Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The case involves a challenge to the Parental Consent for Abortion Act of 2013 (Consent Act) in Montana, which requires minors to obtain parental consent or a judicial waiver to have an abortion. The plaintiffs, Planned Parenthood of Montana and Dr. Samuel Dickman, argue that the Act violates the Montana Constitution by infringing on minors' fundamental rights to privacy and equal protection.The First Judicial District Court in Lewis and Clark County initially issued a preliminary injunction against the Consent Act, keeping the Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 2011 (Notice Act) in effect. The District Court later granted summary judgment in favor of Planned Parenthood, ruling that the Consent Act violated the Montana Constitution. The court found that the Act was not narrowly tailored to achieve the State's compelling interests, such as protecting minors from sexual offenses, ensuring informed decision-making, and promoting parental rights. The court did not address the equal protection challenge but noted that the Notice Act, while serving similar ends, was less onerous.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo. The Court held that the Consent Act violates minors' fundamental rights to privacy and equal protection under the Montana Constitution. The Court found that the Act's classification between minors seeking abortions and those carrying pregnancies to term was unjustified. The State failed to demonstrate that the Act was narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests, such as protecting minors from sexual victimization, psychological and physical harm, and immaturity, or promoting parental rights. The Court also found that the judicial waiver provision did not save the Act, as it introduced unnecessary delays and burdens on minors seeking abortions.The Montana Supreme Court concluded that the Consent Act infringes on minors' fundamental rights without adequate justification and does not enhance their protection. Therefore, the Court held that the Consent Act is unconstitutional. View "Planned Parenthood v. State" on Justia Law

Four female hockey players filed a lawsuit against the University of North Dakota, alleging that the university violated Title IX by eliminating the women’s ice hockey program after the 2016-17 season. None of the plaintiffs were enrolled at the university at the time of the program's termination. They sought to represent a class of current, prospective, and future female students and requested a declaratory judgment and an injunction to reinstate the women’s hockey program.The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a "concrete" injury as required for standing under Article III.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court found that two plaintiffs, Calli Forsberg and Maya Tellmann, had standing. Forsberg was recruited to play for the university’s hockey team but chose another school after the program was cut. Tellmann, a two-time state hockey champion, was accepted as a student but had no opportunity to play due to the program's elimination. Both plaintiffs demonstrated a concrete injury by being denied the opportunity to compete for the team of their choice, and they expressed a definite intent to attend the university if the program were reinstated.The court found that the other two plaintiffs, Emily Becker and Morgan Stenseth, did not allege sufficient facts to establish standing. Becker did not provide details about her qualifications or acceptance to the university, and Stenseth did not express an intent to attend the university in the future.The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded the case in part, allowing Forsberg and Tellmann’s claims to proceed, but affirmed the dismissal of Becker and Stenseth’s claims. View "Becker v. North Dakota University System" on Justia Law

