Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

In 2008, Bell protested Operation Iraqi Freedom in Chicago. President Bush was at a luncheon at a nearby club. After one protestor was arrested, handcuffed, and placed in a squadrol, Bell and two others, banner in hand, approached the squadrol, walking into the street. The police ordered the men to get back on the sidewalk several times. They refused and began chanting, “Hell no, we won’t go. Set him free.” Police arrested them for disorderly conduct. In particular, police arrested Bell pursuant an ordinance that criminalizes an individual’s behavior when he “knowingly . . . [f]ails to obey a lawful order of dispersal by a person known by him to be a peace officer under circumstances where three or more persons are committing acts of disorderly conduct in the immediate vicinity, which acts are likely to cause substantial harm or serious inconvenience, annoyance or alarm.” A state court acquitted Bell and he sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violation of First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and malicious prosecution and indemnification. Bell appealed adverse rulings by the district court. The Seventh Circuit reversed, invalidating the ordinance in part, as inhibiting protected speech and not amenable to clear and uniform enforcement.

The Center broadcasts advertisements, maintains a website, publishes a weekly e-mail newsletter, produces a bi-weekly radio show, and engages in other forms of mass media communications. Its tax exempt status under section 501(c)(4) is incompatible with partisan political activity, so the Center cannot endorse candidates. During election seasons, the Center runs advertisements that refer to the positions of candidates or to ballot issues and call for actions such as contacting candidates. The Center claims that it feared that Illinois’s new campaign finance laws (10 ILCS 5/9) would require it to register as a “political committee” and to disclose election-related expenditures and significant contributors and that its donors require assurances that their identities will not be disclosed. The Center argued that the law was vague and overbroad. The district court dismissed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that the Illinois law is modeled on federal law. The Center did not establish that the statute “prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech,” or that its “deterrent effect on legitimate expression is ... real and substantial.”

Betker was shot twice during a late-night police raid on his home. The officer who shot him was part of a tactical unit executing a no-knock search warrant secured by Officer Gomez, who obtained the warrant after receiving information from Capol, the estranged sister of Betker’s wife, Sharon, regarding Sharon being a convicted felon allegedly in possession of a firearm. Capol now swears that most of the information that Gomez related in his affidavit to support the warrant’s issuance was not true. In Betker’s suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the district court denied Gomez’s motion for judgment based on qualified immunity. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that Betker has produced sworn deposition testimony of Capol contradicting the probable cause affidavit. If believed, that testimony would establish that Gomez knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth made false or misleading statements in the affidavit. Absent those false statements, probable cause for the no-knock warrant would not have existed.

Elusta sued tChicago and police officers for excessive force, false arrest, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He first retained Cerda and De Leon, who conducted discovery and obtained a settlement offer of $100,000. Elusta rejected this offer, apparently because his retainer contained a 40% contingent fee provision. The district court permitted the attorneys to withdraw. Elusta retained Smith and Genson. A jury found in Elusta’s favor on two counts and awarded $40,000. Smith and Genson petitioned for attorney’s fees on behalf of Elusta pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988. Before the court could rule, Elusta retained new attorneys, Johnson and Gentleman, to litigate the fee issue. They sought direct payment of some of the fees to Elusta, rather than to Smith and Genson. Smith and Genson’s petition languished for nearly 16 months before Cerda and De Leon filed sought fees, asserting an attorney’s lien or a right to recover under quantum meruit. The court granted Smith and Genson’s request for $82,696.50 under section1988. Cerda and De Leon had not perfected an attorneys’ lien, but the court allowed recovery of $15,000 in quantum meruit. The court rejected Elusta’s motion to have 60% of both amounts paid to him directly. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Griffin, a high school freshman, was told to go home for dress code violations. Bell, a police officer, accompanied Griffin and twice removed Griffin’s hat. Bell claims that Griffin struck Bell in the face. A second security officer grabbed Griffin’s arm. Bell told Griffin that he was under arrest and got one handcuff on Griffin before Griffin began to struggle. The struggle continued for approximately 20-30 minutes before Bell attached the second handcuff. Griffin told a different story, claiming to have been beaten. Before trial, Bell moved to exclude a two-minute video of part of the incident, recorded by Brown, a friend of Griffin’s. Brown apparently could not be located at the time of trial. Bell contended that, without Brown as a witness, Griffin could not establish a proper foundation, and that the video was confusing and unfairly prejudicial because it showed only a small part of the incident and included gaps. The court excluded the video, excerpts from the video, and still photos created from the video, and prohibited reference to the video to explain a discrepancy in Griffin’s testimony. A jury rejected Griffin’s 42 U.S.C. claim. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Hoppe is a tenured professor of Philosophy at Lewis University. She lost the privilege of teaching aviation ethics after the new chair of the Aviation Department, Brogan, deemed her unqualified because she had no formal training in aviation, had never worked in the industry, and had not obtained any degrees or certifications relevant to the field. During the two years before her removal from the course, Hoppe filed a series of charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, requesting an accommodation for her clinically diagnosed “adjustment disorder” and accusing the university of discrimination and retaliation. She sued for discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and 42 U.S.C. 1981. The district court awarded the university summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. While there was no evidence of Hoppe’s job functions or her inability to perform them, the undisputed evidence shows that the university offered Hoppe three different accommodations, which she rejected, and no rational trier of fact could find that the university’s efforts were unreasonable. Hoppe has no evidence of a causal link between her protected activity and Brogan’s decision and failed to make a prima facie showing of retaliation.

