Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff sued the Richmond International Airport and TSA agents, alleging violations of his constitutional rights when he was seized and arrested for displaying the text of the Fourth Amendment on his chest. The district court denied the TSA agents' motion to dismiss the First Amendment claim and the TSA agents appealed. Because the court found that the facts as alleged by plaintiff plausibly set forth a claim that the TSA agents violated his clearly established First Amendment rights, the court affirmed the district court's decision. View "Tobey v. Jones" on Justia Law

This case involved the constitutionality of the North Carolina "Woman's Right to Know Act," N.C. Gen. Stat. 90-21.80 to -21.92, a statute that required certain informed consent procedures prior to the performance of an abortion. Appellants - a group of pro-life medical professionals, women who have previously undergone abortions, and pregnancy counseling centers - filed a motion to intervene as defendants in the suit. The court affirmed the district court's denial of appellants' motion to intervene as of right based on its finding that the Attorney General was adequately representing their interests. The court held that the putative intervenor must mount a strong showing of inadequacy. In this instance, both the government agency and the would-be intervenors wanted the statute to be constitutionally sustained. The court also held that the district court did not err in concluding that appellants failed to establish adversity of interest with the Attorney General and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting appellants' claim of nonfeasance by the Attorney General. View "Stuart v. Huff" on Justia Law

The Town appealed the district court's invalidation of its municipal sign ordinance as it applied to a resident. Dissatisfied with the Town's efforts to resolve a dispute with the resident, the resident painted the words, "Screwed by the Town of Cary" across a fifteen foot swath of the facade of his home. The court acknowledged that the Town's Sign Ordinance, and in particular its application to the resident, has aggravated some town residents who believed that it was excessively restrictive. But their recourse lies with the ballot, not the Constitution. Because the Sign Ordinance had distinguished content for a constitutionally permissible purpose, the court held that it did not violate the First Amendment. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court. View "Bowden v. Town of Cary" on Justia Law

CFIF and WVFL are 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(4) organizations that engage in election-related speech. These organizations and an individual brought suit alleging that West Virginia's campaign finance statutes were constitutionally impermissible. At issue was whether West Virginia's campaign-finance reporting and disclaimer requirements could survive constitutional scrutiny, West Virginia Code section 3-8-1 et seq. The court affirmed the district court's decisions to (1) strike "newspaper, magazine or other periodical" from West Virginia's "electioneering communication" definition; (2) upheld the "electioneering communication" definition's exemption for grassroots lobbying; (3) declined to consider the merits of the CFIF's challenge to the bona fide news account exemption because the organization lacked standing; and (4) prohibited prosecutions for violations that occurred while the earlier injunctions were in effect. However, the court reversed the district court's decision with respect to (1) its conclusion that subsection (C) of the "expressly advocating" definition was unconstitutional; (2) its choice to uphold the "electioneering communication" definition's section 501(c)(3) exemption; and (3) its application of an "earmarked funds" limiting construction to the reporting requirement for electioneering communications. Because WVFL did not file a notice of appeal in this case, the court could not consider its challenge to the district court's finding that the statutory scheme's twenty-four- and forty-eight-hour reporting requirements were constitutional. Consequently, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Center for Individual Freedom v. Tennant, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, D.L. and his parents, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the BCBSC and Baltimore City Public Schools, contending that Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794, compelled BCBSC to provide D.L. education services related to certain disorders even though D.L. was enrolled exclusively in a private religious school. Because plaintiffs retained full discretion over school enrollment and because BCBSC has taken reasonable measures to fulfill its mission, the court found that BCBSC's policies placed no undue burden on plaintiffs' constitutional rights. Because the court did not read Section 504 to apply an affirmative obligation on school districts to provide services to private school students and because plaintiffs retained full educational discretion, the court affirmed the district court's ruling. View "D. L. v. Baltimore City Bd. of Sch. Comm." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment for her employer, the UPS, pursuant to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), 42 U.S.C. 2000e(k), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. The court held that plaintiff presented no direct evidence of pregnancy discrimination where the UPS policy at issue, that did not provide light duty work to pregnant workers but did for certain other employees, treated pregnant and nonpregnant workers alike and therefore complied with the PDA. Plaintiff also failed to offer sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case of discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas framework. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Young v. UPS" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a pre-enforcement challenge to the constitutionality of a federal statute restricting interstate transfers of handguns, 18 U.S.C. 922(b)(3); a federal regulation implementing that statute, 27 C.F.R. 478.99; and a Virginia law prohibiting Virginia firearms dealers from selling handguns to non-residents of Virginia, Va. Code section 18.2-308.2:2. Because the challenged laws did not burden plaintiffs directly, and because plaintiffs were not prevented from acquiring the handguns they desired, they did not allege an injury in fact. Even if plaintiffs established an injury in fact, they were unable to demonstrate traceability. The court also held that there was no organizational standing. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint on standing grounds. View "Lane v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

These appeals arose from allegations that the City of Durham and its officials mishandled false rape charges made against members of the 2005-2006 Duke University lacrosse team. The City and its officials asserted various immunities from suit and on that basis moved to dismiss, or for summary judgment, as to all claims alleged against them. The district court granted those motions in part and denied them in part. The City and its officials appealed. The court reversed the district court's denial of all defendants' motions to dismiss the federal claims alleged against them; reversed the denial of the City's motion for summary judgment as to the state common-law claims alleged against it; affirmed the denial of Officer Gottlieb and Himan's motions to dismiss the state common-law malicious prosecution claims alleged against them; reversed the denial of the officers' motions to dismiss all other state common-law claims; dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction the City's appeal of the state constitutional claims alleged against it; and remanded the cases for further proceedings. View "Evans v. Chalmers" on Justia Law

Defendant, a citizen of Mexico, was indicted for possessing firearms while being illegally or unlawfully in the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charge, contending that section 922(g)(5) violated his rights under the Second and Fifth Amendments. The district court denied the motion, holding that section 922(g)(5) was constitutional. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the scope of the Second Amendment did not extend to provide protection to illegal aliens, because illegal aliens were not law-abiding members of the political community and aliens who have entered the United States unlawfully have no more rights under the Second Amendment than do aliens outside of the United States seeking admittance. On defendant's Fifth Amendment challenge, the court concluded that prohibiting aliens, as a class, from possessing firearms was rationally related to Congress' legitimate interest in public safety. View "United States v. Carpio-Leon" on Justia Law

Appellant appealed the district court's award of summary judgment in favor of appellees. The district court held that appellant failed to submit sufficient evidence to meet his burden with regard to various Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12112, claims. Appellees cross-appealed on the ancillary issue of whether the number of employees of the National Red Cross and the Greenbrier Valley Chapter could be aggregated for purposes of determining "employer" status. The court held that appellant did not meet the ADA's definitions of disability and affirmed the district court with regard to appellant's primary ADA claim; appellant's retaliation claim based on appellant's lifting restriction and on his workers' compensation request both failed; and appellant did not have sufficient evidence to support his confidentiality claim. The court also held that Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp. dictated that the ADA's employee threshold was not a limit on jurisdiction but, rather, an element of the claim itself; the cross-appeal was not properly taken; and the court vacated the district court's ruling on the employee aggregation issue. View "Reynolds v. American National Red Cross" on Justia Law