Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

A man committed several felonies in New York and Virginia between 2000 and 2001. After serving his prison sentences, he was subject to both state and federal post-release supervision. He repeatedly violated the terms of his supervision, resulting in multiple periods of reincarceration. In 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in Earley v. Murray that New York’s practice of administratively imposing post-release supervision without a judicial pronouncement was unconstitutional. The state legislature responded in 2008 by authorizing corrections officials to initiate resentencing proceedings. The plaintiff was incarcerated in New York from June 2007 to February 2008 for violating post-release supervision, and again in 2010, before being resentenced without post-release supervision.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed the plaintiff’s claims for damages related to his 2010 incarceration, finding the defendants acted reasonably at that time, but allowed claims related to the 2007-08 incarceration to proceed to trial. At trial, the defendants were barred from introducing evidence that legal and administrative obstacles prevented them from initiating resentencing for the plaintiff during 2007-08. The jury awarded the plaintiff $100,000 in compensatory and $750,000 in punitive damages. The district court denied the defendants’ motion for a new trial and rejected their qualified immunity defense for the 2007-08 period.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion by excluding evidence of impediments to resentencing and erred in denying a new trial for the 2007-08 period. The court reversed the denial of a new trial for that period, vacated the dismissal of the 2010 claims on qualified immunity grounds, and remanded for further proceedings. The court also held that qualified immunity was properly denied for both periods under existing precedent. View "Santiago v. Fischer" on Justia Law

A transgender inmate serving a lengthy sentence in the Connecticut prison system was diagnosed with gender dysphoria after several years of incarceration. The inmate requested various treatments, including stronger hormone therapy and a vaginoplasty, but was initially denied hormone therapy due to a prison policy that only allowed continuation, not initiation, of such treatment. After a policy change, the inmate received hormone therapy, mental health counseling, antidepressants, and some lifestyle accommodations. Despite these measures, the inmate continued to request additional treatments, including surgery, and expressed dissatisfaction with the care provided, alleging it was inadequate and not delivered by specialists in gender dysphoria.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut reviewed the inmate’s claims of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment. The district court found that the corrections officials had deprived the inmate of adequate care by providing mental health treatment from unqualified providers, delaying and inadequately administering hormone therapy, and denying surgical intervention. The court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, holding that the right to be free from deliberate indifference to serious medical needs was clearly established.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. The Second Circuit held that there is no clearly established constitutional right for inmates to receive specific treatments for gender dysphoria or to be treated by gender-dysphoria specialists. The court found that reasonable officials could disagree about the adequacy and legality of the care provided, which included talk therapy, antidepressants, and hormone therapy. The Second Circuit concluded that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and remanded the case with instructions to grant summary judgment in their favor. View "Clark v. Valletta" on Justia Law

An educator employed by the New York City Department of Education (DOE) was appointed Executive Director of the “AP for All” program, where she supervised a diverse team and was credited with expanding access to Advanced Placement courses. Early in her tenure, she experienced racial tensions with subordinates, including accusations of “microaggressions” and being labeled as exhibiting “white fragility.” These tensions escalated after a new Chancellor implemented an “equity agenda” that included mandatory implicit bias trainings. The plaintiff, who is Caucasian, alleged that these trainings and subsequent workplace interactions fostered a racially hostile environment, with repeated negative generalizations about white employees and a lack of intervention by supervisors when she complained.The plaintiff initially filed suit in the Supreme Court of New York, later amending her complaint to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for race discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, where the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her state law claims. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a municipal policy or custom that caused her demotion, the alleged hostile work environment, or her constructive discharge.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The Second Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment on the demotion and constructive discharge claims, holding that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence that these actions were motivated by racial discrimination or that the employer intentionally created intolerable working conditions. However, the court vacated the summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim, finding that genuine disputes of material fact existed as to whether the DOE’s actions and inaction amounted to a municipal policy or custom that created a racially hostile environment. The case was remanded for further proceedings on that claim. View "Chislett v. New York City Department of Education" on Justia Law

