Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

A police officer with the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, D.C., was involved in two separate incidents within five days, during which he used neck restraints—specifically, trachea and carotid artery holds—on two individuals while on duty. Both incidents occurred at McDonald’s restaurants, and in each case, the officer initiated physical contact and applied prohibited neck restraints, despite the individuals not posing an immediate threat or actively resisting arrest. The officer was aware that such holds were forbidden by department policy, and in one instance, had been warned about his conduct just days before repeating it.A grand jury indicted the officer on five charges related to these events. Before trial, three charges were dropped. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia conducted a jury trial, after which the officer was convicted on two counts of depriving individuals of their rights under color of law, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. The jury found that the officer acted willfully, used excessive force, and caused bodily injury. The court sentenced him to concurrent six-month prison terms and supervised release. The officer moved for acquittal and a new trial, arguing, among other things, that the jury instructions on willfulness were improper and that the evidence was insufficient. The District Court denied these motions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the officer’s challenges. The court held that the jury instructions on willfulness were not plainly erroneous, as precedent allows conviction under § 242 for conduct done in reckless disregard of constitutional rights. The court also found sufficient evidence supported the jury’s findings of excessive force and willfulness, and that no impermissible amendment or variance of the indictment occurred. The appellate court affirmed the District Court’s evidentiary rulings and the officer’s convictions. View "USA v. Clark" on Justia Law

A high school student in the District of Columbia was sexually assaulted by a classmate in a school bathroom. The student’s mother reported the incident to school officials, prompting an investigation by the District. The District ultimately found the assault claim credible and took steps to support the student, including offering counseling and a school transfer. However, the school principal, before any investigation, expressed disbelief in the student’s claim, made derogatory remarks about her, and attempted to undermine the investigation, even after video evidence corroborated the student’s account. The principal’s conduct included misleading superiors and withholding information. The student and her mother later learned of these actions, which caused them significant distress.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the student’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) for failure to state a claim, finding that the school-student relationship alone did not create a special duty under D.C. law. After discovery, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) and Title IX claims, holding that the District’s response was not deliberately indifferent and that the principal’s conduct did not meet the standard for IIED because the remarks were made outside the student’s presence.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the NIED claim and the grant of summary judgment to the District on the Title IX claims, finding the District’s overall response was not clearly unreasonable and that the principal’s actions could not be attributed to the District for Title IX retaliation. However, the appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment on the IIED claim against the principal, holding that a reasonable jury could find her conduct was extreme and outrageous, intended or recklessly caused severe emotional distress, and remanded for further proceedings on that claim. View "Doe v. DC" on Justia Law

A former federal employee alleged that her union mishandled an arbitration proceeding and discriminated against her based on sex and disability. She claimed that the union’s local president made unwanted sexual advances, disparaged her status as a nursing mother, and ultimately withdrew union support for her grievance against her employer. The employee filed several unfair labor practice (ULP) charges with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), some of which were dismissed as untimely, and also filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which issued her a right-to-sue letter. She then brought two lawsuits in federal district court: one alleging violations of Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) against the union and its local, and another, pro se, alleging retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) against the union, its local, and two union officials.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed both lawsuits for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court reasoned that the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS) precluded the employee’s claims, holding that her allegations were essentially claims for breach of the union’s duty of fair representation, which must be pursued exclusively through the FLRA’s administrative process.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the dismissals de novo. The court held that the FSLMRS does not preclude federal employees from bringing Title VII and ADA claims against their unions in federal district court, even when the alleged conduct could also constitute a ULP. The court reasoned that Congress did not intend to displace these specific statutory discrimination remedies with the FSLMRS’s more limited scheme. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the FLSA retaliation claim, finding no indication that Congress intended for such claims against unions to proceed in district court alongside the FSLMRS process. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the Title VII and ADA claims. View "Lucas v. American Federation of Government Employees" on Justia Law

