Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

A group of businesses and individuals in the vision care industry challenged Texas House Bill 1696, which regulates managed vision care plans by limiting the information these plans can provide to their enrollees. The plaintiffs argued that the bill imposed unconstitutional burdens on their rights of commercial speech, associational freedom, and equal protection under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. They sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the bill's enforcement and the defendants, Texas officials, moved to dismiss the case, claiming sovereign immunity.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied the defendants' motion to dismiss and granted the preliminary injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their commercial speech claims and that the equities favored a preliminary injunction. The defendants appealed both the denial of their sovereign immunity defense and the grant of the preliminary injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision to deny the motion to dismiss as it related to Texas Insurance Commissioner Cassie Brown, finding that she had a specific duty to enforce the statute. However, the court vacated the denial of the motion to dismiss as it related to Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton, determining that they did not have a sufficient connection to the enforcement of the statute. The court also affirmed the preliminary injunction against Commissioner Brown, concluding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their commercial speech claim and that the balance of equities favored the injunction. The court vacated the preliminary injunction as it applied to Governor Abbott and Attorney General Paxton and remanded the case for modification of the orders. View "Healthy Vision Association v. Abbott" on Justia Law

Houston police officers Manual Salazar and Nestor Garcia, members of the Gang Division Crime Reduction Unit, fatally shot David Anthony Salinas on July 14, 2021, following a pursuit in a sting operation. His widow, Brittany Salinas, filed a lawsuit against Officers Salazar and Garcia and the City of Houston, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Texas Tort Claims Act, and the state-created danger theory of constitutional liability.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in full. The court found that Brittany Salinas had standing to bring her claims but concluded that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity and that the claims against the City of Houston were meritless. Brittany Salinas timely appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court found that the officers had reasonable suspicion to detain Salinas based on the identifying information on his vehicle and his refusal to stop when the officers engaged their lights. The court also found that the officers did not violate Salinas' Fourth Amendment rights, as they reasonably believed he posed an immediate threat when he continuously reached within his vehicle despite their commands to show his hands. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the § 1983 claims against the officers, finding that they were entitled to qualified immunity.Regarding the claims against the City of Houston, the court found no constitutional injury and affirmed the dismissal of the § 1983 claims. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the Texas Tort Claims Act claims, as they were foreclosed by the ruling on qualified immunity and barred by case law. The court concluded that the City of Houston's sovereign immunity had not been waived. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of all claims. View "Salinas v. City of Houston" on Justia Law

Holly Lawson, a guidance counselor at Franklin County High School, alleged that her Fourth Amendment rights were violated by her coworkers, Kayla Creely and Lori Franke, and by School Superintendent Mark Kopp, along with the Franklin County, Kentucky Board of Education. Lawson claimed that Creely and Franke searched her bag without her consent, discovering a firearm, and that Kopp unlawfully detained and searched her in connection with this incident.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court found that Creely and Franke were acting under color of state law but were entitled to qualified immunity. It also determined that Kopp's actions constituted a lawful investigative stop under Terry v. Ohio and that Lawson consented to the search of her bag.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court concluded that Creely and Franke did not act under color of state law because their actions were not authorized by any school policy or state authority. The court also agreed that Kopp's interaction with Lawson was a lawful investigative stop supported by reasonable suspicion and that Lawson voluntarily searched her own bag, negating any Fourth Amendment violation. Consequently, the court found no basis for municipal liability under Monell against the Board. View "Lawson v. Creely" on Justia Law

