Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs are individual physicians based in Arizona, joined by several Arizona medical and advocacy groups. The named Defendants are Arizona Attorney General Kristin Mayes, all Arizona County Attorneys, and various state enforcement agencies. The Attorney General declined to defend this lawsuit, and the district court allowed Warren Petersen, President of the Arizona Senate, and Ben Toma, Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, to intervene. This suit by Arizona physicians, medical associations, and advocacy groups claims that an Arizona law criminalizing the performance of certain abortions is unconstitutionally vague. The district court denied a preliminary injunction, finding that Plaintiffs lacked standing.   The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded. The panel held that the physician plaintiffs had demonstrated both actual and imminent injuries sufficient for standing. Plaintiffs suffered an actual injury—economic losses— because they lost money by complying with the laws, which forbade them from providing medical services they would otherwise provide, and these economic losses were fairly traceable to the statute. A favorable decision would relieve plaintiffs of compliance with the laws and restore the revenue generated by the prohibited procedures. Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged two imminent future injuries that affected interests protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments: (1) a liberty interest that was imperiled because violating the statute could result in imprisonment; and (2) a property interest that was threatened because a statutory violation could result in revocation of plaintiffs’ licenses, loss of revenue, and monetary damages. Finally, plaintiffs satisfied the causation and redressability requirements with respect to their imminent future injury. View "PAUL ISAACSON, ET AL V. KRISTIN MAYES, ET AL" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders entered by the circuit court granting summary judgment to Defendants in the underlying action brought after investigators identified unsafe, non-sterile injection techniques, holding that the circuit court did not err.Plaintiffs, a pain management clinic and its physician, brought the underlying action alleging that the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, West Virginia Bureau for Public Health, and its former Commissioner and State Health Officer (collectively, the DHHR Defendants) breached their duty of confidentiality when they issued a press release announcing that Defendants used unsafe injection practices and encouraging Plaintiffs' patients to be tested for bloodborne illnesses. Plaintiffs also sued the West Virginia Board of Ostseopathic Medicine and its executive director (together, the BOM Defendants), asserting a due process claim for failing to timely provide a hearing after their summary suspension of the physician's medical license. The circuit court concluded that the DHHR defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and that the claim against the BOM defendants was barred by res judicata. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the circuit court's judgment. View "Chalifoux v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Resources" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing the complaint brought by Appellant, a certified nursing assistant at Soldiers' Home, a state-funded healthcare facility housing veterans, alleging violations of his constitutional substantive due process rights to a safe work environment, to be free from a state-created danger, and to bodily integrity, holding that there was no error.Appellant brought this action pursuant to 24 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that Appellees violated his substantive due process rights during the COVID-19 pandemic by failing to protect him from harm, to provide safe working environment, and to provide adequate medical and nursing equipment. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, claiming qualified immunity. The district court dismissed the suit. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that where Appellant pointed to no precedent establishing that Appellees' COVID-19 response violated clearly established law, Appellees were entitled to qualified immunity. View "Ablordeppey v. Walsh" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court ordering Respondent's continued hospitalization following his court-ordered psychiatric treatment, holding that respondents in proceedings brought under Iowa Code chapter 229 do not have a federal constitutional right to represent themselves and forego the legal representation required by the statute.Respondent, who had a history of self-harm, suicide threats, and refusal to take his medications, was ordered to be involuntarily hospitalized under chapter 229. A series of subsequent court orders left Respondent's commitment in place for the next two years. Thereafter, Respondent moved to terminate his commitment and asked to proceed pro se. The district court denied Respondent's motion to proceed pro se and ordered his continued hospitalization. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and right to self-representation in criminal cases do not apply to Chapter 229 proceedings; and (2) the district court's factual findings were supported by substantial evidence and binding on appeal. View "In re V.H." on Justia Law

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Twitter broadened its definition of censorable, harmful information to include “content that goes directly against guidance from authoritative sources of global and local public health information.” Twitter began permanently suspending any user who received five or more infractions for violating its COVID-19 policy. The plaintiffs,Twitter users who used their accounts to question responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, suffered multiple temporary suspensions. They claim the Biden administration became involved, announcing that “[t]he President’s view is that the major [social-media] platforms have a responsibility ... to stop amplifying untrustworthy content, disinformation, and misinformation, especially related to COVID-19 vaccinations.” Later, the Surgeon General released an advisory statement related to COVID-19 misinformation and (according to Plaintiffs) “command[ed] technology platforms” to take several steps. President Biden stated that social media platforms are “killing people” with COVID-19 misinformation. Days later, USA Today reported that the “[t]he White House is assessing whether social media platforms are legally liable for misinformation.”Plaintiffs sued the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), asserting claims under the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and Administrative Procedure Act, citing HHS’s unlawful efforts to “instrumentalize[] Twitter” to “silenc[e] opinions that diverge from the White House’s messaging on COVID-19.” The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. The plaintiffs have not adequately pleaded that HHS compelled Twitter’s chosen course of conduct, leaving a “highly attenuated chain of possibilities” that is too speculative to establish a traceable harm View "Changizi v. Department of Health and Human Services" on Justia Law

