Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Iowa enacted a law making it a state crime for certain noncitizens who had previously been denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed from the United States to enter or be found in Iowa. The law also required state judges to order such individuals to return to the country from which they entered and prohibited state courts from pausing prosecutions based on pending or possible federal immigration status determinations. Two noncitizens residing in Iowa, both of whom had previously been subject to federal removal orders but later lawfully reentered the United States, along with a membership-based immigrant advocacy organization, challenged the law, arguing it was preempted by federal immigration law.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa found that the plaintiffs had standing and granted a preliminary injunction, concluding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Iowa law was preempted by federal law under both conflict and field preemption doctrines. The district court also found that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm if the law went into effect and that the balance of equities and public interest favored an injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion, reviewing legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction, holding that the plaintiffs had standing and were likely to succeed on the merits because every application of the Iowa law would conflict with federal immigration law by interfering with the discretion Congress grants to federal officials. The court also found that the other factors for a preliminary injunction were met. The Eighth Circuit remanded for the district court to determine the appropriate scope of the injunction in light of recent Supreme Court guidance. View "IA Migrant Movement for Justice v. Bird" on Justia Law

In this case, the owners of a residential property in Fayetteville, Arkansas, sought to rent their home as a short-term rental when not in residence. The City of Fayetteville had enacted an ordinance regulating short-term rentals, requiring a license for all such properties and a conditional-use permit for certain types in residential zones. The ordinance also imposed a cap on the number of these rentals. After applying for a conditional-use permit, the property owners’ application was denied by the Fayetteville Planning Commission, which found the proposed rental incompatible with the neighborhood due to the number of similar rentals nearby.Following the denial, the property owners attempted to appeal to the Fayetteville City Council, but their appeal was not sponsored by the required number of council members. They then filed an administrative appeal in the Washington County Circuit Court, along with claims for declaratory and constitutional relief. They also sought a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the ordinance while their case was pending. The City moved for summary judgment, arguing the administrative appeal was untimely. The circuit court denied the preliminary injunction and dismissed the administrative appeal for lack of jurisdiction, but left the constitutional claims pending.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed only the denial of the preliminary injunction, as the dismissal of the administrative appeal was not properly before it due to the absence of a final, appealable order. The court held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction, finding no irreparable harm and no likelihood of success on the merits at this stage. The denial of the preliminary injunction was affirmed, and the appeal of the administrative dismissal was dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. View "HAUSE v. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS; THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION" on Justia Law

A flight attendant employed by an airline and represented by a labor union was terminated after sending graphic anti-abortion images and messages to the union president and posting similar content on social media. The employee, a pro-life Christian and vocal opponent of the union, had previously resigned her union membership but remained subject to union fees. The union’s leadership had participated in the Women’s March, which the employee viewed as union-sponsored support for abortion, prompting her messages. The airline investigated and concluded that while some content was offensive, only certain images violated company policy. The employee was terminated for violating social media, bullying, and harassment policies.Following termination, the employee filed a grievance, which the union represented. The airline offered reinstatement contingent on a last-chance agreement, which the employee declined, leading to arbitration. The arbitrator found just cause for termination. The employee then sued both the airline and the union in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, alleging violations of Title VII and the Railway Labor Act (RLA), among other claims. The district court dismissed some claims, allowed others to proceed, and after a jury trial, found in favor of the employee on several Title VII and RLA claims. The court awarded reinstatement, backpay, and issued a broad permanent injunction against the airline and union, later holding the airline in contempt for its compliance with the judgment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the judgment for the employee on her belief-based Title VII and RLA retaliation claims against the airline, remanding with instructions to enter judgment for the airline on those claims. The court affirmed the judgment against the airline on practice-based Title VII claims and affirmed all claims against the union. The court vacated the permanent injunction and contempt sanction, remanding for further proceedings, and granted the employee’s motion to remand appellate attorney’s fees to the district court. View "Carter v. Transport Workers Union of America Local 556" on Justia Law