The case involves the City of Myrtle Beach's response to a surge in violent crime in an area known as "the Superblock." Between 2015 and 2016, eleven people were shot, and dozens more were sexually assaulted, battered, or robbed in the Superblock, primarily around a small cluster of bars. The City increased police presence and investigated these establishments for compliance with safety regulations. Despite these measures, crime persisted, leading the City to shut down two bars for repeated legal violations, while a third bar closed due to lack of business. Years later, the bars and the landlord sued the City and the City Manager, alleging violations of the Takings Clause, Due Process Clause, Equal Protection Clause, and 42 U.S.C. § 1985, claiming the City unlawfully targeted them because their owners and clientele were predominantly racial minorities.The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina granted directed verdicts for the City on all claims during a jury trial. The court held that the appellants did not have a constitutionally protected property interest in the right to conduct their business. It found that the City's enforcement actions were within the legitimate bounds of state police power and rejected the § 1985 civil conspiracy claims based on the intra corporate conspiracy doctrine, which states that corporate and government agents cannot conspire with themselves.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the City acted within its lawful authority to address serious public safety threats and enforce compliance with state and local regulations. The appellants' claims were deemed speculative and unsupported by the evidence presented at trial. The court found no discriminatory intent or violation of due process, and it upheld the application of the intra corporate conspiracy doctrine, concluding that the City officials did not possess a personal stake independent of their relationship to the City. View "Brady v. City of Myrtle Beach" on Justia Law

Roberto Felix, Jr., a law enforcement officer, stopped Ashtian Barnes for suspected toll violations. During the stop, Barnes began to drive away, prompting Felix to jump onto the car's doorsill and fire two shots, fatally wounding Barnes. Barnes's mother sued Felix, alleging a violation of Barnes's Fourth Amendment right against excessive force.The District Court granted summary judgment to Felix, applying the Fifth Circuit’s “moment-of-threat” rule, which focuses solely on whether the officer was in danger at the precise moment deadly force was used. The court found that Felix could have reasonably believed he was in danger during the two seconds he was on the doorsill of the moving car. The Court of Appeals affirmed, adhering to the same rule and limiting its analysis to the final moments before the shooting.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that the “moment-of-threat” rule improperly narrows the Fourth Amendment analysis. The Court emphasized that the reasonableness of police force must be assessed based on the “totality of the circumstances,” which includes events leading up to the use of force. The Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the lower courts to consider the entire context of the incident, not just the final moments. View "Barnes v. Felix" on Justia Law

Theresa Brooke, a woman with disabilities who uses a wheelchair, visited the Ramada by Wyndham Burbank Airport hotel in August 2023. She alleged that architectural barriers at the hotel deterred her from entering. Brooke sued the hotel's owner, Tsay JBR, LLC, for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. She sought injunctive relief under the ADA and statutory damages under the Unruh Act.The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted partial summary judgment in favor of Brooke, finding that Tsay JBR had violated the ADA due to the lack of an access aisle in the hotel's passenger loading zone. This ADA violation also constituted a violation of the Unruh Act. However, the court found that there was a factual issue regarding whether Brooke personally encountered the violation or was deterred by it, which is necessary for statutory damages under the Unruh Act. The district court scheduled a bench trial, concluding that the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial did not apply to claims for statutory damages under the Unruh Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and granted Tsay JBR's petition for a writ of mandamus. The Ninth Circuit held that the Seventh Amendment entitles parties in federal court to a jury trial on claims for statutory damages under section 52(a) of the Unruh Act. The court determined that Brooke's claim was legal in nature, both in terms of its historical analog to 18th-century English public accommodations law and the punitive and deterrent nature of the statutory damages sought. The court directed the district court to set the matter for a jury trial. View "TSAY JBR LLC V. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA" on Justia Law

Yolanda Welch Atkins, a court clerk for Macon, Mississippi, since 2003, was placed on leave in October 2020 after $3,200 in municipal court fines and fees went missing, leading to her arrest and indictment for embezzlement. Despite this, she was reinstated by the board of aldermen. In January 2021, after running unsuccessfully for mayor against Patrick Hopkins's preferred candidate, Atkins was not reappointed as court clerk when Hopkins and other aldermen did not second the motion for her reappointment.Atkins sued Hopkins and others, claiming First Amendment retaliation. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi granted summary judgment to all defendants except Hopkins, finding a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether Hopkins's refusal to second the motion was due to Atkins's protected speech. Hopkins appealed the denial of summary judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are protected from liability unless they violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. The court found that existing precedent, including Sims v. City of Madisonville, did not clearly establish that Hopkins's specific conduct—refusing to second a motion—violated the First Amendment. Consequently, the court held that Hopkins was entitled to qualified immunity.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of summary judgment for Hopkins and remanded the case for further proceedings, without indicating what those proceedings should entail. View "Atkins v. Hopkins" on Justia Law

