Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Marian Hudak was charged with two federal hate crimes after separate assaults on two men in North Carolina. The first victim, J.D., was a Mexican-American neighbor whom Hudak had repeatedly harassed with racial slurs and threats, culminating in a physical attack. The second victim, J.S., was a Black man whom Hudak confronted in traffic, using racial epithets and threats, and physically attacked his vehicle before chasing him to his apartment complex and threatening further violence. Evidence showed Hudak possessed Nazi and Ku Klux Klan memorabilia and had a history of expressing racist views.The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina presided over Hudak’s trial. The government presented evidence of Hudak’s racist motives, including testimony about his Nazi memorabilia and prior racist conduct. Hudak conceded intent to injure and intimidate but argued his actions were due to road rage and mental illness, not racial animus. The district court excluded expert testimony about Hudak’s mental illness, finding it unreliable and irrelevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Insanity Defense Reform Act, since Hudak did not plead insanity. The court also admitted evidence of Nazi memorabilia after Hudak testified about his interest in military history, determining he had “opened the door” to its relevance.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. The Fourth Circuit held that the district court properly excluded the mental health evidence and correctly admitted the Nazi memorabilia after Hudak’s own testimony. The court affirmed the jury’s verdict, holding that the government only needed to prove the victims’ race or national origin was a but-for cause of the assaults, and that Hudak received a fair trial. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Hudak" on Justia Law

Ann Tierney Smith owned real property in West Virginia but failed to pay the assessed real estate taxes for 2016. As a result, the Mercer County Sheriff sold a tax lien on the property to Ed Boer. Boer sought a tax deed and provided the West Virginia State Auditor’s Office with a list of individuals to be notified about the right to redeem the property, including Smith. However, Boer did not include Smith’s current mailing address, which was available in county records. Notices sent by mail were returned as undeliverable, and attempts at personal service were unsuccessful, leading to notices being posted at the property and other addresses. After the redemption deadline passed, G. Russell Rollyson, Jr., an employee of the State Auditor’s Office, issued a tax deed to Boer. Smith learned of the deed in late 2020.Smith, and later her estate representatives, sued Rollyson and Boer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deprivation of property without due process. The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia granted summary judgment to Rollyson, finding him entitled to qualified immunity. The court determined that while Rollyson could have directed Boer to search county records for Smith’s address after the mailed notices were returned, the duty to do so was not clearly established at the time. The estate representatives appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment and qualified immunity rulings de novo. The Fourth Circuit held that it was not clearly established on April 1, 2019, that Rollyson was required to have Boer search county records anew for Smith’s address after the mailed notices were returned. The court found that existing precedent did not prescribe a specific follow-up measure and that Rollyson’s actions did not violate clearly established law. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Ann deWet v. G. Russell Rollyson, Jr." on Justia Law

A North Carolina police officer, Clarence Belton, was shot multiple times by fellow officer Heather Loveridge during the execution of a search warrant. The incident, which resulted in serious injuries to Belton and ended his law enforcement career, was captured on video and body camera footage. Belton sued Loveridge and the City of Charlotte, alleging excessive force and other claims. During the litigation, both parties moved to seal the video exhibits related to the shooting, and the district court granted these motions, placing the footage under seal.After the district court denied Loveridge’s motion for summary judgment, which was later vacated and remanded by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, a local television station, WBTV, sought to intervene in the case to unseal the video footage. Belton supported WBTV’s motion, but Loveridge opposed it, arguing that unsealing would jeopardize her right to a fair trial. The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina denied WBTV’s motion to intervene, citing lack of jurisdiction due to the pending appeal, and also denied the motion to unseal, finding no right of access under the common law or the First Amendment and concluding that Loveridge’s fair trial rights outweighed any public interest.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of WBTV’s motion to intervene, agreeing that the district court lacked jurisdiction at that stage. However, the appellate court treated WBTV’s appeal regarding the sealing order as a petition for a writ of mandamus. The Fourth Circuit held that the district court’s order sealing the video exhibits violated the First Amendment right of access to judicial records. The court vacated the sealing order and remanded with instructions to unseal the video footage, finding that Loveridge had not met her burden to justify continued sealing. View "Gray Media Group, Inc. v. Loveridge" on Justia Law

