Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

In 2012, DeCrane became the director of training at Cleveland's Fire Training Academy and applied to be the chief. The mayor chose McGinnis to be the next chief. DeCrane said he was surprised because McGinnis had fallen behind in his required continuing education hours. When confronted, McGinnis lied. Someone tipped off the media. McGinnis resigned. The ensuing media coverage reflected poorly on the city. DeCrane did not leak the tip about McGinnis’s deficient training, which was an open secret in the department. According to DeCrane, Eckart mistakenly believed that he was the leak’s source. DeCrane contends that Eckart (among others) subjected him to three years of retaliation. DeCrane was not disciplined or demoted but he received no promotions, allegedly faced unfounded misconduct charges, had his Training Academy work undermined, and suffered a retirement-related slight. DeCrane sued Eckart, Cleveland, and others under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the individuals retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment to the other individuals and the city but denied Eckart summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of Eckart’s claim of qualified immunity. While the First Amendment does not protect speech made as part of an employee’s government job, DeCrane would have tipped off the media as a private citizen rather than a public employee. View "DeCrane v. Eckart" on Justia Law

Individuals and organizations affiliated with the West Virginia Democratic Party challenged West Virginia Code 3-6-2(c)(3), under which election ballots for partisan state and federal elections are organized for each contest by listing first the candidates affiliated with the political party whose candidate for President received the most votes in West Virginia in the most recent presidential election. The plaintiffs contend that because candidates appearing first on the ballot “almost always” receive an increased vote share based solely on this priority status, this system favors candidates based on their political affiliation, violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments.The district court rejected jurisdictional challenges, including that the plaintiffs lacked standing and that the complaint presented a nonjusticiable political question, and agreed with the plaintiffs on the merits. The Fourth Circuit vacated after holding that the district court properly asserted subject matter jurisdiction and a court may consider the lawfulness of the statute despite its partisan context. A ballot-order statute, which provides a neutral rule for listing candidates’ names on the ballot, does not violate the Constitution even though the statute may impair a candidate’s ability to attract “the windfall vote.” Such a statute places at most a modest burden on free speech and equal protection rights. Any modest burden imposed by the statute on the plaintiffs’ rights is justified by the state’s important interests in promoting voting efficiency and in reducing voter confusion and error. View "Nelson v. Warner" on Justia Law

Enrollees in the North Carolina State Health Plan for Teachers and State Employees (NCSHP) sued, alleging that NCSHP discriminates against its transgender enrollees by categorically denying coverage for gender dysphoria treatments like counseling, hormone therapy, and surgical care, in violation of section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which prohibits “any health program or activity” that receives federal funds from discriminating against individuals on any ground prohibited by various federal statutes, including Title IX, 42 U.S.C. 18116(a).The Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of NCSHP’s motion to dismiss, asserting that it was entitled to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. NCSHP waived its immunity against this claim by accepting federal financial assistance. Under the Civil Rights Remedies Equalization Act (CRREA), “[a] State shall not be immune under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States from suit in Federal court for a violation of . . . any other Federal Statute prohibiting discrimination by recipients of Federal financial assistance,” 42 U.S.C. 2000d-7. View "Kadel v. North Carolina State Health Plan for Teachers and State Employees" on Justia Law

Shorter, a transgender woman, has undergone hormone replacement therapy; her body is “openly female.” In 2015, she entered a Federal Correctional Institution to begin a 96-month sentence for creating a fraudulent “tax service.” Despite knowing that Shorter was transgender, prison officials first housed her in a room without a lock with 11 men. Prison officials screened her risk for sexual assault under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 regulations and concluded she was at “significantly” higher risk than other inmates because she presented as transgender, was small in stature, and had previously been sexually assaulted at another prison. Later, in an unlocked two-person cell, she was assigned a sex offender as her cellmate. Although the prison’s psychology department agreed Shorter should be transferred, she remained in the cell furthest from the officers. Shorter alleges that despite her repeated requests and grievances, she was ultimately stabbed and raped by a fellow inmate. She brought a pro se suit under “Bivens,” claiming officials violated her Eighth Amendment rights by deliberate indifference to the substantial risk that another inmate would assault her.Citing 28 U.S.C. 1915 and 1915A, the district court dismissed her complaint sua sponte before allowing her to serve the defendants. The Third Circuit reversed. Shorter’s case falls comfortably within one of the few contexts in which the Supreme Court has recognized a Bivens remedy. Shorter adequately pleaded a violation of the Eighth Amendment. View "Shorter v. United States" on Justia Law

