Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court vacated a preliminary injunction granted by the trial court preliminarily enjoining the State from enforcing Senate Bill 1, which broadly prohibits abortion but makes exceptions in three circumstances, holding that Plaintiffs could not show a reasonable likelihood of success on their facial challenge.Plaintiffs, several abortion providers, brought this lawsuit seeking to invalidate Senate Bill 1 on the grounds that the law materially burdened a woman's exercise of her right to "liberty" under Ind. Const. Art. I, 1. The trial court agreed and granted the preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Plaintiffs had standing to contest the constitutionality of Senate Bill 1; (2) Senate Bill 1 was judicially enforceable; (3) Article 1, Section 1 protects a woman's right to an abortion that the extent that it is necessary to protect her life or to protect her from a serious health risk, but, otherwise, the General Assembly retains legislative discretion in determining the extent to which prohibit abortions; and (4) the record in this case did not support a preliminary injunction. View "Members of the Medical Licensing Bd. v. Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawai'i, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, pro se and incarcerated, appealed from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 action. The district court dismissed his complaint, concluding that Plaintiff was barred from proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”) because he had accumulated three “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). At issue on appeal is whether (1) a res judicata dismissal and (2) a dismissal of an entire complaint on several alternative grounds—one of which qualifies as a strike under existing precedent—can constitute strikes under Section 1915(g).   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Section 1915(g) bars a prisoner from proceeding IFP, absent a showing of imminent danger, if on three or more occasions while incarcerated, he has brought an action or an appeal that was “dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” The court reasoned that Section 1915(g) does not provide Plaintiff an opportunity to relitigate his prior cases. The court considered Plaintiff’s remaining arguments and concluded they are meritless. The district court correctly concluded that Griffin was barred by the PLRA’s three strikes provision from proceeding IFP, and, therefore, properly dismissed his complaint. View "Griffin v. Carnes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for several crimes after he intentionally set a fire that damaged several apartments, holding, among other things, that the Kansas Legislature has defined the unit of prosecution for aggravated arson as each damaged building or property in which there is a person.Defendant intentionally set fire in the stairwell in front of his daughter's apartment, leading to his conviction, following a jury trial, of six counts of aggravated arson, three counts of attempted first-degree murder, and one count of animal cruelty. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the district court judge violated his right to be free from double jeopardy by sentencing him on six counts of aggravated arson when the arsonist started only one fire. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's right to be free from double jeopardy was not violated; (2) the State presented sufficient evidence to support Defendant's convictions for attempted first-degree murder; and (3) the trial judge did not err in denying Defendant's untimely motion for a new trial. View "State v. Buchanan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's summary judgment to the three named state official defendants in this complaint seeking a temporary injunction related to the August 6, 2020 election, holding that Plaintiff was required to comply with both Tenn. Code Ann. 2-19-143(3) and Tenn. Code Ann. 40-29-202 before he could be re-enfranchised.Plaintiff, a Tennessee resident since 2018, was convicted in 1986 of involuntary manslaughter in Virginia. In 2020, the governor of Virginia granted Plaintiff clemency, thus reinstating his right to vote in Virginia. Later that year, Plaintiff attempted to register to vote in Grainger County, Tennessee but was denied. Plaintiff brought this lawsuit arguing that Tenn. Code Ann. 2-19-143(3) requires the state to re-enfranchise persons convicted of infamous crimes out of state when the governor or the appropriate authority of such other state restores that person's rights of citizenship. The chancery court granted summary judgment for Defendants, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, to regain the right of suffrage in Tennessee, Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals must comply with both Tenn. Code Ann. 2-19-143(3) and the additional requirements set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. 40-29-202. View "Falls v. Goins" on Justia Law

Ohlinger, booked into the jail (SEORJ) as a pretrial detainee for burglary, reported a history of bipolar disorder and depression and that she used intravenous heroin daily. She indicated no history of seizures and reported no signs of physical trauma or illness. In the following days, Ohlinger did not report any medical problems. On June 25, at 6:57 a.m., Ohlinger, walking in the common area, appeared to become disoriented and fell off a bench. Officers Lowery and Jarvis responded. Nurse Gray found no evidence to support inmates’ statements that Ohlinger had a seizure and hit her head. She was returned to her cell. At 7:07 a.m., Lowery and Jarvis responded to a call and, seeing Ohlinger had urinated on herself, escorted Ohlinger to the medical unit. Gray again examined Ohlinger. Lowery and Jarvis returned Ohlinger to her cell to await a blood test. At 9:12 a.m., an inmate discovered Ohlinger, unresponsive. Gray used a portable defibrillator and began CPR. At 9:28 a.m., paramedics transported Ohlinger to the hospital, where she died. An autopsy identified the cause of death as seizure activity due to a subarachnoid hemorrhage and subdural hematoma of undetermined etiology. There was no evidence of skull fracture or contusions.In a suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the district court granted summary judgment to Gray, Lowery, and Jarvis. The Sixth Circuit reversed as to Gray and otherwise affirmed. A reasonable jury could find that Gray acted recklessly, not negligently, in the face of unjustifiably high risk to Ohlinger’s health. Gray’s observations of Ohlinger, information provided by other jail officials and inmates, and SEORJ’s policies should have led Gray to seek care from a doctor or hospital. View "Mercer v. Athens County, Ohio" on Justia Law

