Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The Eleventh Circuit granted a petition for panel rehearing, withdrew the previous published opinion, and substituted this opinion. The court denied the petition for review of the BIA's order affirming petitioner's removal from the United States. The court held that 8 U.S.C. 1432(a) did not discriminate based on gender where, had the situation been reversed, if petitioner's mother had become a lawful permanent resident, was naturalized, and raised him in the United States while his father remained in Jamaica, he still would not have derived citizenship because his parents never legally separated. The court also held that section 1432(a) did not unconstitutionally discriminate based on legitimacy and, in the alternative, assuming without deciding that section 1432(a)(3)'s distinction based on marital choice was a legitimacy based classification, the statute passed constitutional muster. The court agreed with its sister circuits that section 1432(a) was substantially related to protecting parental rights. Finally, section 1432(a) did not unconstitutionally burden petitioner's fundamental right to maintain a family unit. View "Levy v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded the district court's summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff's discrimination claims against Manheim, her employer. Plaintiff alleged that the employer discriminated against her by paying her less than her male predecessor. The court held that, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, she was entitled to proceed to trial on her Equal Pay Act and Title VII claims. In this case, a jury could conclude that plaintiff was entitled to relief under the Equal Pay Act because the evidence supported a finding that she has made a prima facie case and that Manheim failed to establish an affirmative defense in response, and that plaintiff was entitled to relief under Title VII because the evidence supported a finding that her sex "was a motivating factor for" the pay disparity between her and her male predecessor. View "Bowen v. Manheim Remarketing, Inc." on Justia Law

In this school desegregation case, black schoolchildren opposed a motion filed by the Gardendale City Board of Education to permit it to operate a municipal school system. The district court devised and permitted a partial secession that neither party requested. The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court did not clearly err when it found that the Board moved to secede for a racially discriminatory purpose; the district court did not not clearly err when it found, in the alternative, that the secession would impede the desegregation efforts of the Jefferson County Board; but the district court abused its discretion when it sua sponte permitted the partial secession of the Board. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions to deny the motion to secede. View "Stout v. Gardendale City Board of Education" on Justia Law

In this school desegregation case, black schoolchildren opposed a motion filed by the Gardendale City Board of Education to permit it to operate a municipal school system. The district court devised and permitted a partial secession that neither party requested. The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court did not clearly err when it found that the Board moved to secede for a racially discriminatory purpose; the district court did not not clearly err when it found, in the alternative, that the secession would impede the desegregation efforts of the Jefferson County Board; but the district court abused its discretion when it sua sponte permitted the partial secession of the Board. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions to deny the motion to secede. View "Stout v. Gardendale City Board of Education" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's decision issuing a writ of habeas corpus setting aside petitioner's failure-to-register conviction on the ground that his prior sodomy conviction was invalid under Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 123 S. Ct. 2472 (2003). The court held that petitioner's claim that Lawrence voided his sodomy conviction was unexhausted and thus the district court erred by entertaining it. The court also held that the Court of Appeals, in light of Georgia state law, correctly found that petitioner suffered no prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984). View "Green v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400–1482, alleging that the School Board's refusal to include the desired therapy in their children's Individual Education Plan (IEP) reflected its predetermined policy of never including any Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA)-based method or strategy in a child's IEP. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment and held that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the policy because it was not applied to them. The court explained that, although plaintiffs could claim to suffer injury because the School Board did not adopt the specific ABA services they were requesting, such a claim was not a cognizable injury in fact under the procedural prong of Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206–07 (1982), because the children's IEPs included an ABA-based service. View "L.M.P. v. School Board of Broward County" on Justia Law

After Dontrell Stephens was shot four times by Deputy Sheriff Adams Lin and was permanently paralyzed, an action was brought against Deputy Lin and Sheriff Bradshaw. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Sheriff Bradshaw on the Monell claim brought against him, but remanded for a new trial upon finding that an erroneous jury instruction deprived Deputy Lin of the opportunity to have his claimed defense of qualified immunity considered by the district court. In this case, the excessive force inquiry was not sufficiently divorced from the qualified immunity inquiry in that the instruction improperly conflated the two inquiries and presented the jury with both together. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for a new trial. View "Stephens v. Bradshaw" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's denial of plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Stay of Proceedings and Motion to Reopen Case and Substitute Plaintiff. The court held that the district court went straight to the "excusable neglect" analysis without considering whether its December 29 stay effectively extended the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25 period. Because it applied an incorrect legal standard, the district court abused its discretion. The court instructed that the district court, on remand, should consider whether its order allowing the case to be reopened if "a proper motion is made within 90 days hereof" had the effect of extending the Rule 25 deadline to March 29. If so, plaintiff's motions for an extension of the stay were both timely. If not, the district court must then turn to the question of whether plaintiff's delay was the result of "excusable neglect." View "Lizarazo v. Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Department" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the county, seeking relief from a 2010 zoning ordinance that prohibited short term rentals of single family dwellings. The Eleventh Circuit held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred review of all of plaintiff's claims challenging the application of Regulation 15.35 to her property. Rooker-Feldman barred federal review because all of her claims in this case were inextricably intertwined with those from her first civil case. The court explained that plaintiff's proper channel for seeking relief was to appeal to state appellate courts, which she did, and lost. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "May v. Morgan County, Georgia" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Deputy Casal and Pardinas under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as well as claims under Georgia's Constitution. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment on the federal claims for excessive force against Pardinas and bodily privacy against both defendants; affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the state law claim for excessive force against Pardinas; reversed the denial of summary judgment on the federal and state law claims for unlawful entry against Casal where Casal's entry based on the arrest warrant was permitted under Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 603, 100 S. Ct. 1371, 1388 (1980), and for unlawful protective sweep against Casal because his actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment; and remanded for further proceedings. View "Brand v. Casal" on Justia Law