Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Defendants in this case were the Governor of Massachusetts, the Secretary of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services, and the Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF). Six children brought this class action in federal court on behalf of an estimated 8,500 children who are (or will be) committed to Massachusetts foster care custody as a result of their having suffered from abuse or neglect. Plaintiffs asserted that DCF so exposes the plaintiff class to harm or the risk of harm that it is unconstitutional and violates the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980. Plaintiffs sought a broad injunction preventing Defendants from subjecting the plaintiff children to practices that violate their rights. The district court granted judgment for Defendants on all claims. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate class-wide constitutional violations, nor a violation of the AACWA, and so injunctive relief was not warranted.View "Connor B. v. Patrick" on Justia Law

By statute and constitutional provision, Mississippi prohibits same-sex couples from marrying and does not recognize those marriages entered into by same-sex couples which have been validly performed and are recognized elsewhere, Miss. Const. art XIV, 263A; Miss. Code. 93-1-1(2). In October 2014, two same sex couples and the Campaign for Southern Equality, a non-profit advocacy group, challenged the bans as violating the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. The district court entered a preliminary injunction, prohibiting Mississippi from enforcing the marriage bans, but stayed the effect of its own order for 14 days to permit the state to seek a further stay of the injunction pending an appeal. The Fifth Circuit granted Mississippi’s emergency motion to stay the injunction pending appeal, noting considerations of intra-circuit uniformity and the avoidance of confusion; that it will hear arguments on bans in Texas and Louisiana within one month; and that the Supreme Court granted a similar stay while the issue of Utah’s marriage ban was pending before the Tenth Circuit.View "Campaign for So. Equal. v. Bryant" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, individually and as guardians and next friends on behalf of their seven minor children, sued the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), several DHHS employees in their official and individual capacities, and the children’s guardian ad litem, alleging that over the course of the juvenile proceedings involving their oldest three children, Plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory rights had been violated. The district court sustained Defendants’ motions do dismiss, concluding (1) Defendants were entitled to sovereign, qualified, absolute, and statutory immunities; and (2) Plaintiffs’ claims against the DHHS employees in their individual capacities were barred by the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in dismissing the claims against the DHHS, the DHHS employees in their official capacities, and the guardian ad litem on the basis that they were immune from Plaintiffs’ section 1983 claims; and (2) did not err in dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims against the DHHS employees in their individual capacities on the grounds that the claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations.View "Anthony K. v. Neb. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs." on Justia Law

After Plaintiffs’ oldest three children were removed from Plaintiffs' care and eventually reunified with them, Plaintiffs, individually and as guardians and next friends on behalf of their seven minor children, sued the State, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), and several DHHS employees. The case was brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. In the complaint, Plaintiffs sought general and special damages for violations of their constitutionally protected rights to familial integrity, due process, and equal protection. The district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint, concluding (1) only the State had been properly served; (2) the State was entitled to sovereign immunity as to Plaintiffs’ section 1983 claims that requested monetary damages; and (3) the State was entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ remaining causes of action. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) properly dismissed DHHS and the DHHS employees for lack of proper service of process; (2) correctly determined that sovereign immunity barred Plaintiffs’ claims against the State for monetary damages under section 1983; and (3) erred in not granting the State’s motion to dismiss all of Plaintiffs’ causes of action but achieved the same result by dismissing all remaining causes of action against the State on summary judgment.View "Anthony K. v. State" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the School District, her former employer, for violations of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. The court held that the School District is not an "arm of the State," and instead operates more like a county or similar political subdivision to which Eleventh Amendment immunity does not extend. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's finding that the School District was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. In regards to plaintiff's ADA retaliation claim, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the School District where the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to construe plaintiff's ADA retaliation claim as being based on different facts than the ones actually pled in her ADA count. Even when construed liberally, plaintiff's complaint did not give the School District notice that her ADA retaliation claim was based on her request for FMLA leave.View "Lightfoot v. Henry Cnty. Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

