Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

A police officer with the Cambridge Police Department, who had served in both patrol and special investigations roles, posted a comment on his personal Facebook page criticizing the naming of a federal police reform bill after George Floyd. In his post, he referred to Floyd as a "career criminal, a thief and druggie," and expressed pessimism about the country's future. The post was made from home, visible only to his Facebook friends, but was quickly screenshotted and shared with community members, including the local NAACP. The police commissioner was alerted, and the department initiated an internal investigation. The officer was placed on administrative leave and, after the investigation concluded that his post violated department policies on courtesy and professionalism, he was suspended without pay for four days.The officer filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging that his suspension was unconstitutional retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the department, finding that the department’s interest in maintaining public trust and effective service outweighed the officer’s and the public’s interest in his speech, particularly given the context of heightened scrutiny and protest following George Floyd’s death.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The First Circuit held that, while the officer’s speech addressed a matter of public concern, its mocking and disparaging nature diminished its First Amendment value. The court further held that the department’s prediction that the post could undermine public trust was reasonable, especially in the context of ongoing public unrest and the department’s need to maintain community confidence. The court found no evidence of impermissible viewpoint discrimination. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the department. View "Hussey v. City of Cambridge" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff, Robert Arias, sued several federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents for damages, alleging that they violated his Fourth Amendment rights during his arrest in a shopping center parking lot in September 2016. Arias claimed that some agents used excessive force against him, while others failed to intervene to prevent that force. He based his claims on the implied cause of action for damages under the Fourth Amendment recognized by the Supreme Court in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics.The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire granted summary judgment to the defendants. The court reasoned that, due to the 1988 amendment to the Inspector General Act (IGA), which created an administrative mechanism for reporting federal law enforcement misconduct, Arias’s claims arose in a “new context” compared to Bivens. The District Court concluded that the existence of this alternative remedial scheme counseled against extending the Bivens remedy, thus precluding Arias’s excessive force and failure-to-intervene claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the District Court’s decision. The First Circuit held that the IGA’s administrative remedy, by itself, does not make the context of Arias’s excessive force claims meaningfully different from Bivens. The court found that Arias’s excessive force claims arise in the same context as Bivens, so the Bivens remedy remains available. However, the court affirmed summary judgment on Arias’s failure-to-intervene claims, as he did not show that those claims arise in the same context as Bivens or justify extending Bivens to that context. The First Circuit thus reversed the District Court’s judgment on the excessive force claims and remanded for further proceedings, while affirming the judgment on the failure-to-intervene claims. View "Arias v. Herzon" 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

Arthur Huggins, a community member in Manatee County, Florida, regularly attended local school board meetings to criticize the School Board and Superintendent Cynthia Saunders for their decision to take control of Lincoln Memorial Academy, a Black-owned charter school, and remove its administration. Huggins was known for his outspoken opposition, including public comments and calls for investigations into the Board’s actions. At a November 2019 board meeting, after standing at the back of the room due to back pain, Huggins was ordered by the school district’s Chief of Security, at Saunders’s direction, to sit or leave. When Huggins explained his situation, he was removed from the meeting by a police officer and prevented from delivering his public comment. The incident was later publicized, and the Board and Saunders issued apologies.Huggins filed suit in state court against the School Board, Saunders, and several individuals, alleging violations of his First Amendment rights, among other claims. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The district court dismissed Huggins’s federal claims with prejudice, finding that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and that Huggins had not established municipal liability against the Board or the City of Bradenton. The court also denied Huggins’s request to amend his complaint a second time and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of Huggins’s First Amendment claims against Saunders, holding that Saunders was not entitled to qualified immunity and that Huggins plausibly alleged both viewpoint discrimination and retaliation. The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against the other defendants and the denial of leave to amend, but vacated the district court’s decision declining supplemental jurisdiction over state claims, remanding for further proceedings. View "Huggins v. School District of Manatee County" on Justia Law

Two Black celebrities brought suit after being stopped by Clayton County, Georgia police officers on the jet bridge while boarding flights at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. The officers, as part of a drug interdiction program, stopped passengers after they had cleared security and boarding checks, requested and retained their identification and boarding passes, questioned them about drugs, and asked to search their luggage. Both plaintiffs alleged they felt coerced, were not free to leave, and believed they had no choice but to comply. They further alleged that the program disproportionately targeted Black passengers and that the stops were neither random nor consensual.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed all claims. It found the encounters were voluntary and not seizures under the Fourth Amendment, that any searches were consensual, and that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege racial discrimination or a policy supporting municipal liability. The court also granted qualified immunity to the individual officers.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged they were subjected to unreasonable seizures and, in one case, an unreasonable search, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court found that the circumstances—officers blocking the plaintiffs’ paths, retaining their documents, and questioning them in a confined space—amounted to seizures, and that the search was not voluntary. However, the court affirmed qualified immunity for the individual officers, as the law was not clearly established. The court also found that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged a policy or custom by Clayton County that could support municipal liability under Monell. The court affirmed dismissal of the equal protection claims, finding insufficient allegations of discriminatory intent. The court reversed in part, allowing the Fourth Amendment claims against Clayton County to proceed. View "Andre v. Clayton County" on Justia Law

