his procedural due process claim. The court also dismissed his Sixth Amendment claim, noting that Houston was not prosecuted and thus had no trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court's dismissal of Houston's substantive due process claim, holding that Houston sufficiently alleged that the Mugshot Lookup post caused him actionable harm and that the County's transparency justification did not rationally relate to the punitive nature of the post. The court affirmed the dismissal of Houston's procedural due process claim, as he did not demonstrate a protected liberty or property interest under state law. The court also affirmed the dismissal of his Sixth Amendment claim, as Houston was not prosecuted and thus had no right to a speedy trial.The Ninth Circuit concluded that Houston adequately pleaded a substantive due process claim but failed to state claims for procedural due process and Sixth Amendment violations. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "HOUSTON V. MARICOPA COUNTY" on Justia Law

In the wake of George Floyd's death in May 2020, Los Angeles experienced widespread protests. The plaintiffs, including Black Lives Matter Los Angeles and several individuals, filed a class action lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles and then-LAPD Chief Michel Moore. They alleged that the LAPD used excessive force, arrested protestors without probable cause, and restricted their First Amendment rights. The lawsuit sought to certify four classes: a Direct Force Class, an Arrest Class, an Infraction Class, and an Injunctive Relief Class.The United States District Court for the Central District of California certified all four classes. The court found that the plaintiffs had raised common questions about whether LAPD customs or policies caused their injuries. However, the district court did not rigorously analyze whether the damages classes satisfied the commonality requirement under Rule 23(a) or whether common questions predominated over individual ones under Rule 23(b)(3). The court also failed to address whether the Injunctive Relief Class met the commonality requirement under Rule 23(a).The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s class certification order. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not rigorously analyze whether the plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence to meet the class certification requirements. Specifically, the district court did not adequately address the commonality and predominance requirements for the damages classes or identify common questions for the Injunctive Relief Class. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case with instructions for the district court to fully address Rule 23’s class certification requirements. View "BLACK LIVES MATTER LOS ANGELES V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES" on Justia Law

In the summer of 2020, Derrick Sanderlin attended a protest in San Jose, California, where he was struck in the groin by a 40mm foam baton round fired by Officer Michael Panighetti. Sanderlin alleged that Panighetti's use of force was retaliatory and excessive, violating his First and Fourth Amendment rights. Sanderlin claimed he was peacefully protesting and did not hear any warnings before being shot. Panighetti argued that Sanderlin was obstructing officers from targeting other individuals who posed a threat.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Panighetti's motion for summary judgment, concluding that genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding whether Panighetti's actions were retaliatory and whether the force used was excessive. The court found that a jury could determine that Sanderlin was engaged in protected First Amendment activity and that Panighetti's actions were motivated by retaliatory animus. Additionally, the court held that a reasonable jury could find that Sanderlin was seized under the Fourth Amendment and that the force used was unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to Panighetti. The Ninth Circuit held that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Sanderlin, genuine disputes of material fact existed as to whether Panighetti's use of force was retaliatory and excessive. The court concluded that it was clearly established that police officers may not use their authority to retaliate against individuals for protected speech and that the use of a 40mm foam baton round against a non-threatening individual constituted excessive force. The court also determined that subsequent legal developments did not alter the clearly established law at the time of the incident. View "SANDERLIN V. DWYER" on Justia Law

Jaden Brown, a pregnant inmate at Cumberland County Jail, was transported to Maine Medical Center for childbirth. During her hospital stay, correction officers Daniel Haskell and Sam Dickey were present in her room. Brown alleged that Haskell and Dickey observed her naked body during medical procedures and the delivery of her baby, which she claimed violated her Fourth Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the District of Maine denied Haskell and Dickey's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The court found that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the officers' observations of Brown's naked body were more than inadvertent, occasional, casual, or restricted. The court also ruled that such observations, if they occurred, would constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court dismissed the appeal in part, stating it lacked jurisdiction to consider the officers' argument that they did not observe Brown's naked body, as this was a factual dispute. The court affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment, holding that if the officers did observe Brown's naked body, it would constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. The court emphasized that a search does not require deliberate intent to inspect a naked body and that such observations could violate clearly established law. View "Brown v. Dickey" on Justia Law

James Conn murdered Savannah Puckett, and his parents, Mollie and Michael Slaybaugh, suffered property damage when police arrested Conn at their home. The Slaybaughs filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking compensation for the damage under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and its Tennessee Constitution counterpart.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee dismissed the Slaybaughs' claims. The court ruled that the police actions did not constitute a taking for public use under the Fifth Amendment because the damage occurred while enforcing criminal laws. The court also dismissed the state-law claim, stating that the Tennessee Constitution offers protections co-extensive with the Fifth Amendment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Slaybaughs did not state a valid takings claim because the police actions were privileged under the search-and-arrest privilege. This privilege allows law enforcement to use reasonable force to enter property and make an arrest without being liable for resulting property damage, provided the actions are lawful and reasonable. The court found no evidence suggesting the police acted unlawfully or unreasonably. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of both the federal and state constitutional claims. View "Slaybaugh v. Rutherford County" on Justia Law

