Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs filed suit against the City, alleging that the Rental Property Registration and Inspection Ordinance violated their constitutional rights, breached their consent decree with the City, and violated the Fair Housing Act. The Ordinance implemented uniform residential rental property registration, and a regular inspection program that is phased in accordance with the history of code violations on each property, requiring all rental properties in the City to register with the Permits and Inspections Division before leasing to tenants. The district court denied a preliminary injunction and dismissed plaintiffs' claims.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the Ordinance does not violate Metro Omaha's constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Applying the Nebraska Supreme Court's rules of construction, the court concluded that the plain text of the Ordinance does not authorize warrantless inspections of properties if consent is withheld. Furthermore, pre-compliance review before inspections does not apply here where inspections are permitted only if there is consent, a warrant, or court order. Finally, by withholding consent, property owners are not subject to criminal liability or prohibited from renting their property.The court also concluded that the Ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The court explained that the Ordinance provides adequate notice of the proscribed conduct and does not lend itself to arbitrary enforcement. The court further concluded that Metro Omaha fails to plausibly plead a breach of the consent decree, and that the Ordinance does not violate the Fair Housing Act. View "Metropolitan Omaha Property Owners Ass'n v. City of Omaha, Nebraska" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of defendants in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action brought by plaintiff, alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment rights. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in its credibility findings. In this case, plaintiff sustained a chemical burn to his left toe while power-washing the prison laundry area; the district court found credible defendant's testimony that she did not order plaintiff to clean up the chemical spill; and defendant's at-the-infirmary comment to plaintiff that he should have changed his shoes is not internally inconsistent or implausible because it is reasonable to suggest an inmate change wet shoes. View "Zahn v. Nygaard" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint challenging Missouri's form to claim a religious exemption from mandatory immunizations for school children, as violations of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Plaintiffs, children enrolled or seeking to reenroll in Missouri public schools, have sincere religious objections to immunization. After plaintiffs refused to fill out Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services Form 11, plaintiffs were disenrolled from school until they filed the form. Plaintiffs claimed that the form and the text of the form regarding "vaccine education" violated their rights to free speech, free religious exercise, and equal protection.The court held that Form II does not compel speech, restrict speech, or incidentally burden speech, and thus does not violate plaintiffs' free speech rights; does not require plaintiffs to engage in conduct against their religious beliefs; and does not make plaintiffs morally complicit in the production or use of vaccinations. Rather, Form 11 communicates neutrally to anyone considering opting out on religious grounds that the government discourages it, but the ultimate decision belongs to the parents. The panel explained that the form states the government's neutral and generally applicable position that immunization prevents childhood diseases, and thus should be required for school attendance. The court also held that plaintiffs failed to plead specific facts about forced immunization education, and that Form 11 does not target religious believers or violate their right to equal protection. Finally, the court held that plaintiffs have not stated a hybrid rights claim that requires strict scrutiny. View "B.W.C. v. Williams" on Justia Law

Appellants, a class of sex offenders civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) pursuant to the Minnesota Civil Commitment and Treatment Act: Sexually Dangerous Persons and Sexual Psychopathic Personalities, codified at Minnesota Statute 253D (MCTA), filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against various MSOP managers and officials as well as the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services.On appeal for a second time, the Eighth Circuit clarified the legal standard applicable to the conditions of confinement claims brought by these civilly committed individuals. The court concluded that the district court properly dismissed Count 3 of appellants' Third Amended Complaint after applying the "shocks the conscience" standard. However, the district court erred as a matter of law when it applied the "shocks the conscience" standard to Counts 5, 6, and 7, which appellants allege that they were subjected to punitive conditions of confinement. The court instructed the district court, on remand, to consider the claim of inadequate medical care under the deliberate indifference standard outlined in Senty-Haugen v. Goodno, 462 F.3d 876, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2006), and to consider the remaining claims under the standard for punitive conditions of confinement outlined in Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979). View "Karsjens v. Lourey" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Golden China on plaintiff's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he has Article III standing to bring his ADA claim. In this case, plaintiff unequivocally acknowledged in his deposition that his intent in visiting Red Wing was not to patronize Golden China but rather to test various establishments for ADA violations. He had never been to Golden China and his amorphous level of intention to return to the restaurant is, at most, aspirational, which is insufficient to establish an injury in fact. Even if the court were to accept plaintiff's post hoc attempt to establish an injury in fact, the court would still find that his declaration asserts nothing more than an uncertain intention to some day return to Golden China. View "Smith v. Golden China of Red Wing, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota alleging retaliation and sex discrimination under Title IX. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that the University violated Title IX by (1) retaliating against her for supporting a former coach in a sexual harassment investigation by not allowing her to redshirt; and (2) discriminating against her on the basis of sex.