Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

During the coronavirus pandemic, Illinois Governor Pritzker issued executive orders designed to limit the virus’s opportunities to spread, similar to orders in other states. Executive Order 2020‐43 (EO43, June 26, 2020), imposing a 50-person cap on gatherings, states: This Executive Order does not limit the free exercise of religion. To protect the health and safety of faith leaders, staff, congregants, and visitors, religious organizations and houses of worship are encouraged to consult and follow the recommended practices and guidelines from the Illinois Department of Public Health.... the safest practices ... are to provide services online, in a drive‐in format, or outdoors (and consistent with social distancing requirements and guidance regarding wearing face coverings), and to limit indoor services to 10 people. Religious organizations are encouraged to take steps to ensure social distancing, the use of face coverings, and implementation of other public health measures. Emergency and governmental functions enjoy the same exemption.The Republican Party challenged the “favored” treatment of religion. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of injunctive relief. Because the exercise of religion involves more than simple speech, the equivalency urged by the Republicans between political speech and religious exercise is a false one. If there were a problem with the religious exercise carve‐out, the state would be entitled to return to a regime in which even religious gatherings are subject to the mandatory cap. View "Illinois Republican Party v. J. B. Pritzker" on Justia Law

Pulliam was arrested after fleeing from two Chicago police officers. During the chase, both officers saw a gun in Pulliam’s hand. Pulliam had previously been convicted of multiple felonies, making it a federal crime for him to possess a gun. Pulliam was convicted of possessing a firearm as a felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). After Pulliam was sentenced, the Supreme Court decided Rehaif (2019), which clarified the elements of section 922(g) convictions; in addition to proving that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm, the government must also prove the defendant knew he belonged to “the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm.” This knowledge-of-status element was not mentioned in the jury instructions at Pulliam’s trial.The Seventh Circuit affirmed his conviction. The jury instructions, missing an essential element, constituted plain error, but the error did not seriously affect “the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” The court noted that Pulliam stipulated to his prior felony conviction, has had many convictions, has served prison sentences of more than a year, and ran from police, indicating knowledge of his status. The only potential evidentiary error would be harmless. View "United States v. Pulliam" on Justia Law

Officers Cates and Hannah responded to a call by Lemons. While Lemons was alone with Cates in her home, he sexually assaulted her. Lemons was arrested, then taken to a hospital. A nurse documented swelling on Lemons’ neck and her bloodshot eyes, as evidence that she had been choked. She did not show signs of vaginal trauma or injury. Cates initially denied having sex with Lemons but later admitted to having oral and vaginal sex with Lemons, claiming it was consensual. Cates was charged under 18 U.S.C. 242 (deprivation of rights under color of law) and 18 U.S.C. 942(c) (use of a weapon during a crime of violence). The jury found Cates guilty on the first count and not guilty on the firearm count. By special verdict, the jury found Cates committed aggravated sexual abuse but found Lemons did not suffer bodily injury. Cates was sentenced to 24 years' imprisonment. The Seventh Circuit granted habeas relief, holding that the district court had instructed the jury incorrectly on the elements of aggravated sexual abuse by defining “force” to include not just force, but also psychological coercion.Cates was then charged with violation of civil rights under color of law, which again alleged his actions constituted aggravated sexual abuse. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of a “double jeopardy” motion to dismiss. Cates failed to show the jury decided he did not use force to cause Lemons to engage in sexual acts. A rational jury could conclude that Cates forcibly grabbed Lemons’ neck and continued to squeeze it during the assault without causing her bodily injury, consistent with the jury’s findings. View "United States v. Cates" on Justia Law

Demkovich was hired in 2012 as the music director at St. Andrew the Apostle Catholic Church. Demkovich is gay, overweight, and suffers from diabetes and metabolic syndrome. Demkovich claims Reverend Dada subjected him to a hostile work environment based on his sexual orientation and his disabilities. After Demkovich married his partner, Reverend Dada demanded Demkovich’s resignation because his marriage violated Church teachings. Demkovich refused. Reverend Dada fired him. Demkovich filed hostile environment claims under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act.The Seventh Circuit declined to extend the constitutional "ministerial" exemption to categorically bar all hostile environment discrimination claims by ministerial employees where there is no challenge to tangible employment actions like hiring and firing. The court reasoned that the First Amendment does not bar those same ministerial employees from bringing contract and tort claims against their employers and supervisors, nor does it bar enforcement of criminal laws arising from the mistreatment of those same employees. Religious employers’ control over tangible employment actions—hiring, firing, promoting, deciding compensation, job assignments, and the like—provides ample protection for the free exercise of religion. The First Amendment does not require complete immunity from the sometimes horrific abuse that a bright-line rule would protect. View "Demkovich v. St. Andrew the Apostle Parish" on Justia Law

In 2013, Siddique applied for a temporary student-government position at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. His application was said to have been rejected because he did not meet a minimum-enrollment requirement crafted for the position. Siddique argued that his application was rejected not because of the enrollment criteria but because of his critical stances against members of the University administration who worked with the student government and who were involved with the application process.Siddique sued University officials in their individual capacities, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violation of his First Amendment right to be free from governmental retaliation. The district court determined that qualified immunity prevented Siddique’s claim from proceeding. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Federal law does not clearly establish that enforcing an enrollment requirement for a student-government position violates the First Amendment. The right to public employment free from retaliation is not at issue and any violation of state law is irrelevant. View "Siddique v. Laliberte" on Justia Law