A hotel in the Town of Newburgh, New York, agreed to provide long-term housing to asylum seekers as part of a program initiated by New York City. In response, the Town alleged that the hotel’s actions violated local zoning and occupancy ordinances, which limited hotel stays to transient guests for no more than 30 days. The Town inspected the hotel, found modifications suggesting long-term use, and filed suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Orange County, seeking to enjoin the hotel from housing asylum seekers for extended periods. The state court issued a temporary restraining order, but allowed the asylum seekers already present to remain pending further orders.The hotel removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, arguing that the Town’s enforcement was racially motivated and violated Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, thus justifying removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). The district court found that removal was improper because the hotel had not sufficiently pleaded grounds for removal under § 1443(1), and remanded the case to state court.While the hotel’s appeal of the remand order was pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the underlying state court action was discontinued with prejudice after the asylum seekers left and the City ended its program. The Second Circuit determined that, because the state court case was permanently terminated, there was no longer a live controversy regarding removal. The court held the appeal was moot and, following standard practice when mootness occurs through no fault of the appellant, vacated the district court’s remand order and dismissed the appeal. View "Town of Newburgh v. Newburgh EOM LLC" on Justia Law

A private Christian school in Vermont forfeited a girls’ basketball playoff game because it objected, on religious grounds, to playing against a team with a transgender athlete. The school believes that requiring its female athletes to compete against biological males would violate its religious convictions about the immutability of sex. Following the forfeit, the Vermont Principals’ Association (VPA), which oversees extracurricular activities for Vermont schools, expelled the school from all state-sponsored extracurricular activities, including both athletic and non-athletic events.After the expulsion, the school and several students and parents filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, seeking a preliminary injunction to reinstate the school’s VPA membership and alleging a violation of their rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The district court denied the motion, finding that the VPA’s policies regarding transgender athletes were neutral and generally applicable, and thus subject only to rational-basis review. The court concluded that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction. The Second Circuit held that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in showing that the VPA’s expulsion was not neutral, as it was accompanied by official expressions of hostility toward the school’s religious beliefs. The court found that the plaintiffs also satisfied the requirements of irreparable harm and public interest. Accordingly, the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case with instructions to grant a preliminary injunction reinstating the school’s VPA membership pending further proceedings. View "Mid Vermont Christian School v. Saunders" on Justia Law

Nine inmates at a Connecticut correctional facility challenged their confinement in a unit known as Q-Pod, which is used to transition inmates from more restrictive housing back to the general population. The plaintiffs alleged that Q-Pod imposed harsher conditions than the general population, including extended periods of isolation, unsanitary conditions due to toilet restrictions, lack of access to medical care and counseling, limited vocational and educational opportunities, and restricted religious services. Two plaintiffs specifically claimed they were denied access to Native American religious practices, such as sweat lodge ceremonies and smudging, which are congregate religious activities.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted summary judgment to the prison officials on the basis of qualified immunity for all federal claims, finding that the conditions in Q-Pod did not rise to the level of constitutional violations under the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments, and that the officials were entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment free exercise claims. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and denied injunctive relief as moot. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration was denied, and they appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment as to the Eighth Amendment, procedural due process, and the free exercise claims of seven plaintiffs, holding that the conditions and restrictions in Q-Pod did not violate clearly established law. However, the Second Circuit reversed as to the free exercise claims of two plaintiffs who were denied participation in Native American congregate religious services, finding that the denial, without any penological justification, violated clearly established law. The court remanded with instructions to deny summary judgment on these claims and vacated the dismissal of the related state-law claims. View "Baltas v. Chapdelaine" on Justia Law

A New York State Police trooper stopped Daniel Delgado for erratic driving and discovered that his license was suspended. During an inventory search of his vehicle, the trooper found a loaded “ghost gun” and ammunition, which Delgado admitted belonged to him. Delgado had several prior convictions, including a felony conviction for attempted second-degree murder in Florida, where he had shot a man in the back. Delgado was indicted for possessing ammunition after a felony conviction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and pleaded guilty without a plea agreement.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Delgado’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea and to dismiss the indictment, finding that § 922(g)(1) did not violate the Second Amendment. At sentencing, the court determined that Delgado’s prior Florida conviction for attempted second-degree murder was a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a), resulting in a higher base offense level. Delgado was sentenced to thirty months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release. He timely appealed, challenging both the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) and the classification of his prior conviction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. It held that Delgado’s constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(1) was foreclosed by its recent decision in Zherka v. Bondi, which reaffirmed the statute’s constitutionality after New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen. The court also held that Florida’s offense of attempted second-degree murder is categorically a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines, as it requires an intentional act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind. The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Delgado" on Justia Law