Two nonprofit organizations challenged the constitutionality of a North Carolina statute that made it a felony for individuals with felony convictions to vote before their rights were restored, regardless of whether those individuals mistakenly believed they were eligible. The statute, originally enacted in the late 19th century, was shown to have been motivated by racial animus and to have a disproportionate impact on Black North Carolinians. In 2023, the North Carolina General Assembly amended the statute to add a requirement that a person must “know” their rights had not been restored to be prosecuted, effective January 1, 2024.The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina considered the plaintiffs’ claims under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. After the statute was amended, a magistrate judge recommended dismissal for lack of standing, but the district court found the case was not moot because prosecutions under the old statute for pre-2024 conduct could still occur, potentially chilling voter participation and requiring the plaintiffs to divert resources. The district court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, holding the statute unconstitutional and enjoining its enforcement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the case was not moot because prosecutions under the prior version of the statute could still proceed, and the plaintiffs retained a concrete interest in the outcome. On the merits, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that the challenged statute violated the Equal Protection Clause. The court found that the statute’s original enactment and reenactment were motivated by racial discrimination, and that subsequent legislative changes did not “cleanse” the statute of its discriminatory origins, as the statute itself had not been substantively reenacted or amended in a way that would warrant a presumption of legislative good faith. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "A. Philip Randolph Institute v. North Carolina State Board of Elections" on Justia Law

A man who was previously convicted of a felony in Virginia sought to have his voting rights restored after his release from prison. Under Virginia’s Constitution, individuals convicted of felonies lose the right to vote, but the Governor has the sole discretion to restore those rights. The restoration process requires applicants to submit a form, after which the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth reviews the application and makes a recommendation to the Governor, who then decides whether to grant restoration. The applicant in this case, who had never voted due to his conviction as a minor, submitted at least one application for restoration, but the Governor declined to restore his rights.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia reviewed the applicant’s claims, which were brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The applicant argued that the Governor’s unfettered discretion in restoring voting rights, and the lack of a definite time limit for the process, violated the First Amendment’s unfettered-discretion doctrine. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Governor and Secretary, finding that the doctrine did not apply because the restoration process determines eligibility to reenter the franchise, rather than regulating the exercise of an existing right.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Fourth Circuit held that Virginia’s discretionary system for restoring voting rights, which is rooted in the executive clemency power, does not facially violate the First Amendment’s unfettered-discretion doctrine. The court reasoned that the clemency power is fundamentally different from a licensing scheme subject to First Amendment prior restraint analysis, and that judicial review of such executive discretion is limited to narrow circumstances not present here. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Hawkins v. Youngkin" on Justia Law

An attorney formerly employed by the Federal Public Defender’s Office (FDO) for the Western District of North Carolina alleged that her supervisor sexually harassed her. After she reported the harassment, the FDO’s Unit Executive took steps to separate her from the supervisor, including changing reporting lines, authorizing telework, and offering her a promotion. The attorney also initiated proceedings under the judiciary’s Employee Dispute Resolution (EDR) Plan, which provided for both investigation and mediation. During this process, she alleged additional retaliation and discrimination by the Unit Executive. She ultimately left her position and withdrew from the EDR process before a formal hearing could occur.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina conducted a six-day bench trial and issued a lengthy decision. The court found that, while there were procedural missteps and some insensitive comments by supervisors, the FDO’s response to the harassment was not deliberately indifferent, retaliatory, or discriminatory. The court also found that the attorney’s due-process rights were not violated, as she was not coerced to abandon the EDR process based on a reasonable belief that the Unit Executive would be the final decisionmaker. The court granted summary judgment to two other officials, finding no evidence of discriminatory intent or deliberate indifference, and excluded certain “Me Too” evidence as inadmissible.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, with a panel of judges from outside the circuit due to recusals, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s rulings, holding that the attorney failed to prove a due-process violation or equal-protection claim. The court found that the EDR process, while imperfect, was not fundamentally unfair or coercive, and that the FDO’s response to the harassment was not clearly unreasonable. The court also held that any error in excluding the “Me Too” evidence was harmless, denied the attorney’s motions to unseal certain materials and for summary reversal, and declined to consider a new constitutional challenge to Title VII’s exclusion of judiciary employees. View "Strickland v. Moritz" on Justia Law

While incarcerated at a North Carolina state prison in February 2016, Manuel Moreno developed flu-like symptoms and sought medical attention. A nurse examined him and recorded slightly elevated respiration, but otherwise normal vital signs. Dr. Carol Bosholm, the on-duty physician, did not personally examine Moreno but reviewed the nurse’s notes, diagnosed sinus congestion and pharyngitis, and prescribed antibiotics. That same day, several inmates from Moreno’s housing area also reported similar symptoms, and some tested positive for influenza. Dr. Bosholm ordered Moreno and others to be quarantined for seventy-two hours, leaving general instructions for monitoring but no specific orders to check oxygen saturation or respiratory rates. Over the weekend, medical staff made routine rounds, but there is no record that Moreno’s oxygen or respiration were measured, nor that he reported worsening symptoms. By Monday, Moreno’s condition had deteriorated significantly, leading to hospitalization, a seizure, and long-term complications.Moreno filed suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, alleging state law medical malpractice and gross negligence, as well as a federal claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court excluded his expert’s testimony on the standard of care for the malpractice claim, finding the expert did not meet North Carolina’s requirements for such testimony. At trial, the court granted Dr. Bosholm’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on all claims, concluding Moreno failed to present sufficient evidence of causation, breach of the standard of care, or the heightened culpability required for gross negligence and deliberate indifference.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court held that Federal Rule of Evidence 601 required application of North Carolina’s expert competency rule for medical malpractice claims, and that Moreno’s expert was properly excluded. The court also found insufficient evidence to support the gross negligence and deliberate indifference claims, upholding judgment for Dr. Bosholm. View "Moreno v. Bosholm" on Justia Law

