Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

In 1998, Ruben Gutierrez was charged with capital murder in Texas for his involvement in the killing of Escolastica Harrison. The prosecution argued that Gutierrez used one of two screwdrivers to stab Harrison. The jury convicted him, and he was sentenced to death after the jury found that he either caused Harrison's death, intended to kill her, or anticipated that a human life would be taken. Gutierrez has sought DNA testing of evidence for nearly 15 years, claiming it would prove he was not present at the crime scene. Texas courts denied his requests, stating that even if his DNA was not found, it would not prove his innocence of the underlying crime.Gutierrez filed a federal lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against the district attorney, arguing that Texas's DNA testing procedures violated his due process rights. The District Court agreed and granted declaratory relief. However, the Fifth Circuit vacated this judgment, holding that Gutierrez lacked standing because a declaratory judgment would not likely result in the prosecutor allowing DNA testing.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that Gutierrez has standing to bring his §1983 claim. The Court reasoned that a state-created right to postconviction procedures can create rights to other procedures essential to realizing that right. The Court found that a declaratory judgment in Gutierrez's favor would redress his injury by removing the prosecutor's reliance on Article 64 as a reason for denying DNA testing. The judgment of the Fifth Circuit was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Gutierrez v. Saenz" on Justia Law

In 2018, South Carolina excluded Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program, citing state law prohibiting public funds for abortion. Planned Parenthood and patient Julie Edwards sued, claiming the exclusion violated the Medicaid any-qualified-provider provision, which allows Medicaid beneficiaries to obtain services from any qualified provider. Edwards preferred Planned Parenthood for gynecological care but needed Medicaid coverage. They filed a class action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 to enforce rights under the federal Medicaid statutes.The district court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs and enjoined the exclusion. The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated, and remanded the case in light of Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion Cty. v. Talevski, which addressed whether another spending-power statute created §1983-enforceable rights. On remand, the Fourth Circuit reaffirmed its decision.The Supreme Court of the United States held that Section 1396a(a)(23)(A) does not clearly and unambiguously confer individual rights enforceable under §1983. The Court emphasized that spending-power statutes rarely create enforceable rights and that the any-qualified-provider provision lacks the clear rights-creating language necessary to support a §1983 action. The Court reversed the Fourth Circuit's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic" on Justia Law

Karyn Stanley, a firefighter for the City of Sanford, Florida, since 1999, was forced to retire in 2018 due to a disability. When she was hired, the City provided health insurance until age 65 for retirees with 25 years of service or those who retired due to disability. In 2003, the City revised its policy, limiting health insurance to 24 months for those retiring due to disability. Stanley, who retired under the revised policy, received only 24 months of health insurance.Stanley sued the City, alleging that the revised policy violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by discriminating against those who retire due to disability. The district court dismissed her ADA claim, stating that the alleged discrimination occurred after her retirement, making her not a "qualified individual" under Title I of the ADA, as she no longer held or sought a job with the City. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The Court held that to prevail under §12112(a) of the ADA, a plaintiff must prove that they held or desired a job and could perform its essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation at the time of the alleged discrimination. The Court concluded that the ADA's protections do not extend to retirees who neither hold nor seek a job. The judgment of the Eleventh Circuit was affirmed, upholding the dismissal of Stanley's ADA claim. View "Stanley v. City of Stanford" on Justia Law

In this case, inmate Kyle Richards alleged that Thomas Perttu, a prison employee, sexually harassed him and other inmates. Richards also claimed that Perttu destroyed his grievance documents and retaliated against him for attempting to file them. Richards sued Perttu under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violating his constitutional rights, including his First Amendment right to file grievances. Perttu moved for summary judgment, arguing that Richards had failed to exhaust available grievance procedures as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).The Magistrate Judge found a genuine issue of fact regarding whether Richards was excused from exhausting his claims due to Perttu's interference and held an evidentiary hearing. The Magistrate Judge concluded that Richards's witnesses lacked credibility and recommended dismissal without prejudice for failure to exhaust. The District Court adopted this recommendation. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the Seventh Amendment requires a jury trial when the resolution of the exhaustion issue under the PLRA would also resolve a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the merits of the plaintiff's substantive case.The Supreme Court of the United States held that parties are entitled to a jury trial on PLRA exhaustion when that issue is intertwined with the merits of a claim that requires a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. The Court reasoned that the usual practice under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is that factual disputes regarding legal claims go to the jury. The PLRA is silent on whether judges or juries should resolve exhaustion disputes, and this silence indicates that the usual practice should be followed. The Court affirmed the judgment of the Sixth Circuit. View "Perttu v. Richards" on Justia Law

A.J.T., a teenage girl with a rare form of epilepsy, moved to Minnesota in 2015. Her new school district, Osseo Area Public Schools, denied her parents' requests to include evening instruction in her Individualized Educational Program (IEP), despite her inability to attend school before noon due to frequent morning seizures. Consequently, A.J.T. received only 4.25 hours of instruction daily, compared to the typical 6.5-hour school day for nondisabled students. After further cuts to her school day were proposed, her parents filed an IDEA complaint, alleging that the refusal to provide afterhours instruction denied A.J.T. a free appropriate public education.An Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of A.J.T., finding that the school district violated the IDEA and ordered compensatory education and evening instruction. The Federal District Court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. However, when A.J.T. and her parents sued under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, the District Court granted summary judgment for the school, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed, stating that a plaintiff must prove bad faith or gross misjudgment by school officials to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that schoolchildren bringing ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims related to their education are not required to make a heightened showing of bad faith or gross misjudgment. Instead, they are subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts. The Court vacated the Eighth Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School Dist. No. 279" on Justia Law

Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004. In 2019, she applied for a management position but was passed over in favor of a lesbian woman. Subsequently, Ames was demoted from her role as a program administrator, and a gay man was hired to fill her previous position. Ames filed a lawsuit under Title VII, alleging discrimination based on her sexual orientation.The District Court granted summary judgment to the agency, applying the McDonnell Douglas framework for evaluating disparate-treatment claims. The court held that Ames failed to make a prima facie case of discrimination because she did not show "background circumstances" suggesting the agency discriminated against majority-group members. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, requiring Ames to meet this additional burden as a straight woman.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case. The Court held that the Sixth Circuit's "background circumstances" rule, which imposes a heightened evidentiary standard on majority-group plaintiffs, is inconsistent with Title VII's text and precedents. Title VII prohibits discrimination against any individual based on protected characteristics without distinguishing between majority and minority groups. The Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for application of the proper prima facie standard under Title VII. View "Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services" on Justia Law

Roberto Felix, Jr., a law enforcement officer, stopped Ashtian Barnes for suspected toll violations. During the stop, Barnes began to drive away, prompting Felix to jump onto the car's doorsill and fire two shots, fatally wounding Barnes. Barnes's mother sued Felix, alleging a violation of Barnes's Fourth Amendment right against excessive force.The District Court granted summary judgment to Felix, applying the Fifth Circuit’s “moment-of-threat” rule, which focuses solely on whether the officer was in danger at the precise moment deadly force was used. The court found that Felix could have reasonably believed he was in danger during the two seconds he was on the doorsill of the moving car. The Court of Appeals affirmed, adhering to the same rule and limiting its analysis to the final moments before the shooting.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that the “moment-of-threat” rule improperly narrows the Fourth Amendment analysis. The Court emphasized that the reasonableness of police force must be assessed based on the “totality of the circumstances,” which includes events leading up to the use of force. The Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the lower courts to consider the entire context of the incident, not just the final moments. View "Barnes v. Felix" on Justia Law

Virginia drivers whose licenses were suspended for failing to pay court fines challenged the constitutionality of the statute under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The District Court granted a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of the statute. Before the case reached final judgment, the Virginia General Assembly repealed the statute, requiring reinstatement of the suspended licenses. The parties agreed to dismiss the case as moot.The District Court declined to award attorney’s fees to the drivers under §1988(b), reasoning that obtaining a preliminary injunction did not qualify them as “prevailing parties.” A Fourth Circuit panel affirmed this decision, but the Fourth Circuit en banc reversed, holding that some preliminary injunctions can provide lasting, merits-based relief, qualifying plaintiffs as prevailing parties even if the case becomes moot before final judgment.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that the drivers, who only obtained preliminary injunctive relief before the action became moot, do not qualify as “prevailing parties” eligible for attorney’s fees under §1988(b). The Court reasoned that no court conclusively resolved their claims by granting enduring judicial relief on the merits that materially altered the legal relationship between the parties. The judgment of the Fourth Circuit was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Lackey v. Stinnie" on Justia Law

In 1997, Justin Sneed murdered Barry Van Treese at an Oklahoma hotel managed by Richard Glossip. Sneed claimed Glossip orchestrated the murder to steal Van Treese's money. Glossip denied involvement but was convicted and sentenced to death based on Sneed's testimony. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) overturned the initial conviction due to ineffective defense counsel but upheld a second conviction despite inconsistencies in Sneed's testimony and new evidence suggesting prosecutorial misconduct.The OCCA initially reversed Glossip's conviction due to ineffective assistance of counsel but affirmed his second conviction, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence to support Sneed's testimony. Glossip's subsequent habeas petitions were unsuccessful. An independent investigation commissioned by Oklahoma legislators raised doubts about the conviction, revealing prosecutorial misconduct, including the destruction of evidence and false portrayal of Sneed. The State disclosed previously withheld documents, including evidence of Sneed's bipolar disorder and false testimony about his lithium prescription.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case, focusing on whether the prosecution violated its constitutional obligation to correct false testimony under Napue v. Illinois. The Court found that the prosecution knowingly allowed Sneed to falsely testify about his lithium prescription and failed to correct it. This false testimony was material, as Sneed's credibility was crucial to Glossip's conviction. The Court held that the prosecution's failure to correct the false testimony violated Glossip's due process rights, warranting a new trial. The judgment of the OCCA was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Glossip v. Oklahoma" on Justia Law

Several unemployed workers in Alabama applied for unemployment benefits and claimed that the Alabama Department of Labor unlawfully delayed processing their claims. They sued the Alabama Secretary of Labor in state court under 42 U.S.C. §1983, arguing that the delays violated their due process and federal statutory rights. They sought a court order to expedite the processing of their claims. The Secretary moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the claimants had not satisfied the administrative-exhaustion requirement under Alabama law. The state trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint.The claimants appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court, which affirmed the dismissal on the grounds of failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court concluded that §1983 did not preempt the state's administrative-exhaustion requirement, effectively preventing the claimants from suing to expedite the administrative process until they had completed it.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that state courts may not deny §1983 claims on failure-to-exhaust grounds when the application of a state exhaustion requirement effectively immunizes state officials from such claims. The Court reasoned that Alabama's exhaustion requirement, as applied, prevented claimants from challenging delays in the administrative process, thus immunizing state officials from §1983 suits. The Court reversed the Alabama Supreme Court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Williams v. Reed" on Justia Law