A former dancer at two adult entertainment clubs in Manhattan filed a class charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging pervasive sexual harassment and a hostile work environment affecting herself and other female dancers. She claimed that the clubs’ policies and practices fostered this environment, including being forced to change in open areas monitored by video and being pressured to engage in sexual acts with customers. After receiving the charge, the EEOC requested information from the clubs, including employee “pedigree” data such as names, demographics, and employment details. The clubs objected, arguing the requests were irrelevant and burdensome, but the EEOC issued subpoenas for the information.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the EEOC’s petition to enforce the subpoenas, finding the requested information relevant to the investigation and not unduly burdensome for the clubs to produce. The clubs appealed and, while the appeal was pending, the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter to the charging party, who then filed a class action lawsuit in the same district court. The clubs argued that the EEOC lost its authority to investigate and enforce subpoenas once the right-to-sue letter was issued and the lawsuit commenced.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the EEOC retains its statutory authority to investigate charges and enforce subpoenas even after issuing a right-to-sue letter and after the charging party files a lawsuit. The court also found that the employee information sought was relevant to the underlying charge and that the clubs had not shown compliance would be unduly burdensome. The Second Circuit therefore affirmed the district court’s order enforcing the subpoenas. View "EEOC v. AAM Holding Corp." on Justia Law

The plaintiff was stopped by New York State Troopers in Oneida County, New York, on September 4, 2017, after a report of erratic driving. During the stop, Trooper Colton claimed the plaintiff failed field sobriety tests and later registered a high blood alcohol content on a breathalyzer. The plaintiff disputed these findings, alleging the tests were improperly administered and that he passed them. He was arrested and charged with a felony for aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle, multiple DWI-related misdemeanors, and a traffic infraction. The felony charge was later amended to a misdemeanor before a suppression hearing, after which the city court suppressed evidence due to concerns about Trooper Colton’s credibility. The plaintiff ultimately pled guilty to the traffic infraction, and the remaining DWI-related charges were dismissed.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed the plaintiff’s federal lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which alleged false arrest, malicious prosecution, and fabrication of evidence. The district court found that the guilty plea to the traffic infraction established probable cause for the arrest, defeating the false arrest claim. It also held that the plaintiff could not show favorable termination for the malicious prosecution claim because the DWI-related charges were dismissed as part of a plea agreement. The fabrication of evidence claim was dismissed as conclusory and contradicted by Trooper Colton’s testimony.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the false arrest claim and the malicious prosecution claim as to the DWI-related charges dismissed in the plea agreement, holding that a guilty plea to one charge bars a malicious prosecution claim for other charges dismissed as part of the same plea. However, the court vacated the dismissal of the malicious prosecution claim as to the terminated felony charge, finding it plausibly terminated favorably because its dismissal was not clearly part of the plea. The court also reinstated the fabrication of evidence claim, concluding the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged intentional fabrication. The case was remanded for further proceedings on these claims. View "Carruthers v. Colton" on Justia Law

Ferdinand E. Marcos, former President of the Philippines, deposited approximately $2 million in a New York Merrill Lynch account in 1972, which grew to over $40 million. These funds, known as the Arelma Assets, were proceeds of Marcos’s criminal activities. After Marcos’s ouster, multiple parties—including the Republic of the Philippines, a class of nearly 10,000 human rights victims, and the estate of Roger Roxas (from whom Marcos had stolen treasure)—asserted competing claims to these assets. The Republic obtained a forfeiture judgment from a Philippine court and requested the U.S. Attorney General to enforce it under 28 U.S.C. § 2467.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York reviewed the enforcement application. The court rejected the class’s affirmative defenses, which included arguments based on statute of limitations, subject matter jurisdiction, lack of notice, and fraud. The court also found that Roxas lacked Article III standing because she failed to show a sufficient interest in the Arelma Assets, and denied her leave to amend her answer. The court entered judgment for the Government, allowing the assets to be returned to the Republic of the Philippines.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Second Circuit held that the class failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to any of its affirmative defenses and that Roxas lacked standing to participate as a respondent. The court also upheld the denial of intervention by Golden Budha Corporation, finding its interests adequately represented and lacking standing. The main holding is that the Government’s application to enforce the Philippine forfeiture judgment was timely and proper, and that neither the class nor Roxas could block enforcement or claim the assets. View "In re: Enforcement of Philippine Forfeiture Judgment" on Justia Law