Michael Poffenbarger, a First Lieutenant in the Air Force Reserve, filed a lawsuit challenging the Air Force’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, claiming it violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the First Amendment. He sought a religious exemption, which was denied, and subsequently refused the vaccine. As a result, he received a letter of reprimand and was placed on inactive status, losing pay and retirement points. Poffenbarger sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including restoration of lost pay and points.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio initially granted a preliminary injunction preventing the Air Force from taking further punitive action against Poffenbarger. In a related case, Doster v. Kendall, the same court certified a class of affected service members and issued similar injunctions. The Sixth Circuit affirmed these injunctions, but the Supreme Court later vacated the decision on mootness grounds after Congress directed the rescission of the vaccine mandate. The district court then dismissed Poffenbarger's case as moot.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The court held that Poffenbarger’s claim for lost drill pay and retirement points was barred by federal sovereign immunity. The court explained that RFRA’s waiver of sovereign immunity does not unequivocally include claims for money damages against the federal government. Since Poffenbarger’s claim sought retrospective compensation for a previous legal wrong, it constituted money damages, which are not covered by RFRA’s waiver. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the case. View "Poffenbarger v. Kendall" on Justia Law

In 2017, Gratiot County foreclosed on Donald Freed’s home due to unpaid taxes. Freed’s property, valued at $98,800, was sold for $42,000, although he owed just under $1,110. The county kept all proceeds from the sale, as Michigan’s General Property Tax Act (GPTA) did not require returning surplus proceeds to the property owner. Freed sued Gratiot County and its treasurer, Michelle Thomas, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming a violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Michigan intervened to defend the GPTA’s constitutionality.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed Freed’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing Wayside Church v. Van Buren County. Freed appealed, and the Sixth Circuit reversed the dismissal, recognizing that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Knick v. Township of Scott partially abrogated Wayside Church. On remand, the district court granted partial summary judgment to Freed, affirming that the county had to pay Freed the difference between the foreclosure sale and his debt, but dismissed claims against Thomas due to qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed Freed’s entitlement to attorneys’ fees from Gratiot County and Michigan. However, the court vacated the district court’s fee calculation and remanded for further proceedings. The Sixth Circuit held that Freed prevailed against both Gratiot County and Michigan, and Michigan’s intervention under 28 U.S.C. § 2403(b) subjected it to attorneys’ fee liability. The court found the district court’s explanation for reducing Freed’s hours and rate by 35% insufficient and required a more detailed justification for the fee award calculation. View "Freed v. Thomas" on Justia Law

The case involves the appellant, Gregory Smith, challenging the Municipality of Anchorage's decision to abate unauthorized campsites in Davis Park. The Anchorage Municipal Code (AMC) outlines procedures for campsite abatement, including posting a notice and allowing for an appeal to the superior court. In June 2022, the Municipality posted a notice in Davis Park, advising that the area was not legal for storage or shelter and that any personal property would be removed and disposed of as waste after ten days. Smith and five others appealed the abatement, arguing it violated due process and the Eighth Amendment.The superior court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Municipality that its jurisdiction was limited to reviewing the legal sufficiency of the posted notice, not the abatement decision itself. The court noted that the appellants did not challenge the notice's compliance with the Code, thus leaving no issues for the court to decide. The court also observed that the appellants' claims were not without merit and suggested that a civil suit could address their concerns.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case and concluded that the superior court's jurisdiction was not limited to the notice's legal sufficiency. The court held that the superior court has jurisdiction to review the substantive decision to abate the campsite, including constitutional challenges. The court reversed the superior court's decision and remanded the case for further consideration of the constitutional issues raised by Smith. The court also directed the superior court to determine if the administrative record was sufficient for meaningful appellate review and to take necessary steps to ensure it has an adequate record. View "Smith v. Municipality of Anchorage" on Justia Law