Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The case involves the National Rifle Association (NRA) and Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS). The NRA alleged that Vullo violated their First Amendment rights by pressuring regulated entities to disassociate from the NRA and other gun-promotion advocacy groups. The NRA claimed that Vullo threatened enforcement actions against those entities that refused to disassociate, thereby stifling the NRA's pro-gun advocacy.The District Court initially denied Vullo's motion to dismiss the NRA's First Amendment damages claims, holding that the NRA plausibly alleged that Vullo's actions could be interpreted as a veiled threat to regulated industries to disassociate with the NRA or risk DFS enforcement action. However, the Second Circuit reversed this decision, concluding that Vullo's alleged actions constituted permissible government speech and legitimate law enforcement, not unconstitutional coercion. The Second Circuit also held that even if the complaint stated a First Amendment violation, the law was not clearly established, and so Vullo was entitled to qualified immunity.The Supreme Court of the United States, however, vacated the judgment of the Second Circuit. The Supreme Court held that the NRA plausibly alleged that Vullo violated the First Amendment by coercing DFS-regulated entities to terminate their business relationships with the NRA in order to punish or suppress the NRA's advocacy. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo" on Justia Law

Sanjay Tripathy, a former inmate in the New York correctional system, filed a lawsuit against state prison officials. He claimed that they forced him to enroll in a sex-offender program that required him to accept responsibility for his crimes, which he argued violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and the First Amendment. He also claimed that he was assigned to a more intensive tier of the program in violation of his due process rights, and that he was retaliated against after he challenged the program by filing grievances and this lawsuit.The United States District Court for the Western District of New York dismissed Tripathy's claims. The court ruled that his claim for damages under RLUIPA was barred by precedent that the statute does not permit individual-capacity damages. The court also found that his demands for injunctive and declaratory relief became moot when his state convictions were vacated and he was released from prison. Regarding his constitutional claims, the court concluded that Tripathy’s free exercise claim under the First Amendment was barred by qualified immunity, that he lacked standing to seek damages for his due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, and that he failed to state a claim for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that Tripathy's claim for damages under RLUIPA was barred by precedent, that his demands for injunctive and declaratory relief were moot due to his release from prison, and that his constitutional claims were properly dismissed by the district court. View "Tripathy v. McKoy" on Justia Law

The case involves Angel Cartagena, an inmate in the Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC) prison system, who challenged the conditions of his 18-month confinement at the River North Correctional Center. Cartagena alleged that his confinement was too restrictive and caused him emotional distress and severe mental anguish, in violation of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as statutory prohibitions against discrimination. VDOC officials had determined that Cartagena was seriously mentally ill and unable to function in the general prison population, so they assigned him to the VDOC’s Secure Diversionary Treatment Program (SDT Program) at the River North facility. Cartagena refused to comply with the treatment regimen prescribed for him and complained about the consequential restrictions of the Program.The district court granted the prison officials’ motion to dismiss Cartagena’s complaint, concluding that Cartagena had failed to state plausible claims for relief. The court found that Cartagena had not sufficiently alleged a deliberate indifference by prison officials to his condition, the deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty interest, or discrimination because of his disability.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that Cartagena failed to demonstrate the required mens rea for an Eighth Amendment violation, as the prison officials had offered him treatment, which he refused. The court also found that Cartagena failed to adequately allege a cognizable liberty interest in his placement in the SDT Program, and therefore, the Due Process Clause requires no process related to his placement in the Program. Finally, the court concluded that Cartagena failed to plausibly allege that he was “otherwise qualified” for the benefits that he seeks and therefore to state a claim for discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. View "Cartagena v. Lovell" on Justia Law