A United States citizen, formerly known as Paul Anderson and now Saadiq Long, was placed on the federal government’s Terrorist Screening Dataset (commonly called the Terrorist Watchlist) and, at one point, on its No Fly List subset. After experiencing travel restrictions, employment issues, and other alleged harms, Long challenged his placement on these lists, asserting constitutional and statutory violations. He claimed that his inclusion was based on impermissible factors such as race, religion, and protected activities, and that the government’s information-sharing practices and redress procedures were unlawful. While the litigation was ongoing, Long was removed from the No Fly List, but remained on the broader Watchlist. He also alleged that his Watchlist status led to the denial of credentials necessary for his work as a truck driver.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia initially transferred some of Long’s claims to the Fourth Circuit and stayed others. After Long’s removal from the No Fly List, a prior Fourth Circuit panel found his No Fly List claims moot and remanded for the district court to determine which claims remained justiciable. On remand, the district court dismissed all of Long’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that his removal from the No Fly List mooted those claims and that he lacked standing for his Watchlist-related claims, as his alleged injuries were either resolved or not sufficiently imminent.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal. The Fourth Circuit held that, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in FBI v. Fikre, Long’s removal from the No Fly List did not necessarily moot his claims, as the government had not shown it could not repeat the challenged conduct. The court also found that Long had standing to challenge his Watchlist status based on the denial of transportation credentials, and remanded for the district court to consider the merits of his claims. View "Long v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A prisoner at Eastern Correctional Institution was suspected of possessing a knife, prompting two correctional officers to search him. The officers escorted the prisoner and his cellmate to a recreation area, where a strip search occurred. The parties dispute the events that followed: the officers claimed the prisoner was noncompliant and bit one of them during a struggle, while the prisoner alleged he complied with orders and was then violently assaulted without justification, suffering injuries to his head, neck, and back. Medical records documented a bruise and other injuries, and the prisoner sought treatment over several months. An internal investigation cleared the officers of wrongdoing.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed the prisoner’s state law claims and claims against a supervisory official, then granted summary judgment to the correctional officers on the remaining Eighth Amendment excessive force claim. The district court found that the undisputed evidence did not support a finding that the officers acted maliciously or sadistically, and characterized the prisoner’s injuries as minor. The court also denied the prisoner’s requests for discovery and for appointment of counsel.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo. The Fourth Circuit held that genuine disputes of material fact remained regarding the amount and justification for the force used, as well as the officers’ intent. The court found that the prisoner’s verified complaint and medical evidence could support a finding of more than de minimis force and potentially malicious conduct. The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the prisoner to renew his motion for counsel and proceed to trial. View "Escobar-Salmeron v. Moyer" on Justia Law

In the summer of 2020, Maurice Wells participated in a protest outside the Alamance County courthouse in North Carolina, which focused on issues including solidarity with George Floyd and opposition to the local sheriff. During the protest, a confrontation occurred between Wells and counterprotestors over the ringing of a courthouse bell. Sheriff Terry Johnson, concerned about escalating tensions, ordered the crowd to disperse. When Wells refused to comply and continued shouting, Johnson arrested him. Wells was subsequently charged with failure to disperse and disorderly conduct. He was convicted in North Carolina District Court after the judge rejected his First Amendment defense, and his appeal of that conviction remains pending.While his state criminal appeal was ongoing, Wells filed a civil suit against Sheriff Johnson, alleging that his arrest was unconstitutional and constituted retaliation for protected speech. He sought only a declaratory judgment stating that the arrest violated his First Amendment rights, arguing that such a declaration would address both past and potential future harms. Johnson removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The district court granted summary judgment for Johnson, holding that Wells’s state conviction established probable cause and precluded his claims, and that Wells lacked evidence for his alternative theory of viewpoint discrimination. The court dismissed the case with prejudice.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed whether Wells had standing to seek the declaratory relief requested. The Fourth Circuit held that Wells lacked standing because the declaratory judgment he sought would not provide constitutionally adequate redress for his alleged injuries, either past or future. The court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to return it to state court, as required when federal jurisdiction is lacking in a removed case. View "Wells v. Johnson" on Justia Law