Justia U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Police in Chicago responded to a report of shots fired on the city’s west side and discovered a two-car crash, with one vehicle, a minivan, bearing bullet damage. The minivan’s driver, Derrick Davis, exited and was observed approaching a nearby parked car. An eyewitness alerted officers that Davis had a gun. When officers detained him, they found a loaded handgun under the parked car, which Davis had tossed there. Davis had a significant felony record and was on state parole at the time. After his arrest, he made a jail phone call in which he discussed details of the incident and his actions, suggesting he had intentionally driven to the scene.Initially, Davis faced charges in state court, but these were dismissed when federal authorities indicted him for being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The presentence report did not recommend a sentencing enhancement for Davis’s involvement in another felony (the shoot-out) due to insufficient evidence. The district judge, however, imposed an above-Guidelines sentence of 84 months, relying in part on Davis’s jail call. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated that sentence, citing a procedural error: the judge had adopted the presentence report’s findings but also credited the government’s argument that Davis participated in the shoot-out, which was inconsistent.On remand, the district judge clarified that he did not find Davis had fired his gun, but based the above-Guidelines sentence on Davis’s criminal history and his jail call, which showed reckless disregard for the law. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that this was procedurally and substantively reasonable, and affirmed the 84-month sentence. View "USA v Davis" on Justia Law

Police officers in Calumet City, Illinois, responded to a 911 call in May 2015 reporting a man allegedly throwing a knife near a home. Upon arrival, officers spoke with the caller, who identified the suspect entering a residence. The officers knocked on the door, exchanged words with someone inside who told them to leave, and later decided to enter through an unlocked back door without a warrant, citing concerns for the safety of occupants due to a recent domestic violence report involving the address. Inside, officers found a woman who appeared unhurt and ultimately located Elias Villalobos hiding upstairs. The parties dispute whether Villalobos resisted or threatened the officers before he was tased and shot.Villalobos sued four officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, alleging excessive force and unlawful entry under the Fourth Amendment. At summary judgment, the district court denied qualified immunity for most excessive force claims, finding factual disputes for trial. On the unlawful entry claim, however, the court granted partial summary judgment for Villalobos, concluding as a matter of law that the officers violated the Fourth Amendment by entering without a warrant and rejecting the officers’ exigent circumstances argument.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed only the denial of qualified immunity on the unlawful entry issue. The Seventh Circuit vacated the district court’s order, finding that the lower court did not address whether clearly established law put the officers on notice that their conduct was unlawful, as required for denying qualified immunity. The appellate court also noted unresolved factual disputes relevant to the exigent circumstances analysis. The case was remanded for further proceedings, instructing the district court to clarify the facts and address both prongs of the qualified immunity test. View "Villalobos v. Picicco" on Justia Law

Jerron Williams was involved in an altercation with a United States Postal Service letter carrier in Gary, Indiana. After a brief dispute, Williams fired several shots into the carrier's vehicle as she attempted to leave, causing her physical injuries. A grand jury indicted Williams on three counts: assaulting a federal employee with a deadly weapon causing bodily injury, discharging a firearm during a crime of violence, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. Williams entered into a plea agreement, admitting guilt to the first two counts and waiving his right to appeal.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, held a change of plea hearing where the magistrate judge explained the charges and their elements. Williams, with his attorney’s agreement, confirmed his understanding and acceptance of the facts and the charges. Prior to sentencing, Williams changed attorneys and sought to withdraw his plea, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court held an evidentiary hearing, denied the motion to withdraw the plea, and sentenced Williams to 153 months in prison.On appeal, Williams argued for the first time that his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) was invalid because the predicate offense under 18 U.S.C. § 111(b) was not a “crime of violence.” The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case for plain error and determined that Williams had waived this argument multiple times: by pleading guilty, by waiving his right to appeal, and by not raising the argument in his motion to withdraw the plea. The court also found that the magistrate judge properly explained the charges and ensured Williams’s understanding. As a result, the Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal. View "USA v JWilliams" on Justia Law

