Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Indiana enacted a statute making it a misdemeanor for a person to knowingly or intentionally approach within 25 feet of a law enforcement officer who is lawfully engaged in official duties, after being ordered by the officer to stop approaching. Several media organizations and news outlets challenged this law, arguing that it is unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment because it allows police officers too much discretion in deciding when to issue a do-not-approach order, potentially leading to arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. The plaintiffs asserted that the law chills their newsgathering activities, as journalists often need to approach police officers in public spaces to report on events.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana denied the State’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing, finding that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged injury in fact. The district court then granted a preliminary injunction, concluding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their Fourteenth Amendment vagueness claim, would suffer irreparable harm without relief, and that the balance of harms and public interest favored an injunction. The court did not address the plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims. The State appealed the preliminary injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, arguing that the law was not unconstitutionally vague and that the plaintiffs lacked standing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs had standing and that the case was not moot, even though a second, narrower buffer law had been enacted. The court found that the original buffer law was unconstitutionally vague because it gave law enforcement officers unfettered discretion to decide when to issue a do-not-approach order, thus encouraging arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. The court remanded the case for the district court to reconsider the appropriate scope of the injunction in light of recent Supreme Court precedent limiting universal injunctions. View "Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press v. Rokita" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, including Mike Yoder and his company Drone Deer Recovery, LLC (DDR), along with hunter Jeremy Funke, challenged a Michigan law that bans the use of drones to hunt or collect downed game. DDR uses drones equipped with infrared cameras to locate downed game and provide hunters with GPS coordinates. Plaintiffs argued that the law prevents DDR from operating in Michigan, violating their First Amendment rights to create, disseminate, and receive information.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan dismissed the complaint, holding that Plaintiffs lacked standing and failed to state a claim. The court found that the law did not prohibit the dissemination of location information but only the use of drones to locate game, which it deemed non-speech conduct. The court also concluded that the alleged injury was not redressable because the law would still prohibit drone use even if the requested injunction was granted.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and found that Plaintiffs had standing but failed to state a claim. The court determined that Plaintiffs' intended conduct of using drones to create and share location information was arguably affected with a constitutional interest and that there was a credible threat of enforcement under the Michigan law. However, the court applied intermediate scrutiny, finding the law content-neutral and justified by substantial governmental interests in conservation and fair-chase hunting principles. The court concluded that the law was narrowly tailored to achieve these interests and did not violate the First Amendment.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint, holding that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. View "Yoder v. Bowen" on Justia Law

A law firm, Sutter & Gillham PLLC, and its partners were involved in a contentious wrongful-death lawsuit in Arkansas, representing the family of a teenage boy who died from a gunshot wound. The family suspected foul play, while the boy's friends claimed it was suicide. The state court dismissed the case with prejudice, citing misconduct by the family and its attorneys. Although the firm had withdrawn from the case, it felt unfairly maligned by the court's order. One partner's attempt to intervene and seek recusal of the judge was denied, and no appeal was filed. The family successfully overturned the dismissal, and the case remains pending.The firm faced related litigation, including a state court lawsuit by the wrongful-death defendants against the firm and its partners for alleged misconduct. The firm also filed a federal lawsuit alleging constitutional violations by the wrongful-death defendants and their attorneys, claiming they conspired with the state trial judge. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed the case under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents federal courts from reviewing state court judgments.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court concluded that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not apply because the federal lawsuit did not seek to overturn the state court judgment but rather targeted the actions of the defendants and their attorneys. The court emphasized that the doctrine only applies when a federal action is essentially an appeal of a state court decision. The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the plaintiffs to pursue their claims. View "Sutter & Gillham PLLC v. Henry" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-Appellants, owners of bonds issued by the Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation (COFINA), sued the United States, alleging a taking of their property under the Fifth Amendment due to the enactment of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA). They claimed that the restructuring of COFINA's debts under PROMESA resulted in a significant loss of the principal and interest value of their bonds and their security interest.The United States Court of Federal Claims determined it had subject matter jurisdiction over the case but dismissed it for failure to state a claim. The court found that the enactment of PROMESA by Congress did not constitute sufficient federal government action to support a takings claim. The court reasoned that the actions of the Puerto Rico Oversight Board, which was created by PROMESA and acted autonomously, could not be attributed to the United States as coercive or as an agency relationship.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the decision of the Claims Court. The Federal Circuit held that PROMESA did not displace Tucker Act jurisdiction, as there was no clear congressional intent to withdraw the Tucker Act remedy. The court also agreed with the Claims Court that the United States did not exert coercive control over the Oversight Board's actions, which were necessary to establish a taking. The court concluded that the plaintiffs could not establish that the United States was liable for the alleged taking of their property. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the Claims Court's decision to deny the plaintiffs' request to amend their complaint. View "DINH v. US " on Justia Law

The case involves several states and individual plaintiffs challenging an executive order issued by President Trump, which denies citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are temporarily or unlawfully present. The district court issued a universal preliminary injunction to prevent the implementation of the executive order. The defendants appealed, arguing that the states lack standing, the preliminary injunction was improperly issued, and its scope was too broad.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted a temporary restraining order and later a preliminary injunction, concluding that the states had standing and that the executive order likely violated both the Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The court found that the states would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction and that the balance of equities and public interest favored the plaintiffs. The district court issued a universal injunction, determining that a geographically limited injunction would not provide complete relief to the states.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the executive order was unconstitutional as it contradicted the Fourteenth Amendment, which grants citizenship to all persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction. The court found that the states had standing due to the economic harm they would suffer from the loss of federal reimbursements and the administrative burden of complying with the executive order. The court also concluded that the universal preliminary injunction was necessary to provide complete relief to the states, as a geographically limited injunction would not address the administrative and financial burdens imposed by the executive order. View "Washington v. Trump" on Justia Law

