Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. 7, denies federal economic and other benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts and to surviving spouses from those couples, by defining "marriage" as "only a legal union between one man and one woman." "Spouse" refers "only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." DOMA absolves states from recognizing same-sex marriages solemnized in other states; prevents same-sex married couples from filing joint federal tax returns, affecting tax burdens; prevents a surviving same-sex spouse from collecting Social Security survivor benefits; leaves federal employees unable to share health insurance and other benefits with same-sex spouses. DOMA may result in loss of federal funding of programs such as Medicaid and veterans cemeteries if states recognize same-sex marriages in determining income or allowing burials. The district court declared Section 3 unconstitutional. The First Circuit affirmed, but stayed injunctive relief, anticipating certiorari review. The court applied "a closer than usual review" based on discrepant impact among married couples and on the importance of state interests in regulating marriage and tested the rationales for DOMA, considering Supreme Court precedent limiting which rationales can be counted and the force of certain rationales.

Karen Tanner appealed an order the circuit court that granted her parole with the condition that she not be in the presence or accompaniment of anyone convicted of a felony, including her husband. Tanner contended (1) the circuit court was without authority to grant parole insofar as parole is an executive function, and (2) the condition that she not associate with her husband was an unreasonable burden on her right of marriage. After discussing the reasons for imposing parole conditions, including the aim of reducing recidivism, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the West Virginia Home Incarceration Act imparts authority to circuit courts to grant parole under the conditions specified therein; and (2) the circuit court properly exercised its discretion and did not act in an unreasonable, capricious, or arbitrary manner when it imposed upon Tanner's parole the condition that she not associate with her husband.

Plaintiffs, a group of foster children, appealed the dismissal of their complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs brought this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of their substantive and due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and violations of their statutory rights under the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (CWA), 42 U.S.C. 670 et seq.; the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), 42 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.; and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1431 et seq. The complaint alleged that the county's foster care system was plagued by systemic failures that resulted in violations of the rights guaranteed to foster children by federal statutes and the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court reversed the dismissal of Counts One, Two, Three, Eight, and Eleven; affirmed the dismissal of Counts Nine and Ten; and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the district court should allow plaintiffs leave to amend their substantive due process claims, and plaintiffs could seek further leave to amend if they wished to add a claim under the IDEA's express cause of action.

Plaintiff-Appellant Michael Sabourin sued the University of Utah in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, claiming, among other things, that it had violated the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) by deciding to eliminate his position and then fire him for cause while he was on leave for childcare in 2006. The district court granted the University summary judgment. Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his FMLA claims. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed: all of Plaintiff’s claims failed because the undisputed facts showed that the University’s adverse decisions were not based on Plaintiff’s taking FMLA leave. The decision to eliminate his position was made before he sought FMLA leave; and he was fired for engaging in a course of insubordination.

Plaintiff sued his employer, alleging that his termination was the result of interference with and retaliation for his exercise of his rights under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., and racial discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981. The district court granted summary judgment for the employer and plaintiff appealed. The court affirmed the judgment because plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that the employer's actions were a pretext for discrimination. Plaintiff's testimony that the racially hostile environment had abated since his first lawsuit was settled in his numerous uses of FMLA leave without negative consequences supported the employer's non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory justification for plaintiff's termination.

Peter Toland, a Maryland resident, filed a complaint to establish custody of his daughter, Erika, who lived with her maternal grandmother, Akiko Futagi, in Japan. The mother of Erika, having previously been awarded custody by a Japanese court, died in 2007. A Japanese decree issued thereafter, and without notice to Toland, appointed Futagi as the guardian of Erika. Toland subsequently amended his complaint and alleged that Maryland was the appropriate forum to determine custody under the Maryland Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. The circuit court dismissed Toland's complaint, concluding (1) the Japanese guardianship decree did not constitute a violation of Toland's due process rights; and (2) Japan was the home state of Erika under the Act because Erika had lived exclusively in Japan for her entire life. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court's dismissal of Toland's complaint did not violate his due process rights, as they were not implicated by the Japanese decree; and (2) the circuit court properly applied the Act to conclude that it should not exercise jurisdiction over Toland's complaint to establish custody, as the child had no connection with Maryland, and Japan had not declined custody jurisdiction.

In the involuntary conservatorship action underlying this case, Daniel Gross was placed in the locked ward of Grove Manor Nursing Home. Jonathan Newman was appointed by the probate court to represent Gross in the action, and Kathleen Donovan was appointed as conservator. The superior court granted Gross's petition for writ of habeas corpus, finding that the conservatorship was void ab initio. Gross subsequently brought a complaint in U.S. District Court, asserting state and federal civil rights claims. The court dismissed it as to all defendants, finding, in relevant part, that Donovan, Newman, and Grove Manor were entitled to immunity because they were serving the judicial process. On appeal, the U.S. court of appeals submitted certified questions regarding Connecticut law to the Supreme Court. The Court held (1) absolute quasi-judicial immunity extends to a conservator appointed by the probate court only when the conservator is executing an order of the probate court or the conservator's actions are ratified by the probate court; (2) absolute quasi-judicial immunity does not extend to attorneys appointed to represent respondents in conservatorship proceedings or conservatees; and (3) the function of nursing homes caring for conservatees does not entitle them to quasi-judicial immunity under any circumstances.

Orlando Pecpec was charged in the family court with twenty-five counts of violation of an order for protection in relation to twenty-five voicemails and text messages he allegedly sent to his former spouse. The jury found PecPec guilty on nineteen counts. Pecpec challenged his convictions on eight counts, arguing they were obtained in violation of his right to an unanimous verdict because the jury was not specifically instructed that it was required to unanimously agree to the specific act that supported each count. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) under State v. Mundon, the family court was required to give a specific unanimity instruction in the circumstances of the instant case; but (2) the family court's error in this case was harmless because there was no reasonable possibility that Pecpec was convicted on less than a unanimous verdict.

The issue in this case was whether a trial court constitutionally erred in denying Father's last-minute request to provide his testimony by telephone from Georgia in a Kansas hearing to terminate Father's parental rights. The trial court held that without this testimony, Father failed to rebut the presumption of his parental unfitness established by the State's evidence. Father's parental rights therefore were terminated. A majority of the court of appeals panel reversed, holding that the trial court's ruling denied Father of procedural due process. The Supreme Court reversed the panel majority and affirmed the trial court on slightly different grounds, holding that Father failed to establish that his testimony by telephone was warranted, as Father was given appropriate notice of the time, place, and purpose of his parental rights termination hearing and an opportunity to appear there and be heard in a meaningful manner.

The Department of Child Services (DCS) filed a petition alleging T.N. was a child in need of services (CHINS) and requested that T.N. be removed from Father's care. Father objected to removal. A fact-finding hearing was subsequently held, at which time Mother notified the tribal court that she was prepared to make an admission to the CHINS allegations. Father objected. The tribal court told Father he could offer his objections at a contested dispositional hearing. The trial court then found T.N. to be a CHINS. Father appealed. The court of appeals reversed, finding the trial court violated Father's due process rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that for the reasons explained in In re K.D., also decided on this day, the trial court erred in not conducting a fact-finding hearing that was requested by Father, and thus, the court violated Father's due process rights.