Jesse Guardado confessed to the Walton County Sheriff’s Office that he had robbed and murdered Jackie Malone. He pleaded guilty without a plea agreement or counsel, and was later appointed counsel for the penalty phase. A jury recommended the death penalty, and the state trial court sentenced him to death. Guardado filed a habeas corpus petition, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence and for not challenging biased jurors.The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no prejudice from counsel's performance. The court determined that the additional mitigating evidence presented during postconviction proceedings was cumulative of the evidence presented at trial. It also found no actual bias in the jurors that Guardado claimed should have been challenged.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the Florida Supreme Court unreasonably applied Strickland v. Washington by using a stricter "actual bias" standard instead of the reasonable probability standard for prejudice. However, upon de novo review, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that Guardado failed to show a substantial likelihood of a different outcome if the jurors had been challenged or if additional mitigating evidence had been presented. The court affirmed the denial of habeas relief. View "Guardado v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Gilead Community Services, Inc. and Connecticut Fair Housing Center, Inc. sued the Town of Cromwell and several of its officials for discrimination and retaliation under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Gilead had purchased a house in Cromwell to be used as a group home for individuals with mental health disabilities. Following significant opposition from town residents and officials, including discriminatory statements and actions by the town's mayor and manager, Gilead was forced to close the group home. The town's actions included petitioning the Department of Public Health to deny a license for the home, issuing a cease-and-desist letter, and denying a tax exemption application.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut found the Town of Cromwell liable for violating the FHA and ADA, awarding $181,000 in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages. The town appealed, arguing that the district court erred in applying a motivating-factor causation test to FHA claims, in subjecting the municipality to vicarious liability and punitive damages under the FHA, and that the punitive damages were unconstitutionally excessive.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court rejected Cromwell's arguments regarding the causation standard, vicarious liability, and the availability of punitive damages under the FHA. The court held that motivating-factor causation applies to FHA claims, municipalities can be held vicariously liable under the FHA, and the FHA allows for punitive damages against municipalities. However, the court found the $5 million punitive damages award to be unconstitutionally excessive, given the high ratio of punitive to compensatory damages and the disparity with civil penalties for similar conduct.The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in part, vacated the punitive damages award, and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the district court to grant a new trial on punitive damages unless Gilead agrees to a remittitur reducing the punitive damages to $2 million. View "Gilead Community Services, Inc. v. Town of Cromwell" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff, Basel Soukaneh, alleged that during a routine traffic stop, Officer Nicholas Andrzejewski of the Waterbury, Connecticut police department unlawfully handcuffed and detained him in a police vehicle for over half an hour and conducted a warrantless search of his vehicle. Soukaneh had presented a valid firearms permit and disclosed the presence of a firearm in his vehicle. Andrzejewski argued that the presence of the firearm gave him probable cause to detain Soukaneh and search his vehicle.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut partially granted and partially denied Andrzejewski’s motion for summary judgment. The court found that the initial stop was justified based on reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation. However, it denied summary judgment regarding the handcuffing and prolonged detention of Soukaneh, as well as the searches of the vehicle and trunk, concluding that Andrzejewski did not have the requisite probable cause and was not entitled to qualified immunity for these actions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that Andrzejewski violated Soukaneh’s Fourth Amendment rights by detaining him in a manner and for a length of time that constituted a de facto arrest without probable cause. The court also found that the warrantless searches of Soukaneh’s vehicle and trunk were not justified under the automobile exception or as a Terry frisk, as there was no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained contraband or evidence of a crime. Consequently, Andrzejewski was not entitled to qualified immunity for his actions. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s opinion. View "Soukaneh v. Andrzejewski" on Justia Law

Three individuals, Jamarr Smith, Thomas Iroko Ayodele, and Gilbert McThunel, were convicted of robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery. The convictions were based on evidence obtained through a geofence warrant, which collected location data from Google to identify suspects. The robbery involved the theft of $60,706 from a U.S. Postal Service route driver, Sylvester Cobbs, who was attacked with pepper spray and a handgun. Video footage and witness testimony linked the suspects to the crime scene, but no arrests were made immediately. Investigators later used a geofence warrant to gather location data from Google, which led to the identification of the suspects.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi denied the defendants' motion to suppress the evidence obtained through the geofence warrant. The defendants argued that the warrant violated their Fourth Amendment rights due to lack of probable cause and particularity, and that the government did not follow proper legal procedures in obtaining additional information from Google. The district court found that law enforcement acted in good faith and denied the motion to suppress. The defendants were subsequently convicted by a jury and sentenced to prison terms ranging from 121 to 136 months.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and held that geofence warrants, as used in this case, are unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment because they resemble general warrants, which are prohibited. However, the court affirmed the district court's decision to deny the motion to suppress, citing the good-faith exception. The court concluded that law enforcement acted reasonably given the novelty of the geofence warrant and the lack of clear legal precedent. Therefore, the convictions were upheld. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