Several individuals and a firearms association challenged provisions of New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) that require ammunition sellers to conduct background checks on purchasers, pay a $2.50 fee per check, and register with the Superintendent of the New York State Police. The plaintiffs alleged that these requirements deterred them from purchasing or selling ammunition, and that one plaintiff was unable to complete a purchase due to a system failure. They also claimed that dealers were passing the background check fee onto purchasers, and that the registration requirement deterred private sales.The United States District Court for the Western District of New York found that the association lacked standing but that the individual plaintiffs did have standing to challenge the provisions. The district court denied a preliminary injunction, concluding that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their Second Amendment claims because the state had shown that the provisions were consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, as required by the framework set out in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed that the individual plaintiffs had standing. However, the Second Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction on different grounds. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to show that the background check, fee, and registration provisions meaningfully constrained their ability to “keep” or “bear” arms under the first step of the Bruen framework. Because the plaintiffs did not meet this threshold, the court did not address the historical analysis. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s order and remanded for further proceedings. View "N.Y. State Firearms Ass'n v. James" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, who is civilly committed as a sexually violent predator at the Texas Civil Commitment Center, brought a pro se lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Commissioner of the Texas Department of Family Protective Services and the Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. He alleged that these agencies failed to investigate his reports of misconduct and abuse at the facility, claiming violations of his Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection and due process, as well as rights under the Bill of Rights for Mental Health Patients. The plaintiff asserted that he should be able to file complaints with these agencies rather than being required to use the internal grievance procedure of the Texas Civil Commitment Office.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because the plaintiff was proceeding in forma pauperis. The district court found that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for relief and that amendment would be futile, so it dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that he had adequately stated equal protection and due process claims, that he should have been allowed to amend his complaint, and that the district court was biased.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the plaintiff failed to state an equal protection claim because he was not similarly situated to other Texas citizens and the different grievance procedures had a rational basis. The court also found no protected liberty or property interest to support a due process claim and concluded that the alleged conduct did not rise to the level of a substantive due process violation. The court further held that amendment would have been futile and found no evidence of judicial bias. The plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel was denied. View "Dunsmore v. Muth" on Justia Law

A woman who immigrated from China to the United States and later became a U.S. citizen founded an educational institution that participated in a Department of Defense tuition program. In 2010, the FBI began investigating her for statements made on immigration forms, conducting interviews, searches, and seizing personal and business materials. Although the U.S. Attorney’s Office ultimately declined to file charges, Fox News later published reports about her, including confidential materials from the FBI investigation. These reports cited anonymous sources and included documents and photographs seized during the FBI’s search. Following the reports, the Department of Defense terminated her institution’s participation in the tuition program, resulting in significant financial losses.She filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the FBI and other federal agencies, alleging violations of the Privacy Act due to the unauthorized disclosure of her records. During discovery, she was unable to identify the source of the leak despite extensive efforts. She then subpoenaed a Fox News journalist, who authored the reports, to reveal her confidential source. The journalist invoked a qualified First Amendment reporter’s privilege. The district court found that the plaintiff had met the requirements to overcome this privilege—demonstrating both the centrality of the information to her case and exhaustion of alternative sources—and ordered the journalist to testify. When the journalist refused, the court held her in civil contempt.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s orders. The appellate court held that, under its precedents, a qualified First Amendment reporter’s privilege may be overcome in civil cases if the information sought is crucial to the case and all reasonable alternative sources have been exhausted. The court also declined to recognize a broader federal common law reporter’s privilege. View "Chen v. FBI" on Justia Law

Jill Esche, who was seven months pregnant, was admitted to Renown Regional Medical Center in Nevada with severe hypertension and erratic behavior. Hospital staff, believing she was mentally ill and a danger to herself and her fetus, petitioned for her involuntary commitment under Nevada law. While the petition was pending, Esche was kept in the hospital, given psychiatric and medical treatment against her will, restricted from visitors and phone use, and not informed that a public defender had been appointed for her. After giving birth by C-section, the hospital decided to withdraw the commitment petition but allowed Esche to leave while she was still in fragile condition. She died outside near the hospital that night. Her estate and survivors sued the hospital and several staff members, alleging violations of her constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Nevada law.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted summary judgment to the defendants on some claims, including unreasonable seizure and procedural due process claims, but denied summary judgment on others, such as substantive due process, conspiracy, and failure-to-train-or-supervise claims. The court also denied the defendants’ assertion of a good-faith defense to § 1983 liability, finding that the defense did not apply because the hospital was not required by law or directed by a public official to hold Esche involuntarily. Both sides appealed: the defendants challenged the denial of the good-faith defense, and the plaintiffs cross-appealed the dismissal of other constitutional claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the district court’s denial of the good-faith defense was not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine, as the defense is a defense to liability, not an immunity from suit. The court dismissed both the defendants’ appeals and the plaintiffs’ cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Estate of Esche v. Bunuel-Jordana" on Justia Law