A former federal employee alleged that her union mishandled an arbitration proceeding and discriminated against her based on sex and disability. She claimed that the union’s local president made unwanted sexual advances, disparaged her status as a nursing mother, and ultimately withdrew union support for her grievance against her employer. The employee filed several unfair labor practice (ULP) charges with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), some of which were dismissed as untimely, and also filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which issued her a right-to-sue letter. She then brought two lawsuits in federal district court: one alleging violations of Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) against the union and its local, and another, pro se, alleging retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) against the union, its local, and two union officials.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed both lawsuits for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court reasoned that the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS) precluded the employee’s claims, holding that her allegations were essentially claims for breach of the union’s duty of fair representation, which must be pursued exclusively through the FLRA’s administrative process.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the dismissals de novo. The court held that the FSLMRS does not preclude federal employees from bringing Title VII and ADA claims against their unions in federal district court, even when the alleged conduct could also constitute a ULP. The court reasoned that Congress did not intend to displace these specific statutory discrimination remedies with the FSLMRS’s more limited scheme. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the FLSA retaliation claim, finding no indication that Congress intended for such claims against unions to proceed in district court alongside the FSLMRS process. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the Title VII and ADA claims. View "Lucas v. American Federation of Government Employees" on Justia Law

A high school student sought to establish a pro-life student club at her public high school. The school promptly approved the club after she followed the required procedures, including securing a faculty sponsor and submitting a club questionnaire. The student actively promoted the club at the school’s activities fair, wearing pro-life apparel and displaying related signs. The dispute arose when the student submitted flyers containing political slogans and images for posting on school walls. Administrators instructed her to revise the flyers to comply with the school’s neutral content policy, which limited flyers to the club’s name and meeting details and excluded political content. Instead of revising the flyers, the student and her mother approached another administrator to seek approval, which led the principal to suspend the club’s status for the semester, citing concerns that the club was no longer student-led and that established procedures had been violated. The student was allowed to reapply, and the club was later reinstated.The student and her parents filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, alleging violations of the First Amendment and the Equal Access Act, claiming that the rejection of the flyers and the club’s suspension were motivated by hostility to her pro-life views. The district court granted summary judgment to the school district and officials, finding no constitutional or statutory violations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Seventh Circuit held that the school’s restriction on political content in student club flyers was a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral policy related to legitimate pedagogical concerns under Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. The court also found that the temporary suspension of the club was based on neutral, conduct-related reasons and not on the student’s viewpoint. The court further held that there was no violation of the Equal Access Act and that the plaintiffs had not preserved a separate claim regarding the flyers under that statute. View "E.D. v Noblesville School District" on Justia Law

Christopher Skaggs was released on parole in 2019 after serving a prison sentence for felony violations of the Vehicle Code. In December 2020, the Mendocino County District Attorney filed a petition to revoke his parole, alleging new criminal conduct, and also filed a related criminal complaint. Skaggs failed to appear for hearings, resulting in bench warrants. He was later arrested in Lake County on these warrants and new charges, convicted, and sentenced to additional prison time. While incarcerated, Skaggs repeatedly requested to resolve the Mendocino County parole revocation and criminal matters. The criminal complaint was dismissed under Penal Code section 1381, but the court declined to dismiss the parole revocation petition, finding section 1381 inapplicable.Skaggs subsequently filed a nonstatutory motion to dismiss the parole revocation petition on constitutional due process grounds, arguing that delays prejudiced him by preventing concurrent sentencing and prolonging his custody. The Mendocino County Superior Court construed his motion as a Penal Code section 1385 motion and denied it, reasoning that section 1385 does not apply to parole revocation proceedings. The court then held a contested revocation hearing, found Skaggs violated parole, sentenced him to 90 days in jail, and ordered his parole terminated upon release. Skaggs appealed the denial of his motion and the parole revocation.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, determined that Skaggs’s appeal was moot because his parole had already been terminated and no effective relief could be granted. However, the court exercised its discretion to address the trial court’s error, holding that the trial court improperly construed Skaggs’s constitutional due process motion as a section 1385 motion and incorrectly concluded it lacked authority to consider the motion. The appellate court clarified that trial courts have jurisdiction to entertain nonstatutory motions to dismiss parole revocation petitions on constitutional due process grounds. The appeal was dismissed as moot. View "People v. Skaggs" 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