Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

A “millionaire party” involves betting on games of chance customarily associated with a gambling casino, using imitation money or chips that have a nominal value equal to or greater than the value of the currency for which they can be exchanged, Mich. Comp. Laws 432.103a(8). Millionaire-party licenses may be issued to a “qualified organization” for up to four consecutive days at a single location. Proceeds from a millionaire party, less “reasonable” expenses incurred to operate the event, must be “devoted exclusively” to the charitable purposes of the licensee. Following denial of licenses for millionaire parties to be held at adult businesses, plaintiffs sued, alleging violations of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, and that they were deprived of their constitutionally protected status as an “approved lessor” for millionaire parties without due process of law. They claim that the state adopted a blanket policy of denying all such applications in retaliation for Plaintiffs’ exercising their First Amendment rights. The district court dismissed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that plaintiffs’ allegations concerning retaliation must be accepted as true for purposes of a motion to dismiss, but that being an “approved lessor” is not a protected entitlement. View "Top Flight Entm't, Ltd. v. Schuette" on Justia Law

In an effort to regulate gambling, the General Assembly passed N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-306.4, which bans the operation of electronic machines that conduct sweepstakes through the use of an "entertaining display" such as video poker or video bingo. Originally, Plaintiffs were companies that marketed and sold prepaid products. As a promotion, Plaintiffs developed electronic sweepstakes systems where participants were allowed to access a gamestation terminal that revealed the content of the sweepstakes entry using different displays that simulated various game themes. After the General Assembly enacted the current version of section 14-306.4, Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the statute under the First Amendment. The trial court concluded that the law was constitutional. The court of appeals majority concluded that the announcement of the sweepstakes result and the video games were protected speech and that the entire statute was unconstitutionally overbroad. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the legislation regulated conduct and not protected speech and was therefore constitutional. View "Hest Techs., Inc. v. State ex rel. Perdue" on Justia Law

The issue before the Tenth Circuit in this case pertained to a "class-of-one" equal protection lawsuit against a county government based on its demand that a property owner correct a nuisance. Kansas Penn Gaming, LLC alleged that after it and Cherokee County became involved in litigation concerning a casino development agreement, the County health department targeted Kansas Penn for a regulatory enforcement action. In particular, the County sent Kansas Penn a notice stating that the unkempt condition of its property violated state and local nuisance laws and regulations and warning that failure to clean up the property would lead to an enforcement action. Although the County never brought an enforcement action against Kansas Penn, Kansas Penn sued the County and some of its officials under 42 U.S.C. 1983. In its complaint, Kansas Penn alleged the notice of nuisance violated its right to equal protection by arbitrarily and maliciously singling it out for selective enforcement. Because the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court that Kansas Penn failed to state a claim for relief under the standard set forth by "Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly," the Court affirmed dismissal of the complaint.

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants after plaintiff was arrested for, among other things, possession of false identification documents, when he reported to an agent with the Enforcement Division of the Nevada Gaming Control Board ("NGCB") that MGM management had unlawfully denied him payment of his tickets at their casinos. The agent arrested plaintiff after casino records indicated that he had previously redeemed tickets under two different names and the charges against plaintiff were later dismissed. At issue was whether plaintiff's false arrest/false imprisonment, battery, and premises liability claims were properly dismissed under Nevada law and whether plaintiff's false arrest and conspiracy to commit false arrest claims were properly dismissed under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) where plaintiff admitted to the agent that he possessed and used an unofficial identification card and credit card with a different name to gamble at several Las Vegas casinos; where plaintiff's admissions provided the agent with probable cause to believe he had committed a crime and therefore permitting the agent to arrest him; and where, as a result, plaintiff's amended complaint failed to state plausible claims for false arrest, conspiracy to commit false arrest, false imprisonment, and premises liability under state and federal law.