Linda Martin filed a class action lawsuit against the FBI, alleging that the Notice of Seizure provided to property owners did not meet the Due Process requirements under the Fifth Amendment. The FBI had seized $40,200 from Martin's safe deposit box and issued a Notice of Seizure, which Martin claimed lacked specific legal or factual bases for the seizure, thus denying her a meaningful opportunity to respond. Martin sought declaratory and injunctive relief for herself and a proposed nationwide class of individuals who had received similar notices.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Martin's individual claim as moot after the FBI returned her seized property. The court also dismissed the class action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for failure to state a plausible Due Process claim. The court found that Martin had an adequate opportunity to present her Due Process challenge during the administrative proceedings and that her claim was moot because the FBI had returned her property.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Martin's individual claim as moot, as the FBI had returned her property. The court also dismissed the appeal of the class certification judgment for lack of jurisdiction, noting that Martin had not challenged the denial of class certification in her appellate briefs. The court concluded that without a certified class, it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court's merits rulings on the Due Process and exhaustion claims. View "Martin v. FBI" on Justia Law

Matthew Warman, a former graduate student at Mount St. Joseph University (MSJU), objected to taking the COVID-19 vaccine on religious grounds. When MSJU required all students and employees to be vaccinated, Warman applied for a religious exemption. He was allegedly detained by two MSJU Police Department officers who attempted to convince him to get vaccinated and disparaged his religious beliefs. Warman later sued MSJU, MSJPD, and several individual employees.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismissed Warman’s complaint. The court dismissed his free exercise, equal protection, and disability discrimination claims with prejudice and dismissed MSJPD from all counts with prejudice. Warman appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Warman’s free exercise, equal protection, and disability discrimination claims. However, the court found that Warman plausibly pleaded that the two officers who detained him violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Consequently, the court reversed the district court’s dismissal of Warman’s wrongful detention claim and reinstated the claim against those defendants. The court also vacated the district court’s declination of supplemental jurisdiction over Warman’s state-law claims and remanded for reconsideration.In summary, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of most of Warman’s claims but reinstated his Fourth Amendment wrongful detention claim against the two officers and remanded the state-law claims for further consideration. View "Warman v. Mount St. Joseph University" on Justia Law

A Virginia statute established procedures for internet broadband service providers to access railroad property and lay cable across tracks. The Association of American Railroads (AAR) challenged the statute, arguing it was preempted by federal law and violated the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The district court dismissed the case, ruling that AAR lacked standing to bring the claims because they required the participation of individual member railroads.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held that AAR lacked associational standing for both its preemption and Takings Clause claims. The court found that the preemption claim required a fact-intensive inquiry into whether the statute unreasonably burdened rail transportation, necessitating individual member participation. Similarly, the Takings Clause claim required individualized proof of inadequate compensation for each crossing, which also required member participation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that AAR had standing to pursue its preemption claims, as these could be litigated without the participation of individual members. The court reasoned that the preemption claims involved general judgments about the statute's nature and operation, not specific operations of individual railroads. However, the court affirmed the district court's ruling on the Takings Clause claim, agreeing that it required individualized proof of compensation for each crossing, necessitating member participation.The Fourth Circuit thus affirmed the district court's judgment in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Association of American Railroads v. Hudson" on Justia Law

A nonprofit organization, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), challenged the University of Texas at Austin (UT) for its admissions policies, alleging they violated the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI by considering race as a factor. After the Supreme Court's decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, UT revised its admissions policy to exclude race as a factor but allowed admissions officers access to applicants' racial data. SFFA claimed this access still constituted a violation and sought declaratory and injunctive relief.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed all claims as moot, reasoning that UT's policy changes addressed the issues raised by SFFA. The district court concluded that the claims related to the old policy were moot and that the new policy did not violate the law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed that claims related to UT's pre-Harvard policy were moot because the policy had been repealed and could not reasonably be expected to recur. However, the court found that claims related to UT's post-Harvard policy were not moot. The court noted that admissions officers' access to racial data could still potentially allow for racial discrimination, thus maintaining a live controversy.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court held that SFFA's claims regarding the revised admissions policy remained live and required further examination to determine if the policy was a subterfuge for continued race discrimination. View "Students for Fair Admissions v. University of Texas Austin" on Justia Law

Dr. Alan Braid, a Texas OB/GYN, admitted in a Washington Post editorial to performing an abortion in violation of the Texas Heartbeat Act (S.B. 8). This led to three individuals from different states filing lawsuits against him under the Act's citizen-suit enforcement provision, seeking at least $10,000 in statutory damages. Facing potential duplicative liability, Dr. Braid filed a federal interpleader action in Illinois, seeking to join the claimants in a single suit and also sought declaratory relief to declare S.B. 8 unconstitutional.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed Dr. Braid’s suit, citing the Wilton-Brillhart abstention doctrine due to the existence of parallel state-court proceedings. The court reasoned that the Texas state courts were better suited to resolve the issues, particularly given the unique enforcement mechanism of S.B. 8. The district court also questioned whether Dr. Braid had a reasonable fear of double liability but ultimately found that it had jurisdiction before deciding to abstain.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court agreed that the district court had jurisdiction over the interpleader action but concluded that abstention was appropriate under the Colorado River doctrine, which allows federal courts to defer to parallel state-court proceedings in exceptional cases. The court emphasized that the Texas courts were better positioned to resolve the complex state-law issues and that abstention would avoid piecemeal litigation and conflicting judgments. The court also noted that the Texas courts could adequately protect Dr. Braid’s rights and that the federal suit appeared to be an attempt to avoid the state-court system. View "Braid v. Stilley" on Justia Law