Officers Duszak and Weber initiated a traffic stop because the light over Harrington’s license plate was out. Dispatch notified the officers that there was no record of Harrington’s license plate. The officers attempted to identify the vehicle through the VIN number and asked Harrington to exit the vehicle. Harrington fled. The officers chased him down; one tased him and the other hit him with a baton. Harrington’s gun fell to the ground. Officers handcuffed Harrington and took him to the hospital for his injuries. Harrington sued, alleging excessive force and failure to intervene. The jury ruled in favor of the officers. Harrington’s motions for post‐trial discovery and a new trial were denied.The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that the gun evidence was admissible and not unduly prejudicial. Harrington failed to present any evidence at trial from which a reasonable jury could infer that the officers’ actions were racially motivated. Without support for race‐based allegations during the case or presented at trial, introducing this argument at closing arguments would have been highly inflammatory and prejudicial.Harrington unsuccessfully sought sanctions post‐trial based on an unverified third‐party website detailing undisclosed complaints against Duszak. A records request with the city disclosed that four complaints not included in discovery were filed after the discovery request. Four were not complaints, but information reports. Harrington failed to show how the absence of these records prejudiced him. View "Harrington v. Duszak" on Justia Law

The Barack Obama Foundation selected Jackson Park in Chicago to house the Obama Presidential Center. Chicago acquired 19.3 acres from the Chicago Park District, enacted the necessary ordinances, and entered into a use agreement with the Obama Foundation. Construction will require the removal of multiple mature trees, the diversion of roadways, and will require the city to shoulder some expenses. Opponents sued, alleging that the defendants violated Illinois’s public trust doctrine, which limits the government’s ability to transfer control or ownership of public lands to private parties and that under Illinois law, the defendants acted beyond their legal authority in entering the use agreement because it delegates decision-making authority to the Foundation and grants the Foundation an illegal lease in all but name, Under federal law, they argued that, by altering the use of Jackson Park and granting control to the Foundation, the defendants took the plaintiffs’ property for a private purpose and deprived them of property in a process lacking in procedural safeguards.The district court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed as to the federal claims and held that the state claims should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Federal courts are only permitted to adjudicate claims that have allegedly caused the plaintiff a concrete injury. The federal claims allege a concrete injury, but the lack of a property interest is a fundamental defect. The state claims allege only policy disagreements. View "Protect Our Parks, Inc. v. Chicago Park District" on Justia Law

Waagner was convicted as a felon in possession of a firearm and of possessing a stolen vehicle that had crossed a state line. The court adopted the PSR finding that Waagner was an armed career criminal under the ACCA based on his prior convictions for “violent felonies,” 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B): two 1978 convictions for Ohio aggravated burglary and one 1992 conviction for Ohio attempted robbery. Waagner had a sentencing guidelines range of 262-327 months’ imprisonment; the statutory minimum was 15 years. While awaiting sentencing, Waagner escaped from custody and, while a fugitive, committed offenses in multiple districts. After his apprehension, he pleaded guilty to escape. The court imposed a 364-month sentence.Waagner filed a second collateral attack on his sentence, challenging his ACCA classification. The district court denied his motion, finding that, although his Ohio aggravated burglary convictions no longer constitute ACCA predicate offenses under the Supreme Court's 2015 "Johnson" decision, invalidating the residual clause, they still qualify as predicate offenses under ACCA's enumerated offenses clause. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The advent of Johnson permitted Waagner to bring a second motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255; before Johnson, any such challenge would have been futile. Nonetheless, Ohio aggravated burglary and Ohio attempted robbery are violent felonies as that term is defined in the ACCA. View "Waagner v. United States" on Justia Law

Police conducted a traffic stop, approached Cook’s car and noticed a strong odor of marijuana. Cook was driving on a suspended license and without a license plate. The officers ordered him to step out of the vehicle and removed Cook's loaded pistol from his holster. In purchasing the firearm, Cook completed an ATF form, answering “no” to the question, “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?” Cook acknowledged that he used marijuana almost daily and had smoked two “blunts” that day. The Seventh Circuit affirmed Cook's conviction for being an unlawful user of a controlled substance in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3).The Supreme Court subsequently held in “Rehaif,” that the knowledge element of section 924(a)(2) requires the government to show that the defendant knew not only that he possessed a firearm, but that he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm. The indictment in Cook’s case did not allege, nor the jury instructions advise the jury that it must find, that Cook knew he was an unlawful user of a controlled substance. On remand, the Seventh Circuit again rejected Cook’s vagueness and Second Amendment challenges and his objection to the jury instruction on who constitutes an unlawful user of a controlled substance but held that, in light of Rehaif, Cook is entitled to a new trial. View "United States v. Cook" on Justia Law

Machicote, a Wisconsin inmate underwent surgery to remove damaged bone, tissue, and cartilage in his ankle after he suffered an injury while playing basketball in the prison yard. After the procedure, the surgeon supplied Machicote with oxycodone and warned that he would be in “extreme pain” when the medication wore off. He was discharged with instructions recommending narcotic-strength painkillers every six hours. At the prison, Dr. Herweijer ordered Tylenol #3, as needed every six hours for three days. Because of Nurse Stecker’s scheduling of the doses, Machicote woke at 3:30 a.m. in “excruciating pain.” Machicote continued to have trouble accessing the medication that had been ordered; the prison’s medication distribution schedule did not match Machicote’s prescription. Concerned about pain during the night, Machicote was told: “That’s how it will go.” Machicote’s medication order ran out completely and he began experiencing agonizing pain around the clock. Nurse Stecker refused to contact a doctor. Five days later, Dr. Hoffman prescribed him another painkiller, Tramadol. Machicote did not receive the medication for two more days, and his medical records show that the pain required management for several more weeks.In Machicote’s suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the district court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed as to the other defendants but vacated in part; a factual issue remains as to the deliberate indifference of Nurse Stecker. View "Machicote v. Roethlisberger" on Justia Law