Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Coleman is serving a 45-year sentence for attempting to murder Dye. He was tried twice. The first jury acquitted him of murdering Jackson during the same incident but could not reach a unanimous verdict on the charge of attempted murder. The events were captured by a surveillance camera. By the time Coleman shot Jackson, Dye was on the ground with two bullets in him and Jackson had opened fire at Coleman. Coleman cited the Double Jeopardy Clause, arguing that the first jury must have found that he acted in self-defense when killing Jackson and that this conclusion necessarily applies to Dye. Coleman also argued ineffective assistance at the second trial. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of habeas relief. It does not require any deference to conclude that Coleman’s acquittal on the murder charge does not establish self-defense in Dye's shooting. Coleman shot Dye twice, including once after he was on the ground. Applying the “Strickland” standard, the court concluded that counsel’s overall performance was admirable. Dye testified at both trials. His testimony was subtly different; Coleman’s lawyer did not try to impeach Dye at the second trial. Counsel may have felt that pointing out such modest inconsistencies would have been nitpicky. That judgment call did not result in prejudice, in light of the video. View "Coleman v. Neal" on Justia Law

In 1997, for his participation (at age 18) in a deadly kidnapping scheme to collect drug debts, Ruiz was convicted of conspiracy to commit racketeering, conspiracy to commit kidnapping, kidnapping resulting in death, assaulting a federal officer, four counts of violating the Hostage Act, including one count resulting in death, and three counts of using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. 924(c)). The indictment listed a different predicate offense for each section 924(c) count: the underlying conspiracy to commit kidnapping, kidnapping, and assault on a federal officer charges. The Seventh Circuit affirmed his seven concurrent life sentences plus a consecutive term of 45 years for using a firearm during the underlying crimes of violence.Ruiz made several unsuccessful attempts to challenge his sentence through 28 U.S.C. 2255 and 2241. After the Supreme Court invalided as unconstitutionally vague the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act, one of the Act’s alternative definitions for a predicate “violent felony,” Ruiz obtained permission (28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3_) to file a new collateral attack, contending that the residual clause of section 924(c)’s definition of “crime of violence” was unconstitutionally vague and that his predicate offenses otherwise did not count as crimes of violence under section 924(c)’s elements clause.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Ruiz’s petition on harmless error grounds; any error in his section 924(c) convictions would have no effect on Ruiz’s seven life sentences. View "Ruiz v. United States" on Justia Law

Madigan was elected to the Illinois House of Representatives in 1970 and re-elected to 25 additional two-year terms. He became Speaker of the House in 1983 and the state’s Democratic Party Chairman in 1998. In 2021 he withdrew from the race to be reelected as Speaker and resigned his seat in the House and his role as Chairman. Four candidates were on the ballot for the 2016 Democratic primary. Madigan won with 65% of the votes; Gonzales received 27%, Rodriguez 6%, and Barboza 2%. Gonzales sued, 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that Rodriguez and Barboza were stooges put on the ballot by Madigan’s allies to divide the Hispanic vote, violating the Equal Protection Clause.The district judge noted that Gonzales had made his suspicions public early in the race and that an editorial in the Chicago Sun-Times agreed with Gonzales. Concluding that the voters were not deceived, the court granted summary judgment against Gonzales. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The district judge did not penalize Gonzales’s campaign speech. Speech, including in depositions and interrogatories, often affects litigation's outcome; a judge who takes account of speech that proves or refutes a claim does not violate the First Amendment. Gonzales told the voters that he thought Madigan had played a dirty trick. The electorate sided with Madigan. The Constitution does not authorize the judiciary to upset that outcome or to penalize a politician for employing a shady strategy that voters tolerate. View "Gonzales v. Madigan" on Justia Law

The Illinois Public Labor Relations Act allowed public unions to require nonmembers to pay “fair share” or “agency” fees to compensate for the representative services the union provides. In 1977 the Supreme Court concluded that a similar fair-share fees law did not violate nonmembers’ First Amendment rights. In 2018, in “Janus,” the Supreme Court overruled that decision and held that unions compelling the payment of fair share fees from nonmembers offended the First Amendment by compelling nonmembers to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern.”Local 150 represents around 3,300 municipal employees in 133 bargaining units, employing nine staff members at an annual cost of about $5 million. Local 150 remains obligated to represent nonmembers but must now do so without any way of compelling fair share fees. Local 150 filed suit, 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the duty of fair representation in Illinois law without the corresponding ability to collect fair share fees infringes the union’s First Amendment rights of free speech and association.The district court entered summary judgment against the union. The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss the union’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The union has not alleged any concrete and particular facts showing that it faces a post-Janus freeriding predicament. The court declined to address the substantial legal question in the abstract. View "Sweeney v. Raoul" on Justia Law

The church holds weekly in-person worship services attended by approximately 80 people. Its pastor suspended these services after he received a March 31, 2020 “Cease and Desist Notice” from the county health department that threatened penalties under Illinois Executive Order 2020-10, issued March 20, 2020, if the church continued to host in-person gatherings of ten or more people. The Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction, citing the First Amendment and the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act and alleging violations of their due process rights and that the Order exceeded the governor’s powers.On May 29, months before plaintiffs filed their appellate brief, the governor issued Executive Order 2020-38, which removed the mandate. All subsequent pandemic-related executive orders have expressly exempted religious gatherings from mandatory restrictions.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction. While intervening Supreme Court decisions offer a greater prospect for success on the merits of the First Amendment claim than previously expected, they have also indicated that equitable considerations weigh against granting a preliminary injunction at this time. The prospect of irreparable injury to the plaintiffs is very low; the public interest weighs substantially against injunctive relief. The federal procedural due process claim was not presented to the district court. The Eleventh Amendment bars relief against the governor; it may also bar relief against the local defendants. All of the state-law claims are poor candidates for a federal court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. View "Cassell v. Snyders" on Justia Law