An instrumentality of Iran attempted to wire nearly $10 million through an American bank, but the funds were blocked by the U.S. government under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) due to Iran’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. Two groups of plaintiffs, each holding substantial judgments against Iran for its support of terrorist acts, sought to attach these blocked funds to satisfy their judgments. The funds had been frozen by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and were the subject of a pending civil-forfeiture action initiated by the United States.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia initially quashed the plaintiffs’ writs of attachment. The court reasoned, first, that the funds were not “blocked assets” as defined by the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) and thus were immune from attachment. Second, it held that the government’s earlier-filed civil-forfeiture action invoked the prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine, barring any subsequent in rem proceedings against the same property. The district court also noted that the existence of the Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund suggested Congress did not intend to encourage individual attachment actions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed. The court held that the funds in question are “blocked assets” under TRIA, as they remain frozen by OFAC and are not subject to a license required by a statute other than IEEPA. The court further held that the prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine does not bar multiple in rem proceedings filed in the same court. Accordingly, the court concluded that neither sovereign immunity nor the prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine prevented the plaintiffs from seeking attachment of the funds and reversed the district court’s order quashing the writs of attachment. View "Estate of Levin v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Katie Orndoff appeared as a witness for the prosecution in a felony domestic assault jury trial in the Circuit Court for Loudoun County. During her testimony, she repeatedly referenced the defendant’s prior arrests and incarceration, despite admonitions from the court and objections from defense counsel. The circuit court observed that Orndoff’s demeanor was unusual, including rocking in her chair and nearly falling over, and questioned her about possible substance use. Orndoff admitted to smoking marijuana earlier that day. The circuit court found her in summary contempt for “misbehavior in the presence of the court” due to voluntary intoxication, sentenced her to ten days in jail, and declared a mistrial.Orndoff appealed her contempt conviction to the Court of Appeals of Virginia. A three-judge panel reversed the circuit court’s finding, holding that the trial judge did not personally observe all essential elements of the alleged contempt and improperly relied on Orndoff’s admission rather than direct observation. The panel found that summary contempt was inappropriate and that Orndoff’s due process rights were violated. Upon rehearing en banc, the Court of Appeals was evenly divided, resulting in an affirmance of the circuit court’s judgment without opinion.The Supreme Court of Virginia reviewed the case and applied an abuse of discretion standard. It held that summary contempt requires the judge to personally observe all essential elements of the misconduct in open court. The Supreme Court found that the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Orndoff was voluntarily intoxicated while testifying, as the circuit court’s findings were contradicted by the record and relied on unreliable admissions. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, reversed the circuit court’s contempt finding, and vacated Orndoff’s conviction. View "Orndoff v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

A business operating a strip club featuring nude dancing and alcohol sales entered into a settlement agreement with DeKalb County, Georgia, in 2001, which was later amended in 2007. The amended agreement granted the club non-conforming status, allowing it to continue its business model for fifteen years, with the possibility of renewal, and required annual licensing fees. In 2013, the City of Chamblee annexed the area containing the club and subsequently adopted ordinances restricting adult entertainment establishments, including bans on alcohol sales, stricter food sales requirements for alcohol licenses, and earlier closing times. The City initially issued alcohol licenses to the club but later denied renewal, citing failure to meet new requirements and the club’s status as an adult establishment.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed some of the club’s claims for lack of standing and granted summary judgment to the City on the remaining claims. The district court found that the club lacked standing to challenge certain ordinances as it was not an alcohol licensee, and that the City’s ordinances regulating adult entertainment and alcohol sales were constitutional under the secondary-effects doctrine, applying intermediate scrutiny. The court also determined there was no valid contract between the club and the City, rejecting the Contract Clause claims, and found no equal protection violation, as the club failed to identify a similarly situated comparator.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The Eleventh Circuit held that the club lacked standing for equitable relief due to its permanent closure, but had standing for damages for a limited period. The court upheld the application of intermediate scrutiny to the ordinances, found no impairment of contract, and agreed that the club failed to establish an equal protection violation. The district court’s judgment in favor of the City was affirmed. View "WBY, Inc. v. City of Chamblee, Georgia" on Justia Law