Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs filed suit seeking damages from the District, the Family Services Agency, and District employees after plaintiffs' children were removed from their home after they were sexually abused by plaintiffs' other children. The court vacated the dismissal of plaintiffs' Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims against the District and remanded those claims to the district court to determine whether there is municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment as to the First Amendment, tort, and post-adoption services claims. View "Doe v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs are same-sex couples seeking to marry in Arkansas, South Dakota, or Nebraska or to have their marriage in another state recognized in those states. They also sought state benefits incident to marriage. The district court granted Plaintiffs summary judgment, finding that state laws denying them the right to marry violate the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of due process and equal protection. While the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges, (2015), abrogating Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning (2006). The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The challenged laws are unconstitutional. As Obergefell concluded: [T]he right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. View "Waters v. Ricketts" on Justia Law

After a hearing, the trial court terminated the parental rights of Mother as to her two minor children. Mother appealed, arguing that the trial court violated her right to due process when it failed to canvass her about her decision to waive her right to a full trial and to not contest the prosecution’s exhibits. The Appellate Court affirmed, concluding that Mother’s constitutional claim failed under the third prong of State v. Golding. Specifically, the Court concluded that, in order to prevail on an unpreserved claim under Golding, which requires that a party establish that an alleged constitutional violation “clearly exists,” a party must point to binding Connecticut precedent. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the absence of existing Connecticut precedent does not preclude consideration of a claim under Golding; (2) the trial court’s failure to canvass Mother did not constitute a denial of her right to due process; but (3) the Court is warranted in using its supervisory authority over the administration of justice to impose a canvass rule requiring that a trial court canvass all parents who do not consent to the termination immediately before a parental rights termination trial, in order to ensure the overall fairness of the termination of parental rights process. View "In re Yasiel R." on Justia Law

After a hearing, the district court terminated Father’s parental rights pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not improperly terminate Father’s parental rights solely because he had been diagnosed as having borderline personality disorder and thus did not violate Father’s equal protection rights; (2) the district court provided Father with the due process required in the context of a termination of parental rights by providing him with a reasonable period of time for reunification and not improperly placing a burden of proof upon Father; and (3) there was clear and convincing evidence to support the court’s finding of at least one ground of parental unfitness and that termination was in the child’s best interest. View "In re I.S." on Justia Law

WCDSS took B.W. into protective custody when she was two-days old and placed her with a foster parent without obtaining prior judicial authorization. Plaintiff, B.W.'s biological father, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the County and three social workers, alleging Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. The court concluded that plaintiff lacked a cognizable liberty interest in his relationship with B.W. and the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants because he could not prove a violation of his constitutional rights. However, the court concluded that the district court erred in deciding that the complaint did not provide adequate notice that B.W. asserted a Fourth Amendment claim on her own behalf and, therefore, defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on this basis. The court further concluded that Defendants Wilcox and Kennedy are not entitled to qualified immunity on B.W.'s Fourth Amendment claim where a reasonable juror might find that a reasonable social worker could not have determined that B.W. would be in imminent danger of serious bodily injury in the time that it would have taken to obtain a warrant. Thus, the court reversed and remanded on this issue. Because the evidence presented here creates at least an inference of an unconstitutional, unofficial custom in Washoe County, the County is not entitled to summary judgment. The court reversed and remanded as to this issue. Finally, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Defendant Reynolds because plaintiff has not alleged any facts suggesting that she was involved with the decision to take custody of B.W. View "Kirkpatrick v. Cnty. of Washoe" on Justia Law

After an adjudicatory hearing, the trial court entered judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights to her child. Mother appealed, alleging ten claims of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding her counsel’s performance in the termination of parental rights (TPR) proceedings. The district court of appeal applied the Washington v. Strickland standard to Mother’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims and affirmed the order terminating Mother’s parental rights. The district court subsequently certified two questions regarding the right to effective counsel in TPR proceedings and vindication of that right. In its opinion, the Supreme Court established the appropriate standard for determining whether counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance in termination of parental rights proceedings and directing the development of rules providing the procedure for vindicating a parent’s constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel in TPR proceedings. The Court then affirmed in this case, holding that Mother failed to present any basis for setting aside the order terminating her parental rights. View "J.B. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs are two same-sex couples who seek to marry in Texas or to have their marriage in another state recognized in Texas. The district court subsequently issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the state from enforcing any laws or regulations prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying or prohibiting the recognition of marriages between same-sex couples lawfully solemnized elsewhere. While the appeal was under submission, the Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges, which held in part that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character. Because, as both sides now agree, the injunction appealed from is correct in light of Obergefell, the preliminary injunction is affirmed and the matter remanded for entry of judgment in favor of plaintiffs. View "DeLeon v. Abbott" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, seven same-sex couples and an organization whose membership includes same-sex couples and their families, seek to marry in Louisiana or to have their marriage in another state recognized in Louisiana. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants. While this appeal was under submission, the Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges, which held in part that there is no lawful basis for a state to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another state on the ground of its same-sex character. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of plaintiffs. View "Robicheaux v. Caldwell" on Justia Law

Respondents, a same-sex couple who were married in Massachusetts, sought a divorce in Texas. The two women settled their differences, and the trial court orally granted an ostensible divorce pursuant to the parties’ agreement. The State filed a petition in intervention seeking to oppose the petition for divorce and to defend the constitutionality of Texas law that limits divorce actions to persons of the opposite sex who are married to one another. The State argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to render a divorce. The trial court ultimately decided not to entertain the State’s petition, concluding that the attempted intervention was untimely. The court of appeals dismissed the State’s appeal for want of jurisdiction, also ruling that the intervention was untimely. The State sought the Supreme Court’s review, asking the Court to allow the intervention and to vacate the divorce. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals and denied the State’s petition for writ of mandamus, holding that the State failed to secure standing by properly presenting its arguments to the trial court and court of appeals, and consequently, the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to reach those issues. View "State v. Naylor" on Justia Law

In 2013, the Iowa Board of Medicine passed a rule establishing standards requiring physicians who prescribe or administer abortion-inducing drugs to personally perform a physical examination and to be physically present when the abortion-inducing drug is provided. Planned Parenthood challenged the rule as both improperly enacted and in violation of the Iowa Constitution. The district court denied Planned Parenthood’s claims and upheld the rule addressing each of Planned Parenthood’s challenges. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Board’s rule violates the controlling “undue burden” test announced by the U.S. Supreme Court as the federal constitutional test; and (2) therefore, the rule violates the Iowa Constitution under the less stringent Iowa constitutional standard advanced by the Board. View "Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. v. Iowa Bd. of Med." on Justia Law