Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit against employees of SCDC and others, alleging that the food served to him at a prison managed by the SCDC was so deficient as to violate his Eighth Amendment rights. The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), concluding that plaintiff's claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata because it is the same as a complaint filed against SCDC employees by a fellow inmate in 2010, which the district court dismissed on the merits. The court concluded that, because plaintiff was a nonparty to the earlier suit, he is not precluded from pursuing the same claims on his own behalf in the instant action unless the state defendants are able to demonstrate that at least one of the six exceptions to the general rule against nonparty preclusion applies pursuant to Taylor v. Sturgell. Because the state defendants have not demonstrated that any of the exceptions apply, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Duckett v. Fuller" on Justia Law

Maritime employed Elmer Escalante, an undocumented alien, at one of its two full-service carwashes. After Escalante filed a complaint against Maritime with the EEOC for discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., the EEOC issued a subpoena seeking information from Maritime related to Escalante’s charges. The parties disagree on how Escalante’s undocumented status affects the EEOC’s authority to investigate his charges. The district court denied the EEOC's application for subpoena enforcement. The court held that the EEOC’s subpoena, designed to investigate Escalante’s Title VII charges, is enforceable. In this case, the plain language of Title VII provides a "plausible" or "arguable" basis for the EEOC's subpoena where Title VII allows any "person claiming to be aggrieved" to file charges with the EEOC, and nothing explicitly bars undocumented workers from filing complaints. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "EEOC v. Maritime Autowash, Inc." on Justia Law

The Committee filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the Commonwealth, alleging that the Incumbent Protection Act, Va. Code Ann. 24.2-509(B), infringes on its First Amendment right to freedom of association by preventing it from determining the method of nomination in contravention of the terms of the Party's Plan of Organization. Senator Hanger and Moxley, who sought the Party’s nomination for Senator Hanger’s seat on the 24th District, both moved to intervene. The district court subsequently granted defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court affirmed the district court’s holding that the Committee lacks standing to bring this suit because the language of the Plan is clear and unambiguous: the Plan delegates to the Committee the authority to determine the nomination method unless Virginia law otherwise limits that authority. Because the Party has made a voluntary choice to limit the Committee’s authority in this way, plaintiffs have “no complaint that the party’s right to govern itself has been substantially burdened by” the Act because “the source of the complaint is the party’s own decision.” Because neither Virginia law nor the Plan gives Moxley “a legally protected interest” in determining the nomination method in the first place, he fails to establish that he has standing independent of the Party. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "24th Senatorial Dist. v. Alcorn" on Justia Law

After G.G., a transgender boy, began to use the boys’ restrooms with the approval of the school administration, the local school board passed a policy banning G.G. from the boys’ restroom. G.G. filed suit alleging that the school board impermissibly discriminated against him in violation of Title IX, 20 U.S.C. 1681(a), and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The district court dismissed G.G.’s Title IX claim and denied his request for a preliminary injunction. The court reversed the dismissal of G.G.’s Title IX claim, concluding that the district court did not accord appropriate deference to the relevant Department of Education regulations. In this case, the Department’s interpretation of its own regulation, 34 C.F.R. 106.33, as it relates to restroom access by transgender individuals, is entitled to Auer v. Robbins deference and is to be accorded controlling weight. The court also concluded that the district court used the wrong evidentiary standard in assessing G.G.’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The district court evaluated G.G.’s proffered evidence against a stricter evidentiary standard than is warranted by the nature and purpose of preliminary injunction proceedings to prevent irreparable harm before a full trial on the merits. Therefore, the district court abused its discretion when it denied the preliminary injunction without considering G.G.’s proffered evidence. The court vacated the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction and remanded for consideration under the correct standard. View "G. G. v. Gloucester Cnty. Sch. Bd." on Justia Law