On August 9, 2005, a group of men fired bullets into a crowd of rival gang members gathered outside a Wisconsin garage. There were no fatalities; three of the victims suffered gunshot wounds. The shooters wanted to prevent retaliation against members of their own gang, including Adeyanju’s brother, who had robbed members of the rival gang. Adeyanju was convicted of three counts each of attempted first‐degree intentional homicide and of endangering safety by use of a firearm. His primary defense was that he was not involved, as no physical evidence connected him to the crime, and that the state’s witnesses could not be trusted. Adeyanju’s counsel contended that the shooters—whoever they were—intended to scare but not to kill their rivals, so they were guilty of endangering safety but not attempted homicide.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of Adeyanju’s habeas petition, rejecting an argument that his counsel was ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction on a lesser‐included offense to attempted homicide—first‐degree recklessly endangering safety--so that the jury could have found that he was among the shooters but did not intend to kill anyone. The jury already had that option with the endangering safety by use of a firearm charge, which it chose not to take. Adeyanju failed to show that he was prejudiced by counsel’s purported error. View "Adeyanju v. Wiersma" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court sustaining Defendant's motion to suppress a cell phone and electronic data stored on that cell phone, holding that the circuit court did not err in sustaining the motion to suppress.The circuit court concluded that the search warrant failed to describe with sufficient particularity the thing to be seized and was so facially deficient that the executing officers could not reasonably have presumed it to be valid. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the seizure of a cell phone at the sheriff's office was outside the scope of the warrant, so the evidence was not validly seized; and (2) the officer conducting the search did not have a good faith basis when he executed the search warrant at the sheriff's office, contrary to the clear directions of the search warrant to search a cell phone located at a particular address. View "State v. Bales" on Justia Law

In 2008, Murray was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOP) for a first-degree special circumstance murder he committed when he was 22 years old. His conviction was affirmed In 2010, In 2020, Murray sought a Franklin hearing, contending he was eligible for a youth offender parole hearing under Penal Code section 3051.3 The trial court denied his motion because under the terms of section 3051(h), “people sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for crimes committed when they were at least 18 years of age but no more than ‘25 years of age or younger are not eligible for youth offender parole hearings.” The court of appeal affirmed.The court of appeal then rejected Murray’s argument that section 3051 violates his constitutional right to equal protection by affording juvenile LWOP offenders a youth offender parole hearing but denying such a hearing to youthful LWOP offenders. There is a rational basis for distinguishing between juvenile and youthful LWOP offenders in this context. View "In re Murray" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the decision of the district court granting Defendant's motion to suppress his statements to his probation officer and a polygraph administrator about his criminal conduct, holding that suppression of the statements was not required.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant made the statements at issue without invoking his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, and the penalty exception to the general rule that a person cannot assert the privilege against self-incrimination without first invoking the privilege did not apply; (2) the portion of Minn. Stat. 634.03 requiring exclusion of confessions "made under the influence of fear produced by threats" excludes confessions made under circumstances where the inducement to speak was such that there was a fair risk that the confession was false; and (3) exclusion of Defendant's statements was not required in this case. View "State v. McCoy" on Justia Law

Cartwright is serving a 24-year sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1). When Cartwright was sentenced in 2005, seven of his past convictions qualified as violent felonies. In 2015, the Supreme Court’s “Johnson” decision invalidated ACCA’s residual clause. Johnson removed at least four of Cartwright’s offenses from the category of violent felonies. Cartwright brought a habeas petition challenging his ACCA status by arguing that his remaining convictions for burglary and aggravated assault do not support his ACCA sentence. The district court held that, even after Johnson, Cartwright still had at least three ACCA predicates because his Tennessee first- and second-degree burglaries qualified as violent felonies.The Sixth Circuit reversed. The government acknowledged that Cartwright’s claim is based on Johnson, a “new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” All three degrees of Tennessee burglary include entering lawfully and then opening a “receptacle” inside, with no unlawful entry or remaining required, which extends the offense beyond generic burglary, which requires unlawful entry into or remaining in. A “receptacle” in the Tennessee burglary statute need not be attached to the house. View "United States v. Cartwright" on Justia Law

Officer Sullivan pulled over Braddy on I-65 in Saraland, Alabama, after seeing Braddy react to the presence of his marked patrol vehicle and observing that Braddy’s vehicle’s license tag was obscured by bicycles. During the traffic stop, officers discovered cocaine in Braddy’s vehicle following two canine sniffs. Braddy was charged with possession with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. 846.The trial court denied his motion to suppress, rejecting an argument that the reason for pulling Braddy over, a violation of an Alabama law requiring motor vehicle operators to keep their license plates plainly visible, did not provide probable cause because the statute did not apply to Braddy as a nonresident of Alabama. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Any mistake of law by Sullivan was objectively reasonable and the traffic stop of Braddy’s vehicle was based on probable cause. Sullivan did not unlawfully prolong the traffic stop. There was probable cause to search Braddy’s vehicle based on the reliability of the drug detection dogs’ alerts. View "United States v. Braddy" on Justia Law