Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A student organization at West Texas A&M University, focused on supporting LGBT+ students, planned a charity drag show to raise funds for a suicide prevention initiative. The event was to be held in a university venue that had previously hosted a wide range of student and community events, including a prior drag show. The organizers took steps to ensure the show would be appropriate for a general audience, restricting lewd content and requiring minors to be accompanied by adults. Shortly before the event, the university president canceled the show, citing concerns that drag performances were discriminatory against women and did not align with the university’s values.Following the cancellation, the student group and two of its officers filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, seeking a preliminary injunction to allow future drag shows on campus. The district court denied the injunction, holding that drag shows were not inherently expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment and that the university president was entitled to qualified immunity. The court also found that the plaintiffs had standing against certain university officials but not others, and rejected the claim of irreparable harm.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the denial of the preliminary injunction de novo. The Fifth Circuit held that the planned drag show was expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment, as it conveyed a clear message of support for the LGBT+ community in its context. The court determined that the university venue was a designated public forum, making the content-based restriction on the drag show subject to strict scrutiny, which the university did not attempt to justify. The court found the plaintiffs faced irreparable harm from the ongoing ban and that the balance of equities and public interest favored an injunction. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction against the university president and a vice president, affirmed the denial as to the chancellor for lack of standing, and remanded for entry of the injunction. View "Spectrum WT v. Wendler" 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

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

Anthony Schmitt, a Christian volunteer, taught a program called “The Quest for Authentic Manhood” at the Minnesota Correctional Facility from 2012 until 2020, when all religious programming was suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Quest program, which is based on biblical teachings about manhood, was popular among inmates and had been offered voluntarily. In 2023, after religious programming resumed, the Minnesota Department of Corrections (MDOC) decided to discontinue Quest, citing concerns that its content conflicted with the department’s diversity, equity, and inclusivity values. The MDOC specifically objected to the program’s biblical perspective on masculinity, its treatment of sexual orientation, and its portrayal of gender roles.Schmitt filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that the MDOC’s decision violated his First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion, and constituted a denominational preference in violation of the Establishment Clause. He sought a preliminary injunction to reinstate the Quest program. The district court denied the motion, applying the standard from Turner v. Safley, and found that the MDOC’s decision was rationally related to legitimate penological interests, was neutral, and did not violate Schmitt’s constitutional rights.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the denial of the preliminary injunction. The court held that, even assuming the Turner standard applied, the MDOC’s action was not neutral because it targeted Schmitt’s religious viewpoint. The court found that Schmitt was likely to succeed on the merits of his First Amendment claims and that the other factors for a preliminary injunction also favored him. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction and remanded with instructions to reinstate the Quest program pending further proceedings. View "Schmitt v. Rebertus" on Justia Law

Several individuals with developmental disabilities, along with Disability Rights New York (DRNY), an advocacy organization, alleged that New York State agencies responsible for services to people with developmental disabilities caused them to remain in restrictive institutional settings for extended periods, despite being eligible for community-based residential placements. The individual plaintiffs claimed they waited from nine months to six years for such placements, resulting in physical and psychological harm. DRNY, as the state’s designated Protection and Advocacy System, joined the suit, asserting authority to represent the interests of individuals with disabilities under federal law.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York first addressed the defendants’ motion to dismiss DRNY’s claims for lack of standing, agreeing that DRNY had not suffered an injury in fact and rejecting its argument that federal statutes conferred “congressionally authorized representational standing.” The district court also dismissed the individual plaintiffs’ claims as moot, based on pre-motion letters from the defendants indicating that all individual plaintiffs had since been moved out of institutional facilities. Additionally, the court denied a motion by other individuals seeking to intervene as plaintiffs, finding the motion untimely.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of DRNY’s claims, holding that DRNY lacked standing because it had not suffered a concrete injury and that Congress could not override Article III’s standing requirements by statute. The Second Circuit also affirmed the denial of the motion to intervene, finding no abuse of discretion in the district court’s timeliness determination. However, the Second Circuit vacated the dismissal of the individual plaintiffs’ claims as moot, holding that the district court erred by dismissing those claims based solely on pre-motion letters without full briefing or a hearing. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the individual plaintiffs’ claims. View "A.H. v. N.Y. State Dep't of Health" on Justia Law

A group of individuals in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) filed a lawsuit in 2007, alleging inadequate mental healthcare. The case developed into a class action, and in 2016, the parties reached a settlement agreement that required IDOC to meet specific mental-health treatment benchmarks. The agreement included a provision for $1.9 million in attorney’s fees to be paid to plaintiffs’ counsel if the court granted relief for violations of the agreement. In 2018, the district court found IDOC in breach and issued an injunction, triggering the fee provision. While the defendants appealed, the parties entered into further agreements, resulting in the $1.9 million being paid to plaintiffs’ counsel.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois later extended its enforcement jurisdiction over the settlement agreement, but after the expiration of that jurisdiction, the court returned the case to its active docket. The parties continued to litigate, with plaintiffs filing amended complaints and defendants moving to dismiss. More than a year after resuming active litigation, the district court raised concerns about its subject-matter jurisdiction, ultimately concluding that its jurisdiction over the underlying claims ended when its enforcement jurisdiction over the settlement agreement expired. The court dismissed all claims and denied the defendants’ motion to recover the $1.9 million in attorney’s fees.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that, under the parties’ agreements, the payment of $1.9 million in attorney’s fees to plaintiffs’ counsel was proper and did not need to be returned, even after the district court’s injunction was vacated. The court also vacated the district court’s dismissal of the underlying claims, remanding for the district court to determine whether the settlement agreement moots those claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of the defendants’ motion to recover the attorney’s fees. View "Daniels v. Jones" on Justia Law