Michael Hurd, Jr. was sentenced in 2005 to 15 months in prison for a felony firearm charge and an additional 27 months for four misdemeanor firearm and drug possession charges. After serving his felony sentence in federal custody, Hurd was mistakenly released instead of being transferred to serve his misdemeanor sentence. He completed his supervised release and, years later, was reincarcerated by the District of Columbia Department of Corrections when the error was discovered during a subsequent, unrelated incarceration. Hurd was not given a hearing before being required to serve the remainder of his original sentence.After his reincarceration, Hurd filed a habeas petition in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, which was denied. His appeal was dismissed as moot after he completed his sentence. Hurd then brought a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his substantive and procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment to the District, finding no substantive due process violation and holding that his procedural due process claim was barred by the Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that reincarcerating a person to serve the remainder of a lawfully imposed sentence after an erroneous release does not violate substantive due process, as such action does not “shock the conscience.” The court also held that Hurd’s procedural due process claim for damages was barred by Heck v. Humphrey because a judgment in his favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his confinement, which had not been set aside. View "Hurd v. DC" on Justia Law

The Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs (WLC) frequently submits Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) for records to aid in representing incarcerated individuals. Frustrated by the Bureau’s delays in responding to these requests, WLC filed a lawsuit claiming the Bureau has a policy or practice of violating FOIA by not responding promptly. WLC sought an injunction to reform the Bureau’s FOIA processes to expedite record production.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that WLC had a viable policy or practice claim but granted summary judgment to the Bureau. The court credited an affidavit from the Bureau describing efforts to improve FOIA response times and found no evidence of a policy or practice of violating FOIA. WLC appealed, arguing that the Bureau’s requirement to submit individual FOIA requests for prisoners’ disciplinary and educational records, rather than using an expedited process like the one for medical records under the Privacy Act, unnecessarily increased delays.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Bureau’s practice of processing requests for individual prisoners’ records under FOIA, rather than creating a separate expedited process, does not violate FOIA. The court found that FOIA does not require the Bureau to waive its statutory entitlements under the Privacy Act for non-medical records. The court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, concluding that WLC’s claim failed as a matter of law. The court also upheld the denial of WLC’s discovery request, finding it unnecessary given the legal insufficiency of WLC’s claim. View "Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs v. Department of Justice" on Justia Law

Michael Muir, who has a congenital birth defect presenting as a hernia in his right scrotum, challenged the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) Final Rule authorizing the use of Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) scanners at airport security checkpoints. Muir argued that the scanners, which use electromagnetic radiation, flag his hernia as a threat, leading to painful and potentially life-threatening pat-downs. He claimed that the Final Rule and TSA’s standard operating procedures (SOPs) are arbitrary and capricious, contrary to TSA’s statutory authority, and violate Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.The case was reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court found that Muir had not raised his statutory challenges during the rulemaking process, resulting in forfeiture of those claims. However, the court agreed with Muir’s Rehabilitation Act claim, noting that TSA’s failure to provide an accommodation for his disability could be a violation of the Act. The court determined that Muir had identified a reasonable accommodation—screening with a walk-through metal detector (WTMD)—and remanded the case to TSA to determine if this accommodation would impose an undue burden on the agency.The court denied Muir’s other challenges to the Final Rule and his motion to supplement the record. The court emphasized that TSA must conduct the appropriate administrative process to address the implementation of Muir’s reasonable accommodation and explore alternative accommodations if necessary. View "Muir v. Department of Homeland Security" on Justia Law

Eight citizens of Mali alleged that, as children, they were trafficked to Côte d’Ivoire and forced to work without pay on small, remote cocoa farms. After eventually returning to Mali, they brought a putative class action in the United States against seven major cocoa importers, claiming the companies violated the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) by knowingly benefiting from a supply chain that relied on forced child labor. The plaintiffs asserted that the importers orchestrated and controlled a cocoa supply chain “venture” and delayed meaningful action against child labor through their leadership of the World Cocoa Foundation.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the complaint for lack of standing. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to connect the defendants to any specific cocoa plantations, including those where the plaintiffs had worked. The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ general, industry-wide allegations lacked the specificity required to establish causation under Article III of the Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held the appeal in abeyance pending resolution of a similar case, Doe 1 v. Apple Inc.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because they did not plausibly allege facts showing a causal connection between their forced labor and the importers’ conduct. Specifically, the complaint failed to allege that the importers sourced cocoa, directly or through intermediaries, from the specific farms where the plaintiffs worked. The court distinguished this case from Doe 1 v. Apple Inc., where plaintiffs had plausibly traced their injuries to the defendants’ suppliers. The dismissal was affirmed. View "Coubaly v. Cargill Incorporated" on Justia Law