In the fall of 2025, federal immigration authorities increased enforcement activities in Chicago through “Operation Midway Blitz,” prompting protests near an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in Broadview, Illinois. Protesters and journalists alleged that federal officers from ICE, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) violated their First and Fourth Amendment rights by deploying tear gas and other chemical agents without justification. The plaintiffs described instances of excessive force and sought injunctive relief to stop such practices.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued a temporary restraining order and later a broad preliminary injunction that applied districtwide, enjoining all federal law enforcement officers and agencies from using certain crowd control tactics. The court also certified a plaintiff class and required ongoing compliance reporting from DHS officials. The government appealed the preliminary injunction, arguing it was overbroad and infringed on separation of powers principles. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stayed the injunction, citing its expansive scope and concerns over standing.Subsequently, as the enforcement operation ended and no further constitutional violations were reported, the plaintiffs moved to dismiss the case. The district court dismissed the case without prejudice and decertified the class, contrary to the plaintiffs’ request for dismissal with prejudice. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that extraordinary circumstances warranted vacating the district court’s preliminary injunction. The Seventh Circuit held that vacatur was appropriate because the case had become moot and to prevent the now-unreviewable injunction from producing adverse legal consequences in future litigation. The court vacated the injunction and dismissed the appeal. View "Chicago Headline Club v. Noem" on Justia Law

Police officers in Rock Island, Illinois, attempted to stop an unregistered minivan driven by Atoris Slater in July 2020. Slater fled, leading officers on a high-speed chase that ended when they discontinued pursuit after he nearly caused a collision. Slater abandoned the minivan and tried to hide in a dumpster but was found shortly after. Police searched the vehicle and discovered a loaded handgun, marijuana, and cannabis edibles. Upon his arrest and transport to jail, Slater attempted to discard a bag containing crack cocaine. He was indicted for possession of controlled substances with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm as a felon, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois handled the case. Slater pleaded guilty to all counts without a plea agreement, and the presentence report (PSR) initially calculated his sentencing range using a 1:1 drug-conversion ratio for marijuana and cannabis edibles. The government did not object to the PSR within the standard 14-day period. On the eve of sentencing, the prosecutor learned that the edibles contained THC, which required a higher 1:167 conversion ratio, and raised a late objection. The judge granted a continuance, allowed for lab testing, and ultimately adopted the new calculations, resulting in a higher sentencing range. Slater did not renew his objection to the revised PSR and was sentenced below the revised Guidelines range.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed whether the district judge properly allowed the government’s untimely objection to the PSR and whether the higher THC conversion ratio applied. The Seventh Circuit held that the district judge did not abuse her discretion by permitting the late objection for good cause. The court also found that Slater had waived any challenge to the THC ratio by affirmatively accepting the revised PSR at sentencing. The judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Slater" on Justia Law

An inmate at a correctional institution in Wisconsin, who practices Islam and prays five times daily at precise times, relied on a prayer schedule printed and distributed by prison chaplains. He discovered the schedule was inaccurate due to the chaplain entering the wrong location into an online tool, resulting in prayer times being off by several minutes. Although the chaplains corrected the schedule for meal deliveries during Ramadan, they declined to distribute revised prayer schedules to inmates, citing a policy prohibiting the use of government funds to purchase religious items for inmates. The inmate eventually received an accurate schedule by donation from a visiting imam, but complained he did not receive one from the prison.After exhausting internal grievance procedures, the inmate sued the corrections staff in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, alleging violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. It found the initial error in the prayer schedule was a mistake, not an intentional constitutional violation, and determined neither RLUIPA nor the Free Exercise Clause required prison officials to purchase religious materials for prisoners using government funds. The court also concluded the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established law requiring the provision of religious materials as a courtesy.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. The Seventh Circuit held that a de minimis cost for an inmate to purchase his own prayer schedule does not constitute a “substantial burden” under RLUIPA. Additionally, RLUIPA does not require states to purchase religious items for inmates. The court also affirmed that the neutral prison policy did not violate the Free Exercise Clause and that the negligence claim regarding the inaccurate schedule was waived. The judgment was affirmed. View "Childs v Webster" on Justia Law

Michael Connor was convicted in 2013 after a bench trial in Livingston County, Illinois, of five counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child. The offenses involved his daughter and stepdaughter, occurring when they were between five and seven years old. The statutory penalty was six to sixty years per count, to be served consecutively, but if convicted of assaulting multiple victims, the law required a mandatory life sentence. After his conviction, Connor received the mandatory life term.After his direct appeal was unsuccessful, Connor pursued postconviction relief in Illinois state court, arguing that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective during plea negotiations by failing to inform him that he faced a mandatory life sentence. He claimed this omission led him to reject an 18-year plea offer. At an evidentiary hearing, Connor testified that he would have accepted the plea had he known about the life sentence. The trial judge, however, found this testimony not credible, noting that Connor had repeatedly asserted his innocence and had unequivocally stated at sentencing that he would not have pleaded guilty even if aware of the outcome. The trial court denied postconviction relief, and the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed, finding no reasonable probability that Connor would have accepted the plea but for counsel’s alleged errors.Connor then sought federal habeas relief in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, which was denied. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the denial. The Seventh Circuit held that federal habeas relief was not warranted because Connor failed to rebut, by clear and convincing evidence, the state court's credibility finding that he would not have accepted the plea. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Connor v. Greene" on Justia Law

