Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendants were charged with, inter alia, four counts of creating and one count of distributing animal crush videos. On appeal, the government challenged the district court's dismissal of counts one through five. Congress revised 18 U.S.C. 48 to make it a crime to knowingly create, sell, market, advertise, exchange, or distribute an animal crush video. The district court concluded that section 48 was facially invalid. However, the court concluded that section 48 incorporates Miller v. California obscenity and thus by its terms proscribes only unprotected speech. The court rejected defendants' arguments under R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul and held that Congress has a significant interest in preventing the secondary effects of animal crush videos, which promote and require violence and criminal activity. Furthermore, section 48 serves the government interest in a reasonably tailored way. Thus, section 48 is a permissible regulation of a subset of proscribable speech. The court reversed and remanded. View "United States v. Richards, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, tour guides, filed suit challenging the City's requirement that those conducting tours for hire in the city have a tour guide license. Plaintiffs claimed that the City's requirement violated their First Amendment rights and sought a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The court concluded that the content-neutral requirement promoted the government's interest in requiring licensees to know the city and not be felons or drug addicts. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the City. View "Kagan, et al. v. City of New Orleans" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit in state court against Verizon, alleging that Verizon discharged her in retaliation for complaining of discrimination and harassment pursuant to Texas law. Verizon moved to federal court based on diversity. The court held that the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement is only a condition precedent. When the court considered the appeal on the merits, the court found no merit based on the absence of causation between plaintiff's complaints and her discharge; the decisionmaker had no knowledge of the alleged protected activity claimed by plaintiff; and although the Verizon executive terminating her had no knowledge of her complaint, she did not have knowledge of a complex commission-generating scheme in which plaintiff was implicated and from which she profited. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to defendants. View "Gorman v. Verizon Wireless Texas, L.L.C., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Medicaid beneficiaries with near total disabilities, filed suit after being denied coverage for ceiling lifts under a categorical exclusion in the state's implementing Medicaid regulations. The district court granted summary judgment for the state. The court concluded that, under binding precedent, plaintiffs have an implied private cause of action under the Supremacy Clause to pursue their challenge; the state must comply with the requirements of the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq., but the Act does not preempt the state's categorical exclusions; and therefore, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment and denied the motion to vacate. View "Detgen, et al. v. Janek" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against federal officials and others after they were sexually assaulted while being transported from an immigration detention center. Plaintiffs claimed violations of their Fifth Amendment due process right to freedom from deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm, alleging that the officials knew of violations of a contractual provision requiring that transported detainees be escorted by at least one officer of the same gender, and that the officials understood the provision aimed to prevent sexual assault. On appeal, Defendants Robertson and Rosado, federal officials who worked as ICE Contracting Officer's Technical Representatives (COTRs), challenged the denial of their motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. The court concluded that plaintiffs properly alleged that Robertson and Rosado had actual knowledge both of the violations of the Service Agreement provision and of that provision's assault-preventing objective. However, because the complaint did not plausibly allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, Robertson and Rosado were entitled to qualified immunity and the district court erred in denying their motion to dismiss. View "Doe, et al. v. Robertson, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against a Louisiana state court judge under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985, alleging a deprivation of civil rights. The judge presided over a custody proceeding between plaintiff and his ex-wife. Plaintiff moved to recuse the judge based on his suspicion that the judge had a social relationship with his ex-wife. The motion was denied. Plaintiff later renewed the recusal motion and the judge issued an order recusing himself, citing his friendship with the ex-wife. Plaintiff then filed this suit seeking monetary damages. Plaintiff alleged that the judge and his ex-wife conspired to make false statements at the first recusal hearing. The court concluded that when the judge testified, he was testifying as a witness in an adversarial proceeding and thus was absolutely immune from section 1983 liability. The court also concluded that the section 1985 claim was inadequately pled because a violation under section 1985 required class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus behind the conspirator's action. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Moffett v. Bryant" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit for damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics against ten federal officers, in their individual capacities, based on their alleged roles in contributing to the death of ICE Special Agent Zapata and the serious injury of Agent Avila. The agents were ambushed and shot by drug cartel members in Mexico using weapons they allegedly obtained unlawfully in the United States. The court concluded that the district court did not explicitly rule on defendants' qualified immunity defense; the district court failed to make an initial determination that plaintiffs' allegations, if true, would defeat qualified immunity; and the district court did not identify any questions of fact it needed to resolve before it would be able to determine whether defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Because the district court did not fulfill its duty under Backe v. LeBlanc, Wicks v. Miss. State Emp't Servs., Helton v. Clements, and Lion Boulos v. Wilson, the court had jurisdiction to review the district court's discovery order and vacated it. The court remanded with instructions for the district court to follow the procedures outlined in Backe, Wicks, Helton, and Lion Boulos. View "Zapata, et al. v. Melson, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his former employer, Cleco, alleging race discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. 1981. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to Cleco. Plaintiff claimed that he was issued a Disciplinary Warning in retaliation for his reporting of a coworker's racially hostile statements. Cleco asserted that the warning was issued because plaintiff sent a mass email disclosing that his coworker's son overdosed on pills. The court concluded the district court erred in granting summary judgment on plaintiff's retaliation claim based on the Disciplinary Warning where plaintiff had demonstrated that there was a genuine dispute of material fact that Cleco's stated reasons were pretextual. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's retaliation claim arising from the Disciplinary Warning and remanded for further proceedings. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the remaining retaliation and discrimination claims. View "Willis v. Cleco Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Progressive for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA),15 U.s.C. 1692 et seq., as well as violations of Texas state law. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that Progressive's unaccepted offer of judgment rendered plaintiff's claims moot. The court concluded, however, that Progressive's incomplete offer of judgment did not render plaintiff's FDCPA claims moot. Under the FDCPA, an individual claimant was eligible to recover actual damages under section 1692k(a)(1). Plaintiff requested actual damages. Progressive's Rule 68 offer of judgment did not offer to meet plaintiff's full demand for relief because it did not include actual damages. Therefore, Progressive's offer left a live controversy for the court to resolve, plaintiff maintained a personal stake in the outcome of the action, and the offer did not render plaintiff's FDCPA claims moot. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Payne v. Progressive Fin. Serv., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against an elementary school principal who did not allow him to distribute religious material to other adults at his son's in-class winter party. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's dismissal of his constitutional claim based on qualified immunity. The court found that plaintiff failed to establish that a right to distribute religious gifts was clearly established for the purpose of qualified immunity analysis. Accordingly, plaintiff's allegations were not sufficient to overcome the principal's qualified immunity defense. The district court did not address the actual constitutionality of the principal's conduct and the court concluded that it need not reach the question. The court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Morgan, et al. v. Plano Indep. Sch. Dist., et al." on Justia Law