Tobias Jones, a self-described citizen journalist, was filming a Secret Service building in Washington, D.C. when two officers ordered him to stop. When he refused, they detained, handcuffed, and searched him. A third officer later informed Jones that he had the right to film, and he was released. Jones sued the officers for damages, claiming violations of his First and Fourth Amendment rights, and sought prospective relief against the Secret Service.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Jones' case. The court held that Jones did not have a valid cause of action for damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics and lacked standing to seek injunctive or declaratory relief.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Jones' Fourth Amendment claims presented a new context under Bivens, as the Secret Service officers were performing protective duties, which differ from the law enforcement activities in Bivens. The court found that extending Bivens to this new context was inappropriate due to the potential for judicial intrusion into executive functions and the availability of alternative remedies through the Department of Homeland Security. The court also declined to extend Bivens to Jones' First Amendment claim, noting that the Supreme Court has never done so and has foreclosed Bivens remedies for First Amendment retaliation claims.Regarding prospective relief, the court held that Jones lacked standing because he did not plausibly allege a substantial risk of future harm. The court noted that Jones' allegations of potential future encounters with Secret Service officers were speculative and insufficient to establish standing.The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Jones' case. View "Jones v. Secret Service" on Justia Law

Junius Joyner, III, an African-American male, was hired by a legal staffing agency, Mestel & Company (Hire Counsel), and assigned to work at Morrison & Foerster LLP in Washington, D.C. He worked on the merger of Sprint Corporation with T-Mobile U.S., Inc. from July to December 2019. Joyner alleged several incidents of racial discrimination and a hostile work environment, including delayed work assignments, derogatory comments, and harassment by coworkers. He also claimed wrongful discharge under D.C. law, asserting he was terminated after reporting potential antitrust violations.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Joyner’s complaint for failure to state a claim. The court found that Joyner did not provide sufficient facts to support his claims of racial discrimination and a hostile work environment under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII. The court also dismissed his wrongful discharge claim under D.C. law, concluding that it lacked supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Joyner’s federal claims, agreeing that Joyner failed to plausibly allege that his treatment was racially motivated or that the work environment was sufficiently hostile. The court found that Joyner’s allegations did not meet the necessary standard to infer racial discrimination or a hostile work environment. However, the appellate court vacated the district court’s judgment on the wrongful discharge claim, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction over this claim and remanded it with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. View "Joyner v. Morrison and Foerster LLP" on Justia Law

Media Matters for America and Eric Hananoki, a senior investigative reporter, filed a lawsuit against Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in his official capacity as the Attorney General of Texas. The plaintiffs alleged that the Texas Office of the Attorney General launched a retaliatory campaign against them after they published an unfavorable article about X.com, a social media platform owned by Elon Musk. The article reported that corporate advertisements on X appeared next to antisemitic posts and that Musk endorsed an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Following the publication, the Texas Attorney General's office issued a civil investigative demand (CID) to Media Matters, requiring them to produce extensive records.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and denied Paxton's motion to dismiss for improper venue and lack of personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. The court found that the investigation and CID constituted cognizable injuries sufficient to establish the plaintiffs' standing. The court concluded that the plaintiffs satisfied the requisite factors for a preliminary injunction, including a likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment retaliation claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's judgment. The appellate court held that Paxton was subject to personal jurisdiction in the District of Columbia because he purposefully directed actions at the plaintiffs in the District. The court also found that the plaintiffs' complaint raised a justiciable claim of First Amendment retaliation, as they alleged concrete and ongoing harms resulting from the retaliatory investigation. The court concluded that the District of Columbia was a proper venue for the action and that the District Court did not err in issuing the preliminary injunction. View "Media Matters for America v. Paxton." on Justia Law