Three registered Texas voters alleged that three local officials—a justice of the peace, a sheriff, and a constable—conspired to punish them for political reasons. The plaintiffs were arrested after reporting for jury duty, accused of falsely claiming residency in Loving County. The officials argued they were enforcing voter-eligibility rules, while the plaintiffs claimed it was retaliation to silence dissent. The plaintiffs sued under § 1983, alleging constitutional violations.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas granted judicial and quasi-judicial immunity to the officials for some claims but denied judicial immunity for actions related to the jury proceeding. The officials appealed the denial of judicial immunity, and the plaintiffs cross-appealed the grant of immunity on other claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that presiding over the jury proceeding was a judicial act protected by absolute judicial immunity. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's denial of judicial immunity for the jury proceeding. Regarding the plaintiffs' cross-appeal, the court found it lacked jurisdiction to review those claims at this interlocutory stage and dismissed the cross-appeal.The court's main holding was that the actions of the justice of the peace in presiding over the jury proceeding were judicial in nature and thus protected by absolute judicial immunity. The court reversed the district court's decision in part and dismissed the cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Jones v. King" on Justia Law

Chosen Consulting, LLC, doing business as Chosen Healthcare, and other related entities (collectively "Chosen") filed a lawsuit against the Town Council of Highland, Indiana, the Highland Municipal Plan Commission, and the Town of Highland, Indiana (collectively "the Town"). Chosen alleged that the Town discriminated against patients with addiction-related ailments by refusing to provide a letter stating that Chosen’s proposed use of its property complies with local zoning requirements. Chosen claimed this discrimination violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, seeking compensatory, injunctive, and declaratory relief.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana granted summary judgment to the Town. The district court held that Chosen's claim for injunctive relief under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act was not ripe for adjudication because Chosen had not obtained a final decision from the local zoning authorities. The court indicated that Chosen needed to pursue its request for zoning approval through the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) and, if necessary, appeal any final decision entered by the BZA to the state courts before seeking an injunction in federal court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Seventh Circuit held that Chosen's claim for injunctive relief was not ripe because Chosen had not satisfied the finality requirement set forth in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City. The court emphasized that Chosen needed to follow the local zoning procedures, including applying for a use variance or seeking a declaratory judgment in state court, to obtain a final decision from the Town. Until Chosen completed these steps, the dispute was not ripe for federal court review. View "Chosen Consulting, LLC v Town Council of Highland" on Justia Law

John Baldwin sued Union Pacific Railroad Company under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), alleging he was unlawfully removed from his position following a fitness-for-duty evaluation. Baldwin, who had degenerative arthritis and underwent a double hip replacement, experienced a bursitis flare-up while working, leading to a fitness-for-duty evaluation. Despite being cleared by his orthopedic surgeon and a physical exam, Union Pacific's Chief Medical Officer imposed work restrictions based on Baldwin's exercise tolerance test results, which showed low aerobic capacity and mild hypertension. Baldwin was ultimately prevented from returning to his job.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska denied both parties' summary judgment motions. Baldwin voluntarily dismissed his disparate impact and ADEA claims, proceeding to trial on the ADA claims for disparate treatment and failure to accommodate. The jury found that Union Pacific discriminated against Baldwin based on a perceived disability but concluded he posed a direct threat to himself. The district court entered judgment for Union Pacific and denied Baldwin’s motion for a new trial, which challenged the jury instructions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Baldwin argued that the jury instructions misallocated the burden of proof and omitted essential elements of the direct threat defense. The court found that while the direct threat instruction was incomplete, it did not affect the trial's outcome. The business judgment instruction was deemed appropriate and did not mislead the jury. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the instructions, taken as a whole, did not mislead the jury or affect Baldwin's substantial rights. View "Baldwin v. Union Pacific Railroad Co." on Justia Law

Samantha Long, a former Clerk of the Town Justice Court for the Town of New Lebanon, filed a lawsuit against the Town of New Lebanon and Jessica Byrne, a former Town Justice. Long alleged that she was unlawfully terminated in retaliation for cooperating with an investigation by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct into Byrne’s suspected judicial misconduct. Long claimed that she provided specific case files to the Commission and refused to discuss the investigation with Byrne, which led to her termination. She argued that her termination violated her First Amendment rights and her rights under New York State Civil Service Law § 75-b.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed Long’s claims. The court concluded that Long’s actions were not protected by the First Amendment because they were part of her official duties as Court Clerk and did not constitute protected citizen speech. Consequently, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Long’s Section 75-b claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appellate court held that Long’s complaint adequately alleged that she acted as a private citizen, not pursuant to her work responsibilities, when she cooperated with the Commission’s investigation and refused to discuss it with Byrne. The court emphasized that Long’s refusal to discuss the investigation with Byrne was not within the scope of her job duties and that her cooperation with the Commission was motivated by a sense of civic duty rather than employment-related responsibilities. The court also vacated the district court’s dismissal of Long’s state-law claim under Section 75-b, as the legal premise for the dismissal was defeated by the reinstatement of her First Amendment claim. View "Long v. Byrne" on Justia Law