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

Metroplex Communications, Inc., which operates several local news outlets in Illinois, earns revenue by selling advertising space. Meta Platforms, Inc., the owner of Facebook, also sells ads and competes for the same local advertisers. Metroplex, representing a putative class of small businesses that compete with Meta for advertisers, alleged that Meta engaged in unlawful, anticompetitive practices by misrepresenting the reach and effectiveness of its Facebook advertisements, thereby drawing advertisers away from other platforms. The suit is based on claims under the Lanham Act and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, seeking disgorgement of profits Meta allegedly earned through misleading conduct. Although Metroplex had purchased Facebook ads in the past, its lawsuit was brought in its capacity as a competitor, not as an ad purchaser.Meta moved to compel arbitration in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, arguing that Metroplex’s prior ad purchases subjected it to an arbitration clause in Meta’s Commercial Terms. The district court denied the motion, reasoning that Metroplex’s claims arose from its status as a competitor and not from its own ad purchases or contractual relationship as an ad buyer. The court found the claims to be outside the scope of the arbitration clause.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the scope of the arbitration clause de novo, applying Illinois law. The court held that Metroplex’s unfair competition claims were not sufficiently connected to Metroplex’s ad purchases or Meta’s Commercial Terms to fall within the arbitration agreement. The claims centered on alleged anticompetitive conduct and public misrepresentations, unrelated to Metroplex’s own limited use of Meta’s ad services. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of Meta’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration clause did not apply to Metroplex’s claims as a competitor. View "Metroplex Communications, Inc. v Meta Platforms, Inc." on Justia Law

Carrie Musselman, a chiropractor in Illinois, expanded her practice to include non-chiropractic medical services and subsequently engaged in fraudulent billing practices targeting Medicare. She directed staff to bill services performed by nurse practitioners and physician assistants under physicians’ names, circumventing Medicare’s “Incident To” requirements, which resulted in higher reimbursements. Additionally, she billed a non-surgically implanted pain-relief device using a code for surgically implanted devices and billed sublingual allergy drops under a code intended for injectable allergy treatments. Despite repeated internal and external warnings about these improper practices, Musselman persisted, primarily seeking advice from sources with vested financial interests.A federal grand jury indicted Musselman on charges of healthcare fraud, wire fraud, and obstruction of a federal audit. Following a 13-day trial in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, a jury found her guilty of healthcare fraud and five counts of wire fraud, acquitting her on other charges. Post-verdict, the district court discovered that the jury foreperson had created a deliberation guide based on online articles, which included references to non-unanimous verdicts. Musselman moved for a new trial on this basis and challenged the court’s use of an “ostrich” instruction regarding deliberate ignorance. The district court denied both motions, reasoning that the outside research was harmless and the ostrich instruction was justified by the evidence.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that the district court properly found no reasonable possibility that the jury’s verdict was affected by the foreperson’s outside research and that Musselman had waived a further evidentiary hearing. The appellate court also concluded that the evidence supported the ostrich instruction, given Musselman’s repeated disregard of obvious red flags and her heightened duty to inquire about her practice’s billing practices. View "USA v. Musselman" on Justia Law

A self-funded, multiemployer health and welfare fund that provides benefits nationwide challenged an Arkansas regulation, Rule 128, which applies to health plans operating in that state. The regulation has two main features: it authorizes the Arkansas Insurance Commissioner to require health plans to pay additional dispensing fees to pharmacies if existing payments are deemed not “fair and reasonable,” and it requires health plans to report certain compensation-related information. The fund, which covers participants in Arkansas, argued that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) preempts both aspects of Rule 128 because they interfere with uniform plan administration and reporting requirements set by federal law.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, heard the fund’s claims and granted the Insurance Commissioner’s motion to dismiss. The court held that the Dispensing Fee Requirement regulated only the cost of benefits and did not dictate substantive plan choices, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association. The court also found that the Reporting Requirement was merely incidental to enforcing cost regulation and did not constitute an impermissible intrusion into plan administration under ERISA, as discussed in Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that ERISA does not preempt Rule 128’s Dispensing Fee Requirement because it is a permissible cost regulation and does not force plans to adopt a specific benefit structure. The court also concluded that the Reporting Requirement is incidental and necessary to enforce the cost regulation, and thus does not impermissibly intrude upon ERISA’s uniform reporting scheme. View "Central States SE & SW Areas Health & Welfare Fund v. McClain" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with producing, distributing, and possessing AI-generated images that depicted minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, as well as transferring such material to a minor. The images were alleged to be created using Stable Diffusion, a text-to-image generative AI program, and did not involve real children. Law enforcement linked the defendant to these images after a report by Meta Platforms, which found the material sent to a minor on Instagram. A search of the defendant’s devices revealed hundreds of similar AI-generated images.In the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, the defendant moved to dismiss the count charging him with knowing possession of obscene virtual child sexual abuse material (CSAM) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b)(1). The district court granted the motion as to the possession charge, concluding that the statute was unconstitutional as applied in this context. The court reasoned that, under Stanley v. Georgia, individuals have a First Amendment right to possess obscenity in their homes, and that this right extends to virtual CSAM, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, which distinguished virtual CSAM from material involving actual children. The court left the production and distribution charges intact.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The Seventh Circuit held that Supreme Court precedent—specifically Stanley v. Georgia and Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition—controls the as-applied challenge. The court found that, because the images did not depict real children, the government’s justifications for banning their possession in the home had been expressly rejected by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to the defendant’s in-home possession of obscene virtual CSAM. View "USA v Anderegg" on Justia Law