A group of LGBTQ+ students sued the U.S. Department of Education, alleging that they experienced discrimination at religious colleges and universities that receive federal funding. They challenged the religious exemption to Title IX, which allows religious institutions to discriminate based on gender if it conflicts with their religious tenets. The plaintiffs claimed this exemption violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause and the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantee. They also argued that the Department's 2020 amendment to Title IX regulations, which clarified that institutions do not need to submit a written statement to claim the exemption, was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).The United States District Court for the District of Oregon dismissed the plaintiffs' claims. It ruled that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim that the religious exemption violated the First and Fifth Amendments. The court also found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the 2020 amendment under the APA. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint, concluding that any amendment would be futile.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that the Title IX religious exemption does not violate the Establishment Clause under the historical practices and understanding test set forth in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. The court found that the exemption is consistent with a long history of religious accommodations in U.S. law. The court also held that the exemption does not violate the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantee, as it is substantially related to the important governmental objective of accommodating religious exercise. Finally, the court agreed that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the 2020 amendment, as they did not show that the rule caused them harm. The court also upheld the denial of leave to amend the complaint. View "HUNTER V. USEDU" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Jane Doe, challenged the Manchester School District's policy regarding transgender and gender non-conforming students. The policy allowed students to keep their transgender status private and required school personnel to use a student's preferred name and pronouns, without disclosing this information to parents unless legally required or authorized by the student. Jane Doe, the parent of a minor child (M.C.) in the district, discovered that M.C. had asked to be called by a different name and pronouns. She requested the school to use M.C.'s birth name and pronouns, but the school adhered to the district policy.The Superior Court dismissed Jane Doe's claims, finding that the policy did not infringe upon a fundamental right and thus did not warrant strict scrutiny. The court applied the rational basis test and concluded that the policy was constitutional. The court also found that the policy was not ultra vires and did not violate federal laws such as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) or the Protection of Pupil Rights Act (PPRA).The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the policy did not directly interfere with the fundamental right to parent, as it did not prevent parents from obtaining information from other sources or restrict their ability to parent their child. The court agreed that the policy did not infringe on a fundamental right and thus was subject to rational basis review, which it survived. The court did not find it necessary to address the plaintiff's facial and as-applied challenges separately, as the policy was found to be constitutional under the rational basis test. View "Doe v. Manchester School District" on Justia Law

In 1987, Michael Hill was convicted of two murders and sentenced to death. Hill maintained that the murders were committed by Michael McCray, whose statements to the police incriminated both himself and Hill. McCray did not testify at trial, invoking his privilege against self-incrimination, but his statements were admitted under the hearsay rule. Decades later, Hill discovered that the prosecution had failed to disclose a promise not to prosecute McCray for his involvement in the case. Hill filed a habeas corpus petition alleging violations of Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois.The trial court dismissed Hill’s claims, finding he failed to establish a prima facie case. The court concluded that the evidence against Hill was overwhelming and that the failure to disclose the non-prosecution agreement did not undermine confidence in the verdict. The court also found that Hill did not plead that false evidence was presented to the jury, as required under Napue.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court found that Hill established a prima facie case for both Brady and Napue violations. The court noted that McCray’s testimony at the preliminary hearing was misleading and that the prosecution’s suppression of the non-prosecution agreement allowed McCray to assert his privilege against self-incrimination, leading to the admission of his statements without cross-examination. The court concluded that the suppressed evidence was material and could have affected the jury’s verdict. The court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings, directing the trial court to issue an order to show cause. View "In re Hill" on Justia Law

Judith Maureen Henry was mistakenly arrested on a warrant intended for another woman with the same name who had skipped parole in Pennsylvania. The warrant included Henry's home address and driver’s license photo. Henry was detained for over two weeks, despite her repeated claims of innocence and requests for fingerprint comparison. She was eventually released after Pennsylvania officials confirmed her fingerprints did not match those of the actual parole violator.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey reviewed the case and denied a motion to dismiss filed by six deputy United States Marshals. The Marshals argued for qualified immunity, claimed that Henry could not pursue her claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, and contended that her complaint failed to state a claim. The District Court rejected these arguments, citing a need for further factual development.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the District Court’s decision. The Third Circuit held that Henry’s claims presented a new context under Bivens, as her arrest was based on a valid warrant and her mistaken-identity arrest was constitutionally valid. The court found that the Marshals’ actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment and that Henry’s other claims, including those for failure to investigate her innocence and failure to present her to a magistrate, also presented a new context. The court concluded that separation of powers concerns precluded extending Bivens to this new context. Additionally, Henry’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act were dismissed, as she failed to provide sufficient factual allegations of discriminatory animus and the Westfall Act barred her NJCRA claim. The Third Circuit remanded the case for dismissal of Henry’s claims against the Marshals. View "Henry v. Essex County" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to the Hawai‘i Court Records Rules, which mandate that all medical and health records filed in any court proceeding be filed under seal without further judicial order. The plaintiff, Civil Beat Law Center for the Public Interest, argued that this rule is unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment, which grants the public a presumptive right to access court records.The United States District Court for the District of Hawai‘i granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the Chief Court Administrators of the Hawai‘i state courts. The district court held that the public does not have a presumptive First Amendment right to access medical and health records, and even if such a right existed, requiring case-by-case litigation to unseal these records did not violate the First Amendment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s judgment. The Ninth Circuit held that the First Amendment grants the public a presumptive right to access a substantial portion of the records sealed under Hawai‘i’s mandatory sealing provision. The court found that the state’s interest in protecting individual privacy rights does not justify the categorical sealing of all medical and health records without any case-by-case consideration. The court concluded that the mandatory sealing rule is not the least restrictive means of protecting privacy interests and that case-by-case judicial review would better balance privacy concerns with the public’s right to access.The Ninth Circuit held that the Hawai‘i Court Records Rules are unconstitutionally overbroad because they encroach on the public’s right of access to court records. The court reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "CIVIL BEAT LAW CENTER FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST, INC V. MAILE" on Justia Law