S.B., by and through his mother, filed suit against the Board, alleging primarily that by allowing other students to harass S.B. based on his disability, the Board violated section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq. S.B.'s father, a teacher and athletic director at the school, filed suit in his own right, claiming that the Board also violated section 504 by retaliating against him for advocating on S.B.’s behalf. The district court granted summary judgment for the Board. The court affirmed the judgment because no evidence support's the claims. In this case, S.B. has provided no evidence that the Board acted with the deliberate indifference necessary to hold it liable for student-on-student harassment. Nor does the record substantiate the father's allegation of a causal connection between his advocacy for S.B. and any adverse action taken by the Board. View "SB v. Board of Educ. of Harford" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant Terry and others after he was pulled over, tased three times, and arrested. Plaintiff was charged with an excessive noise violation, no license in possession, and disorderly conduct, all of which were nol prossed. The parties filed a stipulation of dismissal as to all claims except for the 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim for excessive force against Terry in his individual capacity. The district court denied Terry summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The court's analysis of the Graham v. Connor factors when measured against the level of force used by Terry against plaintiff leads the court to conclude that such force was not objectively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances in this case. Therefore, plaintiff has established that Terry's use of his taser constituted excessive force in violation of plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights. Further, no reasonable officer would have believed that Terry’s use of the taser was justifiable at all and certainly not on three occasions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court’s denial of Terry’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. View "Yates v. Terry" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an inmate at a Virginia correctional facility, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that defendant's deliberate indifference to plaintiff's safety, and the resulting injuries, constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff was attacked by his cellmate after requesting a transfer from defendant, the Prison Housing Manager. The court concluded that genuine disputes of material fact underlie plaintiff's claim where plaintiff alleged specific facts describing the injuries he sustained as a result of the attack, and alleged two independent grounds for establishing defendant's subjective knowledge of the risk of assault. Therefore, the district court erred in granting summary judgment to defendant. The court vacated and remanded. View "Raynor v. Pugh" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit after her termination against her former employers for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12112(a), and for other violations of state and federal law. The jury found in favor of plaintiff on certain state law claims and in favor of the employers on all other claims. The court concluded that the district court correctly applied a but-for causation standard to plaintiff's ADA claim; the court rejected plaintiff's claim that the district court erred in instructing the jury where the "prevents or significantly restricts" standard is too demanding under the ADA Amendments Act, Pub. L. No 110-325, section 5; even if the court assumes that the district court’s instruction was erroneous and that the error was plain, plaintiff has not shown that it affected her substantial rights; and the court rejected plaintiff's contention that the district court erred in instructing the jury on the “regarded as” prong of the definition of disability because she failed to show how she was prejudiced. Therefore, the court found no abuse of discretion and no serious prejudice to plaintiff that warrants vacating the verdict on her disability discrimination claims. Further, the court rejected plaintiff's challenge to the district court’s instruction on “record of” disability where she did not object to the instruction and on appeal did not explain how the omitted language applies to her case. Finally, the court rejected plaintiff's challenges to the damages the jury awarded on her state law claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Gentry v. East West Partners Club" on Justia Law

Appellants appealed a district court order granting summary judgment against them in their claims challenging the constitutionality of certain contribution limits established by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), see 52 U.S.C. 30101–30146. The court concluded that two of the three claims became moot before the district court granted summary judgment, and the court therefore vacated the merits judgment on those counts and remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss them for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. In Count III the Fund and ARCC challenge the constitutionality of the annual $5,000 limit that applies to contributions from “multicandidate political committee” (MPCs) to state political party committees and their local affiliates, and the Fund challenges the constitutionality of the annual $15,000 limit on contributions from MPCs to national party committees. The court concluded that, because appellants cannot demonstrate that FECA discriminates against MPCs, there is no discrimination to be justified, and the court concluded that the FEC was entitled to summary judgment on Count III. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded in part with instructions to dismiss. View "Stop R.E.I.D. v. Federal Election Commission" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the City, alleging that the City, acting through it's Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq., by denying plaintiffs' request for a variance to permit a certain property to be used as a church facility. The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The court concluded that plaintiffs failed to state a claim that the BZA’s decision imposed a substantial burden on plaintiffs’ right of religious exercise. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ request to amend their complaint, because any such amendment would have been futile. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Andon, LLC v. The City of Newport News, VA" on Justia Law