In this case involving a facility that operated under the protection of a thirty-six-year-old consent decree the Supreme Judicial Court held that the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in concluding that the Department of Developmental Services failed to establish that the consent decree should be terminated based on the evidentiary record before the probate court.In question was the treatment and welfare of individuals who suffered from severe developmental and intellectual disabilities that caused them to engage in grievous self-harm and other life-threatening behaviors. The individuals lived in group homes under the care of Judge Rotenberg Educational Center, Inc. (JRC), a facility that employed the use of aversive interventions such as electric skin shock as part of its treatment approach. In the 1980s and 1990s State agencies disrupted JRC's operations, after which the consent decree was issued. Years later, the agencies bound by the decree moved for its termination, but the probate and family court denied the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the Department's arguments against continued enforcement of the consent decree were unavailing. View "Judge Rotenberg Educational Center, Inc. v. Commissioner of Dep't of Developmental Services" on Justia Law

The United States Food and Drug Administration approved mifepristone for use in 2000 under the brand name Mifeprex. FDA approved a generic version in 2019, and in 2021, FDA announced that it would not enforce an agency regulation requiring mifepristone to be prescribed and dispensed in person. The agency moved that requirement from mifepristone’s conditions for use. The subject of this appeal is those four actions: the 2000 Approval, the 2016 Amendments, the 2019 Generic Approval, and the 2021 Non-Enforcement Decision. Plaintiffs, Medical Organizations and Doctors contend that FDA overlooked important safety risks in approving mifepristone and amending its restrictions. The Medical Organizations and Doctors moved for preliminary injunctive relief. The district court granted the motion but stayed the effective date of each of the challenged actions under 5 U.S.C. Section 705. FDA appealed, as did Intervenor Danco Laboratories, LLC.     The Fifth Circuit vacated in part and affirmed in part. The court vacated in part and concluded that the Medical Organizations and Doctors’ claim as to the 2000 Approval is likely barred by the statute of limitations. Thus, until final judgment, Mifeprex will remain available to the public under the conditions for use that existed in 2016. The court also vacated the portion of the order relating to the 2019 Generic Approval because Plaintiffs have not shown that they are injured by that particular action. The generic version of mifepristone will also be available under the same conditions as Mifeprex. The court affirmed the components of the stay order that concern the 2016 Amendments and the 2021 Non-Enforcement Decision. View "Alliance Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the order of the district court dismissing Plaintiffs' claims that the closure of in-person education due to the COVID-19 pandemic deprived children of the free appropriate public education to which they were entitled and deprived and parents of their right to participate in their children's education, holding that none of Plaintiffs' claims were cognizable in federal court.Plaintiffs, three children with disabilities and their parents on behalf of a putative class, sued the Governor of Massachusetts, the Commissioner of Schools for Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, and several school districts and their superintendents, claiming that the closure of in-person education during the COVID-19 pandemic violated Plaintiffs' rights under the IDEA and that Defendants illegally discriminated against Plaintiffs on the basis of disability in violation the Americans with Disabilities Act and 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs' claims were properly dismissed in full either because Plaintiffs lacked standing to request the relief they sought, because the claims were moot, and/or because Plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies. View "Roe v. Healey" on Justia Law

The Montgomery County Board of Education adopted Guidelines for Gender Identity for 2020–2021 that permit schools to develop gender support plans for students. The Guidelines allow implementation of these plans without the knowledge or consent of the students’ parents. They even authorize the schools to withhold information about the plans from parents if the school deems the parents to be unsupportive. In response, three parents with children attending Montgomery County public schools challenged the portion of the Guidelines that permit school officials to develop gender support plans and then withhold information about a child’s gender support plan from their parents. Terming it the “Parental Preclusion Policy,” the parents alleged the policy unconstitutionally usurps the parents’ fundamental right to raise their children under the Fourteenth Amendment.   The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded for the case to be dismissed. The court explained that the parents have not alleged that their children have gender support plans, are transgender or are even struggling with issues of gender identity. As a result, they have not alleged facts that the Montgomery County public schools have any information about their children that is currently being withheld or that there is a substantial risk information will be withheld in the future. Thus, under the Constitution, they have not alleged the type of injury required to show standing. Absent an injury that creates standing, federal courts lack the power to address the parents’ objections to the Guidelines. Thus, the court remanded to the district court to dismiss the case for lack of standing. View "John and Jane Parents 1 v. Montgomery County Board of Education" on Justia Law

High-level officials in the California prison system transferred 122 inmates from the California Institution for Men, where there was a widespread COVID-19 outbreak, to San Quentin State Prison, where there were no known cases of the virus. The transfer sparked an outbreak of COVID-19 at San Quentin that ultimately killed one prison guard and over twenty-five inmates. The guard’s family members sued the prison officials, claiming that the officials violated the guard’s due process rights. The officials moved to dismiss, arguing that they were entitled to qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion with respect to some of the officials, who then filed an interlocutory appeal.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The panel held that based on the allegations in the complaint, Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged a violation of the guard’s substantive due process right to be free from a state-created danger, under which state actors may be liable for their roles in creating or exposing individuals to danger they otherwise would not have faced. The panel held that the unlawfulness of defendants’ alleged actions was clearly established by the combination of two precedents: L.W. v. Grubbs, 974 F.2d 119 (9th Cir. 1992), which recognized a claim under the state-created danger doctrine arising out of a prison’s disregard for the safety of a female employee who was raped after being required to work alone with an inmate known to be likely to commit a violent crime if placed alone with a woman; and Pauluk v. Savage, 836 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2016). View "PATRICIA POLANCO, ET AL V. RALPH DIAZ, ET AL" on Justia Law