Cory Sessler, a religious preacher, and his group were preaching loudly at a commercial festival in Davenport, Iowa. The festival was held in a fenced-off area of the city's downtown streets and sidewalks, which were typically considered a "traditional public forum". However, during the festival, pedestrian access was controlled and vendors had rented spaces to sell goods. Sessler and his group, who were not paying vendors, were asked by police officers to relocate outside the fences due to complaints from nearby vendors. Sessler later sued the officers and the city, alleging a violation of his First Amendment rights.The district court denied Sessler's request for a preliminary injunction, a decision which was affirmed by the appellate court. After discovery, the district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that the officers did not violate Sessler's rights and that they were protected by qualified immunity. The court also granted summary judgment to the city on the official-policy claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit agreed that qualified immunity applied to the claims against the officers. The court found that it was unclear whether the fenced-off city streets and sidewalks remained a "traditional public forum" or served as a less-protected "limited public forum" during the festival. The court also found that no reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the officers' actions were anything but content neutral or that such actions were unreasonable. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Sessler v. City of Davenport, Iowa" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of private prisons in Arizona. The plaintiffs, the Arizona State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and two former prisoners, argued that private prisons, driven by profit, compromise safety and security and reduce programming and services. They also claimed that private prisons have a financial incentive to keep prisoners incarcerated longer by manipulating disciplinary proceedings.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed the case, leading to an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The district court held that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that private prisons violate prisoners' procedural due process rights, the Thirteenth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the NAACP had standing to bring the suit. However, it held that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that private prisons violate prisoners' procedural due process rights. The court also found that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit incarceration in a private prison, and that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that confinement in a private prison violates the Eighth Amendment. Finally, the court held that the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses do not prohibit incarceration in a private prison. View "NIELSEN V. THORNELL" on Justia Law

The case involves the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany and other entities, who provide medical insurance plans to their employees. They challenged a regulation by the Department of Financial Services, which requires New York employer health insurance policies that provide hospital, surgical, or medical expense coverage to include coverage for medically necessary abortion services. The plaintiffs argued that the exemption for "religious employers" was too narrow, violating the First Amendment rights of certain types of religiously affiliated employers who do not meet the terms of the exemption.The case began in 2016, raising a federal Free Exercise Claim that was similar to a previous case, Catholic Charities of Diocese of Albany v Serio. The lower courts dismissed the plaintiffs' complaints based on the principle of stare decisis, and the Appellate Division affirmed on the same ground. The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which remanded the case to the Appellate Division to reconsider in light of a recent decision, Fulton v Philadelphia.On remand, the Appellate Division held that Serio was still good law and affirmed its previous decision that neither the medically necessary abortion regulation nor the "religious employer" exemption as defined violated the Free Exercise Clause. The Court of Appeals agreed, stating that under Fulton, both the regulation itself and the criteria delineating a "religious employer" for the purposes of the exemption are generally applicable and do not violate the Free Exercise Clause. The court concluded that the "religious employer" exemption survives the general applicability tests delineated in Fulton, and therefore, the Appellate Division order should be affirmed. View "Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v Vullo" on Justia Law