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the University's motion to dismiss because plaintiff did not have an actionable claim for retaliation under Title IX and she failed to show that she was treated differently because of her sex. In this case, plaintiff failed to allege that she engaged in a protected activity, and no part of Title IX designates participation in a sexual harassment investigation on the side of the accused as protected activity. In regard to plaintiff's claim that she was discriminated against on the basis of her sex when she was denied the right to redshirt, the court concluded that plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to support a claim of sex discrimination in violation of Title IX. View "Du Bois v. The Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment on her claims against the County, her former employer, alleging that it retaliated against her for participating in protected activity in violation of Title VII and the Minnesota Whistleblower Act (MWA).The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Title VII suspension-based claim, concluding that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. In this case, plaintiff failed to show that she engaged in statutorily protected activity because she did not communicate or report any sexual harassment before her suspension. In regard to the termination-based claim, the court applied the burden-shifting McDonnell Douglas framework and concluded that, assuming plaintiff made a prima facie case, the County articulated several legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for her discharge. Furthermore, plaintiff has not shown that the County's reasons are sufficiently intertwined or fishy that rebutting only some of the reasons discredits them all. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the termination-based claim under Title VII. However, given the relatively novel questions of state law, the court dismissed the MWA claims without prejudice so that they can be taken up by the Minnesota state courts. View "Kempf v. Hennepin County" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit dismissed defendants' appeal of the district court's decision permanently enjoining as unconstitutional a South Dakota law regulating ballot-petition circulation, as well as plaintiffs' cross-appeal of the district court's failure to decide all of their claims. While defendants' appeal was pending, the South Dakota Legislature enacted SB 180, which substantially changed the ballot-petition process, replacing HB 1094. Therefore, defendants' appeal is moot and the court lacked jurisdiction. The court also concluded, based on considerations of public interest, that defendants failed to show their entitlement to vacatur and the court declined to vacate the district court's judgment. In regard to plaintiffs' cross-appeal, the court concluded that the district court has not yet decided all of plaintiffs' claims and thus the court lacked jurisdiction over the cross-appeal based on the lack of a final order. View "SD VOICE v. Noem" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and his wife filed suit against two police officers after plaintiff found the officers, guns drawn, searching their home without a warrant at 3:00 a.m. The district court denied the officers qualified immunity and granted plaintiff and his wife partial summary judgment on their claims that the officers unlawfully entered and searched their home and its curtilage, concluding that the circumstances were insufficient to create an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.The Eighth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, concluding that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity for some but not all their actions on the night in question. The court concluded that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity for their entry into plaintiffs' curtilage under the community caretaker function. In this case, the officers had reason to believe that an intoxicated thief was in the vicinity, and an open garage door was a likely place where he could enter and perhaps damage property. Furthermore, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity under the community caretaker exception because an open door into a home late at night, when no one had responded to their repeated knocking at the outside doors, arguably warranted a limited protective entry. However, the community caretaker exception cannot justify the severe, warrantless intrusion into the home in this case where the officers observed no signs of criminal activity; the officers were responding to a call from a cab driver reporting that a petty thief had run, not that a burglar was on the prowl, and reasonable officers acting as community caretakers should have left the home. The court explained that it was clearly established by controlling Fourth Amendment precedents that the officers' full blown search of the entire home without a warrant was objectively unreasonable. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Luer v. Clinton" on Justia Law

Arkansas Times filed suit against various members of the University of Arkansas Board of Trustees (UABT) in their official capacities as trustees concerning Arkansas Act 710 of 2017, seeking a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the Act and alleging that it violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Act is entitled "An Act to Prohibit Public Entities from Contracting with and Investing in Companies That Boycott Israel; and for Other Purposes." The district court denied Arkansas Times's motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the case.Considering the Act as a whole, the Eighth Circuit concluded that the term "other actions" in the definition of "boycott Israel" and "boycott of Israel" encompasses more than "commercial conduct" similar to refusing to deal or terminating business activities. Instead, the court explained that the Act requires government contractors, as a condition of contracting with Arkansas, not to engage in economic refusals to deal with Israel and to limit their support and promotion of boycotts of Israel. As such, the Act restricts government contractors' ability to participate in speech and other protected, boycott-associated activities recognized by the Supreme Court in N.A.A.C.P. v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982). Therefore, the court concluded that the Act prohibits the contractor from engaging in boycott activity outside the scope of the contractual relationship "on its own time and dime," and such a restriction violates the First Amendment. View "Arkansas Times LP v. Waldrip" on Justia Law