When Indiana officials determine that a child is suffering abuse or neglect, they initiate the Child in Need of Services (CHIN) process. Lawyers are automatically appointed for parents but not for children in the CHINS process. The plaintiffs, children in the CHINS process, claimed that they are entitled to counsel. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit, citing “Younger” abstention. While declining to decide that Younger would mandate abstention in all CHINS cases, the court reasoned that principles of comity entitle states to make their own decisions. Because children are not automatically entitled to lawyers, as opposed to the sort of adult assistance that Indiana routinely provides, it would be inappropriate for a federal court to resolve the appointment-of-counsel question in any of the 10 plaintiffs’ state proceedings. A state judge may decide to appoint counsel or may explain why counsel is unnecessary. View "Nicole K. v. Stigdon" on Justia Law

In 2012, Berrios was charged with Hobbs Act robbery in connection with an armed robbery of a Chicago AT&T store. The next day, as Berrios and his associate were preparing to rob a currency exchange, the FBI conducted a traffic stop and arrested Berrios without a warrant. During a search incident to that arrest, the agents recovered a Samsung phone and other items including a BB gun that Berrios’ group had used in a series of robberies. The FBI conducted a warrantless search of the phone, downloading the contacts, call logs, text messages, and photographs. Some photos showed Berrios with his co-defendants. The government later admitted that the phone search was illegal but argued that the law at the time of the search did not prohibit it, so the "Davis" good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. The other evidence at trial included co-defendant testimony, Berrios’s post-arrest statements, a recorded call that Berrios made from jail, surveillance videos, victim testimony, and the other items recovered from the car.A jury convicted Berrios on all counts; he was sentenced to a total term of 360 months. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of a motion to suppress and the convictions. Stating that it “was a close call,” the court concluded that although there was no binding precedent that would have exempted this search from the exclusionary rule, the independent-source rule allowed the admission of the limited evidence the government used. View "United States v. Berrios" on Justia Law

Women who work at the Cook County Jail or the adjoining courthouse filed a class-action suit against their employers for failing to prevent male inmates from sexually harassing them. The district court certified a class comprising all non‐supervisory female employees who work with male inmates at the jail or courthouse, of whom there are about 2,000.On interlocutory appeal, the Seventh Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion in certifying the class under Rule 23. The court’s primary error was using the peripheral and overbroad concept of “ambient harassment” (i.e., indirect or secondhand harassment) to certify a class of employees who have endured a wide range of direct and indirect harassment. Even without this error, the class cannot stand because it comprises class members with materially different working environments whose claims require separate, individualized analyses. Hostile work environment claims are fact-intensive. They turn on the frequency, severity, character, and effect of the harassment. Here, these are “worker‐specific” inquiries because they depend on a class member’s unique experience—which correlates to where she works. Some class members will have had comparable experiences but the plaintiffs have not proven that for the entire class. View "Howard v. Cook County Sheriff's Office" on Justia Law

Illinois law enforcement agents received a tip from a confidential source claiming that Smith had been dealing methamphetamine in Mattoon. The agents conducted controlled buys between Smith and the source and requested that a patrol officer stop Smith’s vehicle. The officer stopped the vehicle for “extremely dark window tinting,” and learned that Smith’s license was suspended. There was a 10-minute wait for batteries for the device to measure the tint. The officer then searched the vehicle and found marijuana, a marijuana grinder, and a firearm.Represented by court-appointed counsel, Smith pleaded guilty to distributing methamphetamine and possessing a firearm as a felon. He then sought to retract his guilty plea, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The court denied Smith’s motion, rejected his request for an evidentiary hearing, and sentenced him to 214 months’ imprisonment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Smith cannot establish that he would have succeeded on a motion to suppress the firearm evidence and did not demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s pressure to accept a plea, he would not have pleaded guilty. There is no evidence that appointed counsel made a misrepresentation or that suggests his unfamiliarity with the case. The court correctly applied the career offender enhancement to Smith’s sentence. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

Perry suffers from serious mental illness defined by two suicide attempts, severe depression, paranoid schizophrenia, and auditory hallucinations. He is serving a 70-year sentence for murdering his former wife during a fit of paranoia in 2013. In 2016, while housed in the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility in southern Indiana, Perry’s condition worsened. He refused all medication, stopped eating because he feared someone had poisoned his food, renewed his conspiracy claims against the Wabash medical staff, and threatened to kill himself if left in his cell any longer. A medical review and administrative hearing culminated in a decision to forcibly administer the antipsychotic medication Haldol. Injections continued for about six months.Perry later sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the forcible medication violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment and the Due Process Clause. The district court denied Perry’s request to appoint counsel, finding that Perry understood his case and quite ably prosecuted it. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendants. The defendants attended carefully to Perry’s health and safety. The Facility’s Review Committee had enough evidence to demonstrate that Perry was a danger to himself or others so as to justify the involuntary administration of Haldol. View "Perry v. Sims" on Justia Law