Elizabeth Chitwood worked as a human resources specialist for Ascension and was granted intermittent Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave for migraines in 2021, which she was required to report on the same day to a third-party administrator, Sedgwick, and to notify her supervisor as soon as practicable. She also received approval for continuous FMLA leave to care for her son from August 31 to November 3, 2021. After her continuous leave ended, Chitwood did not return to work despite explicit instructions and warnings from Ascension. She instead applied for a personal leave, which was denied, and ultimately left a voicemail on November 15, 2021, implying she believed she had been terminated. Ascension terminated her that day for failure to return to work. The following day, Chitwood attempted to retroactively report intermittent FMLA leave for absences on November 11, 12, and 15, but Ascension rejected these requests since she was already terminated.Chitwood filed suit against Ascension in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, alleging interference with her FMLA rights and retaliation for using FMLA leave. The district court granted summary judgment for Ascension, finding no reasonable jury could rule in Chitwood’s favor. The court concluded she was not entitled to FMLA benefits at the time of her post-termination requests and had failed to provide timely notice for her absences.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that Chitwood could not prevail on either her FMLA interference or retaliation claims because she was not denied FMLA benefits to which she was entitled and there was no evidence that her termination was retaliatory. The court found that her noncompliance with notice requirements and her failure to return to work justified her termination. View "Chitwood v. Ascension Health Alliance" on Justia Law

A fire severely damaged a church building in southeastern Indiana. The church promptly notified its insurer, which had issued a policy covering actual cash value (subject to depreciation) and additional replacement-cost benefits if the property was repaired or replaced “as soon as reasonably possible.” The parties disputed the cost of rebuilding, but the insurer paid the church nearly $1.7 million—the undisputed actual cash value and additional agreed amounts—while the church continued to contest the estimates and did not begin repairs or replacement. About two years after the fire, the church sued the insurer for breach of contract and bad faith denial of replacement-cost benefits.The insurer removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana and moved for summary judgment, arguing that the church had not complied with the policy’s requirement to repair or replace the property promptly. The church, represented by counsel, responded with arguments about factual disputes over estimates and the credibility of insurance adjusters, but did not address the legal basis concerning the contractual precondition for replacement-cost benefits. The district court granted summary judgment to the insurer, finding the church had failed to engage with the insurer’s core argument.On appeal, with new counsel, the church raised for the first time that ongoing disputes over replacement-cost estimates excused its failure to begin repairs, citing two Indiana Court of Appeals cases. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that this argument was waived because it was not presented to the district court. The Seventh Circuit further held that plain-error review in civil cases is available only in extraordinary circumstances not present here. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the insurer. View "Crothersville Lighthouse Tabernacle Church v. Church Mutual Insurance Company" on Justia Law

An investment fund specializing in gems and minerals filed for bankruptcy in October 2019. Prior to this, one of the fund’s managing members, through his own companies, had engaged a law firm to represent him and his separate business interests in connection with federal investigations and anticipated arbitration involving the fund and its leadership. The law firm’s engagement letters were addressed to the individual and his other company, not the fund itself, and did not state that the fund was responsible for payment. Some of the legal work benefited all respondents, including the fund, and the fund issued two checks to the law firm. However, a significant balance remained unpaid.During the bankruptcy proceedings, the law firm filed a claim against the fund for unpaid legal fees. The Official Committee of Equity Security Holders, appointed to represent the fund’s equity holders, objected, arguing the fund was not liable for the debt. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment to the Equity Committee, finding the fund had no obligation to pay the law firm based on the evidence presented. The law firm appealed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, which affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s affirmance de novo. The Seventh Circuit held that the law firm had not provided sufficient evidence of an enforceable promise by the fund to pay the legal fees, either as a primary obligor or under promissory estoppel. Additionally, the court found that neither Wisconsin’s statutory indemnification provision for LLC managers and members nor the fund’s operating agreement extended indemnification rights to the individual who had retained the law firm. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Ballard Spahr LLP v Official Committee of Equity Security Holders" on Justia Law