Richard Highbaugh, a Black man aged 60, worked for Exelead, Inc., a pharmaceutical manufacturer, for nearly three decades in various warehouse roles. In 2022, after a vacancy arose for a Materials Manager position, Highbaugh, who had experience as a supervisor and as a Sampling Specialist, expressed interest in the promotion. However, he did not apply during the internal posting period, instead submitting his materials to his supervisor, Aaron Mendez, about two months after the internal posting closed. Mendez ultimately hired an external candidate, a white man in his thirties, citing the external candidate’s experience with larger scale management and skills relevant to the position. Highbaugh believed he was passed over due to his race and age and filed charges with the EEOC before bringing suit.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted summary judgment to Exelead. The district court concluded that Highbaugh failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that Exelead’s stated reason for not promoting him—concerns about his qualifications and suitability for the manager role—was a pretext for discrimination.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Seventh Circuit held that, even assuming Highbaugh established a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII, § 1981, and the ADEA, Exelead provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its decision, and Highbaugh did not produce evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find this reason was pretextual. The court found no evidence of shifting or inconsistent explanations, nor that Highbaugh was so much better qualified that discrimination could be inferred. Accordingly, the judgment for Exelead was affirmed. View "Highbaugh v Exelead, Inc." on Justia Law

In September 2020, Microsoft and Google each reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) that images suspected to be child sexual abuse material (CSAM) were uploaded from the same IP address to their platforms. The images were not viewed by the companies or by NCMEC; instead, they were flagged by automated systems after matching hash values of known CSAM. NCMEC forwarded these reports to the Wisconsin Department of Justice, which traced the IP address to Peter Braun's residence. Special Agent Aaron Koehler viewed the images without a warrant, conducted surveillance, and obtained a prior report from 2015 indicating Braun had been observed chatting online with very young girls. Based on this information, Koehler applied for and obtained a state search warrant for Braun’s home, leading to charges of producing CSAM.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, after referral to a magistrate judge, granted Braun’s motion to suppress the evidence from the search. The district court found that Agent Koehler’s warrantless viewing of the images was unlawful, and that, excluding his descriptions of the images, the warrant affidavit did not establish probable cause. The court also determined that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply. The government appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case, applying de novo review to legal conclusions and clear error review to factual findings. The Seventh Circuit held that, even without the descriptions of the images obtained from the unlawful search, Agent Koehler’s affidavit contained sufficient information—such as the reliability of the reporting sources, the incriminating file name, and corroborating evidence regarding Braun’s prior behavior—to establish probable cause for the search. The court concluded that the decision to seek the warrant was not prompted by the unlawfully obtained information. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s order suppressing the evidence. View "USA v. Braun" on Justia Law

Merchants Bank of Indiana lent substantial amounts to two entities for the purchase of assisted living facilities in Arkansas and Tennessee. The loans were secured by mortgages on the properties as well as personal guaranties executed by three individuals. When the borrowers defaulted on the loans, Merchants initiated federal lawsuits against the guarantors to collect the outstanding debts and, after dismissing the borrowers from those suits, later began foreclosure actions on the mortgaged properties in state courts. Receivers were appointed for the properties, but Merchants had not recovered the loan amounts.After Merchants moved for summary judgment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, the guarantors argued that Indiana’s “One Action” statute (Indiana Code § 32-30-10-10) barred simultaneous suits on the guaranties and foreclosures. The district court, acting on its own, granted summary judgment to the guarantors, finding that the statute applied to guaranties and rendered the waivers in the guaranty contracts unenforceable as contrary to Indiana public policy.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that the scope of Indiana’s One Action statute and the enforceability of waivers in this context were unsettled under Indiana law. Recognizing the ambiguity and the lack of controlling precedent, the Seventh Circuit certified two questions to the Indiana Supreme Court: whether the statute prohibits a lender from foreclosing while simultaneously suing on guaranties in separate proceedings, and, if so, whether such protections may be waived by guarantors. The Seventh Circuit stayed further proceedings in the case pending the Indiana Supreme Court’s response. View "Merchants Bank of Indiana v. Craik" on Justia Law