This case involves a mistaken identification by two sheriff's office investigators, Joseph Bultman and Jon Hixon, who identified George Angel Harris as the individual captured on security camera footage using a stolen debit card. Based on this identification, Hixon obtained two arrest warrants for Harris for financial transaction card fraud. Harris was arrested and held in jail for a few hours before being released. The criminal case against him was eventually dismissed.Previously, Harris filed a lawsuit against the investigators under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging they violated his Fourth Amendment rights by causing him to be falsely arrested and unlawfully detained without probable cause. The district court construed Harris' claims as ones for malicious prosecution and granted summary judgment in favor of the investigators on qualified immunity grounds.In the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Harris argued that the investigation leading to his arrest was inadequate, that the district court erred in excluding his expert's testimony about the unreasonableness of the investigation, and that Hixon's arrest affidavit was based on conclusory statements without supporting facts, making the warrants for his arrest constitutionally inadequate.The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision. It held that the investigators' mistaken identification of Harris was a reasonable mistake and did not violate Harris' Fourth Amendment rights. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Harris' expert's testimony, as it would not have been helpful to a jury. Finally, the court held that even if the arrest warrant application was insufficient, the investigators had probable cause to arrest Harris based on their own knowledge and the brief period of Harris' detention. View "Harris v. Hixon" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Quasim Hastings, a prisoner convicted of second-degree murder in 2004 and eligible for parole consideration. Hastings, diagnosed with a mental disability, is entitled to a parole hearing that provides him with protections under the Massachusetts Constitution and Federal and State statutes prohibiting discrimination based on disability. Prior to a 2023 parole hearing, Hastings' counsel filed a motion for funds to retain a forensic psychologist and a social services advocate to assist with preparing a prerelease plan. While the motion for a forensic psychologist was approved, the request for a social services advocate was denied by a different Superior Court judge, who reasoned that the indigency statute limits his authority to approve funds to pending proceedings or appeals in any court.The judge's denial of the motion for funds was reported to the Appeals Court, and Hastings's application for direct appellate review was granted by the Supreme Judicial Court. The Supreme Judicial Court concluded that Hastings's motion for funds to retain a social services advocate implicates his State constitutional right to reasonable disability accommodations. Therefore, the constitutionally mandated exception to the indigency statute applies, and the order denying Hastings's motion for funds was reversed. The court held that a judge has the discretion to allow a motion for funds to pay for expert assistance as reasonably necessary to safeguard the indigent prisoner's constitutional rights prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability. View "Commonwealth v. Hastings" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a local ordinance in the Borough of Camp Hill that regulates the display of signs on private property. The ordinance categorizes signs into about twenty different types, each with its own set of restrictions. Two residents, Katherine Pearson and Caroline Machiraju, displayed political signs on their lawns in the lead-up to the 2022 midterm elections. However, they were told to remove their signs as they violated the local sign ordinance. The ordinance categorized their signs as "Temporary Signs" and further classified them as "Personal Expression Signs," which express a non-commercial message. The ordinance limited the number of such signs a resident could display and the time frame within which they could be displayed.The residents complied with the directive but subsequently sued Camp Hill, challenging the provisions of the ordinance under the First Amendment. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted them summary judgment on their facial challenge, ruling that the provisions were content-based and failed strict scrutiny.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision. The Court of Appeals found that the ordinance was content-based as it classified signs based on their content, favoring commercial expression over noncommercial and holiday messages over non-holiday messages. The court held that such content-based restrictions could only stand if they furthered a compelling government interest and were narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The court found that Camp Hill's interests in traffic safety and aesthetics, while legitimate, were not compelling and that the ordinance was not narrowly tailored to serve those interests. The court concluded that the ordinance was unconstitutional on its face. View "Camp Hill Borough Republican Association v. Borough of Camp HIll" on Justia Law

Five registered gun owners in California challenged a state law, Assembly Bill 173 (AB 173), which permits the California Department of Justice (DOJ) to share information from its databases about firearm and ammunition purchasers and concealed carry weapon (CCW) permit holders with accredited research institutions. The plaintiffs argued that the law violated their right to informational privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment, their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, and the federal Privacy Act.The district court dismissed the case, finding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for violation of the right to informational privacy. The court reasoned that the personal information in the DOJ's databases was not highly sensitive or intimate and that the plaintiffs had no reasonable expectation that such information would never be disclosed. The court also found that AB 173 did not restrict conduct protected by the Second Amendment, as it did not impede the plaintiffs' ability to purchase, keep, carry, or use firearms. The court further held that AB 173 was not unconstitutionally retroactive, as it did not attach new legal consequences to past conduct. Finally, the court rejected the plaintiffs' claim that the Privacy Act preempted two California statutes relating to CCW permit applications, as neither statute required the disclosure of social security numbers.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing with its findings and reasoning. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for violation of the right to informational privacy, the Second Amendment, or the Privacy Act. View "JANE DOE V. BONTA" on Justia Law