Plaintiff taught sixth-grade at a public school and met with a student’s parents about a threat the student had made against another student. He met the parents again after seeing the student beating another student. The father threatened a lawsuit and told plaintiff that an older son, who had assaulted the assistant principal, should have assaulted plaintiff. During a subsequent class, the student used an assignment to write a song with lyrics about stabbing plaintiff. The police liaison encouraged plaintiff to file criminal charges; under Illinois law declaring a knowing threat of violence against a person at a school is disorderly conduct, 720 ILCS 5/26-1(a)(13). School administrators feared a suit and were not supportive. After plaintiff filed charges, his evaluations went from satisfactory to unsatisfactory and administrators advised him that they would recommend that he not be rehired. Plaintiff resigned and filed suit, claiming retaliation for exercise of First Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on the ground that the complaint was not protected by the First Amendment because it did not involve a matter of public concern. The Seventh Circuit reversed. Principles underlying the suit are well settled, which defeats claims of qualified immunity.

In 2004, Resurrection sought to rezone property around Saint Joseph Hospital in Chicago to allow further development of the campus. Plaintiffs own property within 250 feet of the property and objected to the rezoning. In 2006, the city approved the rezoning and amended the Chicago Zoning Ordinance to create IPD 1019. Plaintiffs filed a complaint in state court, claiming that the ordinance violated plaintiffs’ constitutional rights under the due process clauses of the Illinois and U.S. Constitutions because it was inconsistent with provisions of the Chicago Zoning Code. The state trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the city. The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed, stating: “The IPD ordinance … is not rendered unconstitutional simply because this municipality, a home rule unit, violated its own self-imposed ordinances in enacting the IPD ordinance.” The Illinois Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. Plaintiffs filed in federal court. The district court dismissed the claim as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, under which federal district and circuit courts lack jurisdiction to review decisions of state courts. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

After seeing Tebbens soliciting funds in an intersection using a fireman’s boot, Chicago Police Officer Mushol determined that Tebbens possessed firefighter identification, but was not a firefighter. Seeing Tebbens soliciting a second time, the officer issued tickets for not having a valid city permit to solicit funds on behalf of his charity and one for failing to display a city permit, both of which eventually were dismissed. On charges relating to theft of the firefighter identification, Tebbens accepted court supervision. Seeing him soliciting a third time, Officer Mushol arrested Tebbens. Charges were later dismissed. Tebbens sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging the arrest was without probable cause in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. He sought indemnification against the City of Chicago under state law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, finding that Officer Mushol had probable cause to arrest Tebbens for violating the terms of his court-ordered supervision and was entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable officer could have believed that there was probable cause to arrest Tebbens for violating the supervision order. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Park hoped to become a dental surgeon when she enrolled at the Indiana University School of Dentistry (IUSD) in 2006. After one year at the school, Park began to experience a series of serious setbacks, including several failing grades and allegations of professional misconduct. Eventually, the school dismissed her. Park appealed without success to school committees and administrators. The district court dismissed her suit, alleging Equal Protection and Due Process violations, as well as claims for state law breach of contract. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Park did not allege bad faith in the dismissal and had no contract claim. Park’s interest in becoming a dentist is not one that the due process clause protects. Park did not allege intentional discrimination.