Groff, an Evangelical Christian who believes that Sunday should be devoted to worship and rest, took a mail delivery job with the Postal Service (USPS). USPS subsequently began facilitating Amazon’s Sunday deliveries. To avoid working Sundays on a rotating basis, Groff transferred to a rural USPS station. After Amazon deliveries began at that station, Groff received progressive discipline for failing to work on Sundays. He eventually resigned. Groff sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, asserting that USPS could accommodate his Sunday Sabbath practice “without undue hardship" to its business, 42 U.S.C. 2000e(j). The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of USPS, reasoning that under Supreme Court precedent, “requiring an employer ‘to bear more than a de minimis cost’ to provide a religious accommodation is an undue hardship.”The Supreme Court vacated. Title VII requires an employer that denies a religious accommodation to show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantially increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. After tracing Establishment Clause and Title VII jurisprudence, the Court concluded that showing “more than a de minimis cost,” as that phrase is used in common parlance, does not establish “undue hardship” under Title VII. Undue hardship is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of the business–a fact-specific inquiry. Courts must consider all relevant factors, including the accommodations at issue and their practical impact, given the nature, size, and operating cost of an employer. Impacts on coworkers are relevant only to the extent those impacts affect the conduct of the business. Title VII requires that an employer “reasonably accommodate” an employee’s practice of religion, not merely assess the reasonableness of a particular possible accommodation. An employer must do more than conclude that forcing other employees to work overtime would constitute an undue hardship; other options must be considered. View "Groff v. DeJoy" on Justia Law

In the Harvard College admissions process, “race is a determinative tip for” a significant percentage “of all admitted African American and Hispanic applicants.” University of North Carolina (UNC) also considers the applicant’s race. SFFA challenged both systems.The Supreme Court held that both programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court first held that SFFA complies with the standing requirements for organizational plaintiffs as a voluntary membership organization with identifiable members who support its mission and whom SFFA represents in good faith.Tracing the history of Fourteenth Amendment precedent, the Court acknowledged its "role in that ignoble history,” and subsequent efforts to eliminate racial discrimination. The core purpose of the Equal Protection Clause is to eliminate all governmentally-imposed discrimination based on race. Any exceptions must survive strict scrutiny. which asks whether the racial classification is used to advance compelling governmental interests and whether the use of race is narrowly tailored--necessary to achieve that interest. Previous holdings permitted race-based college admissions only in compliance with strict scrutiny and acknowledged that, eventually, they must end.The admissions programs at issue are not sufficiently measurable to permit strict scrutiny. The identified "compelling" interests include training future leaders, acquiring new knowledge based on diverse outlooks, promoting a robust marketplace of ideas, and preparing engaged and productive citizens. The question of whether a particular mix of minority students produces those results is standardless. The systems fail to articulate a meaningful connection between the means they employ and those goals; they use racial categories that are overbroad, arbitrary or undefined, or underinclusive.The systems also use race as a “negative” and employ stereotypes. College admissions are zero-sum. A benefit provided to some applicants is necessarily at the expense of others. The systems employ “the offensive and demeaning assumption" that students of a particular race think alike. The systems lack a “logical endpoint. View "Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging that Isanti County, Minnesota (the “County”) violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when it unlawfully prosecuted him under the County’s solid waste ordinance (the “Solid Waste Ordinance”). Plaintiff also asserted Minnesota state law claims for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings as to the federal claims in favor of the County and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on the remaining state law claims.The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that while Plaintiff’s opening brief lists 21 cases, which Plaintiff contends constitute proof the County used the Solid Waste Ordinance to wrongly prosecute property owners, none of these cases are properly before the court as they were not included in the complaint. Plaintiff’s complaint contains insufficient factual allegations to sustain a municipal liability claim. Accordingly, the court held that without a constitutional violation, there can be no Section 1983 liability. View "Keith Kiefer v. Isanti County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of two counts of first-degree murder but set aside and his sentences of death for each murder, holding that Defendant was deprived of his right to "have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense" when the trial court put him to an improper choice at the beginning of the penalty phase proceedings.After the jury returned guilty verdicts for both first-degree murder charges the matter proceeded to the penalty phase. The jury unanimously recommended sentences of death. After a series of Spencer hearings, the trial court sentenced Defendant to death for each murder. The Supreme Court affirmed and remanded the case for a new penalty phase, holding (1) the trial court did not commit reversible error in its evidentiary rulings during Defendant's guilt phase proceedings; (2) Defendant's convictions were supported by competent, substantial evidence; but (3) Defendant's waiver of his right to counsel during the penalty phase was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and Defendant was entitled to a new sentencing hearing based on the trial court's fundamental error in forcing him to abandon counsel during that phase. View "Figueroa-Sanabria v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the trial court denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the case against him with prejudice after a mistrial was declared, holding that retrial would not violate Defendant's right against double jeopardy.Defendant was tried on one count of trafficking of a child. During trial, the trial court declared a mistrial on the basis that certain evidence was improperly admitted. Thereafter, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that retrial would violate his right under the Fifth Amendment, as incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, to be free against double jeopardy. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court exercised sound discretion in ordering a mistrial based on manifest necessity and that retrial will not violate Defendant's Fifth Amendment right against double jeopardy. View "State v. Green" on Justia Law