The Attorney General alleged that the Chief Judge of the Tenth Judicial District exceeded his authority and contravened Kansas law by issuing an administrative order permitting marriage licenses to be issued to same sex couples. The Attorney General sought an order directing the Chief Judge and clerk of the district court to immediately cease from issuing marriage applications or licenses to same gender couples and an order vacating the Judge’s administrative order. The Supreme Court declined to grant the relief sought, as the Attorney General's right to relief on the merits was not clear, but granted the Attorney General’s alternative request for a temporary stay of the Chief Judge’s administrative order insofar as the order allows issuance of marriage licenses. The Court then requested additional briefing on the pending issues of whether the Chief Judge possessed authority to issue the administrative order and whether the interpretations and applications of the United States Constitution by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals are supreme and modify any Kansas state ban on same-sex marriage.View "State v. Moriarty" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit for declaratory and injunctive relief, challenging Idaho and Nevada statutes and enacted amendments preventing same-sex couples from marrying and refusing to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed elsewhere. As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that, in Sevcik v. Sandoval, a live case and controversy still exists even though Nevada's officials have ceased to defend their laws constitutionality where the Governor and Clerk-Recorder remain parties and continue to enforce the laws at issue. Further, the Supreme Court's summary dismissal in Baker v. Nelson is not controlling precedent that precludes the court from considering plaintiffs' claims. On the merits, the court held that the Idaho and Nevada laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because they deny lesbian and gays who wish to marry persons of the same sex a right they afford to individuals who wish to marry persons of the opposite sex. The laws do not satisfy the heightened scrutiny standard the court adopted in SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Labs. The court rejected defendants' essential contention that bans on same-sex marriage promote the welfare of children by encouraging good parenting in stable opposite-sex families. Defendants' other contentions are without merit. Because defendants failed to demonstrate that these laws further any legitimate purpose, they unjustifiably discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment in Latta v. Otter. The court reversed and remanded the judgment in Sevcik.View "Latta v. Otter" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a pathologist, filed suit against Avera, alleging that Avera violated federal and state laws for terminating a Services Agreement. Plaintiff filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq.; the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2617 et seq.; and the South Dakota Human Relations Act (SDHRA), S.D. Codified Laws 20-13-1 et seq. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing all of plaintiff's claims because plaintiff was an independent contractor of St. Luke's Hospital under his Services Agreement and not an employee.View "Alexander v. Avera St. Luke's Hospital" on Justia Law

On October 27, 2011, the McLaughlin Group brought suit against the United States, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, challenging the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as applied to definitions of marriage in Title 10, Title 32, and Title 38 of the United States Code as they affect same-sex military spouses. The district court stayed the proceedings in light of two similar challenges on appeal before the First Circuit. The First Circuit subsequently held Section 3 of DOMA invalid, and the Supreme Court held Section 3 unconstitutional as a violation of the Fifth Amendment. The district court then resumed proceedings in this case and entered summary judgment in favor of the McLaughlin Group. The McLaughlin Group moved for fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the government’s position was substantially justified. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court correctly found that the position of the United States was substantially justified and thus properly denied fees as a matter of law.View "McLaughlin v. Hagel" on Justia Law

In this custody modification action involving former spouses, the trial court appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) for the parties’ younger daughter, A.G., to investigate the situation and file a report summarizing his findings. The GAL ultimately recommended that A.G. be allowed the opportunity to live with her father. After a hearing, the family court entered an order awarding Father primary custody of A.G. Mother appealed, challenging the trial court’s denial of her request to cross-examine the GAL. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that any error that may have arisen from the GAL’s conflicting roles as both advisor to the court and representative of the child was harmless. The Supreme Court vacated the opinion of the court of appeals and the final order of the circuit court, holding that the trial court erred by allowing the GAL to serve as both an investigator for the court and an attorney for A.G., and the error infringed upon Mother’s right to due process.View "Morgan v. Getter" on Justia Law