An inmate incarcerated at an Indiana prison was twice transported by correctional officers between the facility and a hospital in June 2019. During the first transport, after a medical appointment, the inmate was placed in a van in restraining gear that prevented him from buckling his seatbelt, and the officers refused to buckle it for him. One of the officers then drove the van in a manner the inmate described as reckless, resulting in a sudden stop that threw the inmate to the floor and caused a broken collarbone. The inmate alleged the officers made threatening remarks referencing his prior grievances against staff and later colluded to create consistent incident reports. On the second transport, after surgery, the inmate was buckled in but not placed in the more secure area he requested. Officers drove in a way that jostled his recent injuries, deliberately drove over rough terrain and railroad tracks, and laughed in response to his pain.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana allowed the inmate’s Eighth Amendment claims against three officers to proceed, along with First Amendment retaliation claims. At summary judgment, the district court granted qualified immunity to all three officers on the Eighth Amendment claims, finding that the law was not clearly established for the conduct alleged, and entered judgment for the officers. The court analyzed the claims under both deliberate indifference and excessive force standards, depending on the officer’s role and the facts alleged.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part. The court held that the officer who failed to buckle the inmate’s seatbelt and did not intervene during reckless driving on the first transport was not entitled to qualified immunity, as it was clearly established that subjecting a restrained inmate to reckless driving without a seatbelt posed a substantial risk of serious harm. However, the court affirmed summary judgment for the officers involved in the second transport, finding the law was not clearly established that their conduct—though troubling—violated the Eighth Amendment under the specific facts presented. The case against the first officer was remanded for further proceedings. View "Smith v. Price" on Justia Law

A nonprofit organization dedicated to election integrity requested a copy of Wisconsin’s voter registration list, seeking access under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). Wisconsin, however, is exempt from the NVRA because it has permitted same-day polling-place registration since before August 1, 1994. The state processed the request under its public-records law, which required redaction of birth dates and imposed a fee of $12,500 due to the size of the list. The organization objected to both the fee and the redactions, arguing that Wisconsin’s exemption from the NVRA was unconstitutional.The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin dismissed the case. The district judge held that the plaintiff’s claims—asserting violations of the “equal state sovereignty” principle from Shelby County v. Holder and the “congruence and proportionality” requirement from City of Boerne v. Flores—were not supported by law. While the judge found that the plaintiff had Article III standing due to the alleged financial injury, he expressed doubt about prudential standing but decided the case on the merits, concluding that neither cited Supreme Court decision undermined the validity of Wisconsin’s exemption.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court agreed that the plaintiff had Article III standing but questioned prudential standing, as the legal theories invoked state, rather than individual, rights. Nonetheless, the court bypassed this issue, holding that the NVRA’s exemption for states like Wisconsin does not violate equal state sovereignty or the congruence and proportionality standard. The court emphasized that the exemption relieves, rather than imposes, federal regulatory burdens and that Congress acted under its Elections Clause authority, making City of Boerne inapplicable. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. View "Public Interest Legal Foundation, Inc. v. Wolfe" on Justia Law

The Village of Schaumburg owns a hotel and convention center that it alleges has defective exterior walls. In February 2022, it initiated a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against several parties for fraud, breach of warranty, and products liability. In November 2022, the Village added Permasteelisa North America, a subcontractor, as a defendant. About eight months later, the Village sought to compel arbitration of its dispute with Permasteelisa, even though it had not previously requested arbitration in its complaint or before filing suit, and the arbitration clause was contained in a contract between Permasteelisa and the general contractor, not the Village directly.The District Court concluded that by filing a lawsuit and then delaying its request for arbitration, the Village presumptively waived any right to arbitrate it might have had. The Village argued that the lawsuit was filed to avoid the statute of limitations expiring, but the District Court responded that the Village should have requested arbitration at the outset or, at the latest, soon after Permasteelisa’s motion to dismiss was filed. The court found that the combination of filing suit and substantial delay amounted to waiver of any right to arbitrate and denied the Village’s motion to compel arbitration.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the District Court’s decision for abuse of discretion. The appellate court held that the District Court did not err in concluding that the Village waived any right to arbitrate by acting inconsistently with that right through both initiating litigation and delaying the arbitration request. The Seventh Circuit also rejected the argument that a contractual anti-waiver clause could override federal procedural rules governing litigation conduct. The judgment of the District Court was affirmed. View "Village of Schaumburg v Permasteelisa North America" on Justia Law