The appellants in this case were arrested by the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) during protests in August 2020. Upon arrest, their personal property, including cell phones, was seized. They were released without charges, but their property was not returned for months or even over a year, despite repeated requests. The appellants filed motions under D.C. Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) to recover their property, which led to the return of some items after significant delays. They then sued the District of Columbia in federal court, alleging violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and common-law conversion, and sought damages and injunctive relief.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the complaints. It held that the plaintiffs failed to state a Fourth Amendment claim because the initial seizure was reasonable and any challenge to continued retention was governed by the Fifth Amendment. The court also found that Rule 41(g) provided adequate process for the Fifth Amendment claim. Consequently, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the conversion claim and denied class certification as moot.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Fourth Amendment requires that any continued retention of personal property seized incident to a lawful arrest must be reasonable. The court found that the prolonged retention of the appellants' property without a legitimate investigatory or protective purpose could constitute an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The court reversed the dismissal of the Fourth Amendment claims, vacated the dismissal of the D.C.-law claims and the denial of class certification, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Oyoma Asinor v. DC" on Justia Law

An Arkansas inmate, Steven Pinder, filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that various defendants, including Wellpath, LLC, and its employees, were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, violating his Eighth Amendment rights. Pinder sought declaratory and injunctive relief and substantial damages for several medical issues, including severe glaucoma, peptic ulcers, acid reflux, diabetes, and an orthopedic condition in his right shoulder. The district court granted summary judgment to two defendants on the shoulder claim and dismissed other claims for failure to establish in forma pauperis (IFP) status.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas initially denied Pinder's IFP status due to his "three strikes" under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), which bars prisoners with three prior dismissals for frivolous or malicious claims from proceeding IFP unless they are in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Pinder filed a declaration asserting imminent danger, which the magistrate judge partially accepted, allowing some claims to proceed. The district court adopted these recommendations but later revoked IFP status for most claims based on new evidence, ultimately granting summary judgment on the remaining shoulder claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court remanded the motion to revoke Pinder's IFP status to the district court for further consideration, particularly in light of new medical evidence. The appellate court also remanded the issue of whether the interlocutory dismissals were proper, given a recent Eighth Circuit opinion. The court did not rule on the summary judgment at this time, vacating the district court's judgment and remanding for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Pinder v. WellPath" on Justia Law

In 2021, Ellva Slaughter was charged with illegally possessing a firearm while knowing he had previously been convicted of a felony, violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Slaughter moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the jury selection plan of the Southern District of New York (SDNY) systematically underrepresented Black and Hispanic or Latino people, violating his Sixth Amendment right and the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968 (JSSA). The district court assumed the underrepresentation was significant but denied the motion, finding Slaughter failed to prove systematic exclusion in the jury selection process.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Slaughter's motion to dismiss the indictment. The court assumed without deciding that there was significant underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic or Latino people but concluded that Slaughter did not establish that this underrepresentation was due to systematic exclusion. The court found that Slaughter's expert did not provide evidence that the identified practices caused the disparities and noted that many of the challenged practices were authorized by the Second Circuit. The court also found that any disparities were due to external factors outside the SDNY's control.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court applied the framework from Duren v. Missouri, assuming without deciding that the underrepresentation was significant. However, it concluded that Slaughter did not meet his burden of proving systematic exclusion. The court found that Slaughter's expert did not provide sufficient evidence that the SDNY's practices caused the underrepresentation. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that Slaughter failed to establish a prima facie violation of the fair cross-section requirement under the Sixth Amendment and the JSSA. View "United States v. Slaughter" on Justia Law

Three plaintiffs, planning to participate in protests during the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, challenged the constitutionality of a city ordinance listing prohibited items within security perimeters. The list includes items such as laptops, large bags, drones, bicycles, and pointed objects, among others. Plaintiffs argued that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague, particularly concerning the prohibition of "pointed object(s)," which they feared could include everyday items like ballpoint pens and buttons.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction, finding that the ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague. The plaintiffs then appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the ordinance has a core of ascertainable meaning, covering items that pose clear safety risks, such as weapons and explosives. The court noted that while the plaintiffs raised concerns about potential overreach, they had not demonstrated that a substantial number of the ordinance's applications were unconstitutional. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' facial challenge to the ordinance lacked merit, as the potentially problematic applications were not substantial in relation to the valid ones. The court also found that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the ordinance but ultimately ruled against them on the merits. View "Thayer v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law