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

Bisluk, a conservative who votes Republican, was a special agent working in Chicago for the Illinois Department of Revenue’s Liquor Control Commission under former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s Democratic administration. She purchased a home in southern Illinois and asked her employer about transferring duty assignments from Chicago to southern Illinois, but failed to submit a transfer request or apply for the job. She did not get a position. She sued several state officials alleging that she was denied a transfer to southern Illinois because of her political association, in violation of the First Amendment and because of her gender in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The undisputed evidence showed that Bisluk did not receive the transfer because she did not submit the proper transfer paperwork or apply for the job. View "Bisluk v. Hamer" on Justia Law

Common Cause is a national organization that advocates for elimination of barriers to voting. ICommon Cause Indiana challenged the constitutionality of Indiana Code 33-33-49-13, which establishes the process for electing judges to the Marion Superior Court in Marion County. This system is unique in Indiana, as it is the only office where primary election voters do not vote for as many candidates as there are persons to be elected to that office in the general election. Common Cause contends that the procedure violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court and Seventh Circuit agreed.The statute burdens the right to cast a meaningful vote without sufficiently weighty interests to justify such a burden. In the context of partisan judicial elections, which the state has chosen to adopt as its preferred system for selecting judges for the Marion Superior Court, the asserted benefits and interests surrounding partisan balance do not justify the burden placed on the right to vote. View "Common Cause Ind. v. Individual Members of the Ind. Election Comm'n" on Justia Law

A deputy noticed paper covering the light above the bed of pretrial detainee Kingsley and ordered him to remove it. Kingsley refused and ignored several subsequent requests. The administrator decided that jail staff would remove the paper and would transfer Kingsley to another cell in the interim. Five officers arrived and ordered Kingsley to back up to the door with his hands behind his back. After being warned to follow the order or be tasered, Kingsley continued to lie face-down on his bunk. The parties dispute what followed, but an officer applied a taser for five seconds. Kingsley was placed on a medical watch, but refused the attention of a nurse. Kingsley, pro se, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The court granted defendants partial summary judgment; a claim of excessive force proceeded to trial, resulting in a verdict for the defendants. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Following the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision, Kingsley v. Hendrickson, the Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded for a new trial. Kingsley should prevail if he can establish that the officers acted in an unreasonable manner—without regard to subjective intent. The evidence would have supported a finding for him under that theory, but the jury was told that it also had to find the officers had a proscribed intent. View "Kingsley v. Hendrickson" on Justia Law

Two weeks before her death, Julie Jensen gave a sealed envelope to her neighbors, stating that if anything happened to her, they should give the envelope to the police. It contained a handwritten letter, stating that her relationship with her husband had deteriorated and that “I ... fear for my early demise.” Julie made similarly statements in voicemails left with the police and to others. A search of the Jensens’ home computer yielded internet searches for suicide and poisoning, including a search for “ethylene glycol poisoning.” Ethylene glycol (antifreeze) was found in Julie’s system. The search also revealed that Jensen was having an affair. Jensen was charged with first-degree intentional homicide. Experts disagreed about the cause of death. The trial court ruled that Julie’s letter was admissible. After the Supreme Court decided Crawford v. Washington, (2004), Jensen moved for reconsideration. The Wisconsin Supreme Court adopted “a broad forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine.” On remand, the court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Jensen killed Julie, causing her absence from trial, and had forfeited his right to confrontation with respect to the letter. The Seventh Circuit affirmed a grant of habeas corpus relief: the Wisconsin court’s determination reflected an unreasonable application of the harmless error standard. Rrroneous admission of Julie’s letter and statements to the police had a substantial and injurious effect in determining the guilty verdict. View "Jensen v. Clements" on Justia Law

In 2009, Clarke submitted 2006-2008 tax returns for a trust, each claiming $900,000 in income and $900,000 in fiduciary fees; they did not identify the income’s source. Each reported $300,000 of tax paid to the IRS and requested $300,000 in refunds. Clarke identified the trust’s fiduciary as “Timothy F. Geither” (an apparent misspelling of the name of then-Treasury Secretary, Geithner), which raised a red flag. The IRS notified Clarke that the returns would not be processed. Clarke resubmitted, but did not name “Geither.” The IRS mailed Clarke three $300,000 checks. Clarke opened a bank account, deposited the checks, and, within months, spent all of the funds. In 2013 Clarke was indicted on seven counts of presenting false claims. The manager of the check cashing company where Clarke tried to cash his first check, testified that Clarke told him that he had the check because of “a trust fund because his dad had passed.” Clarke argued that the government had not proven that he knew the claim was false. The court did not include a good faith jury instruction requested by Clarke. Though barred from trial, a psychiatric report explained that Clarke believed that the U.S. is a business front designed to regulate commerce and has established bank accounts for its citizens. The Seventh Circuit affirmed Clarke’s conviction. View "United States v. Clarke" on Justia Law

In 1989, the Supreme Court held that courts should apply de novo review in suits challenging denials of employee benefits governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(1), but if the benefit plan provided expressly for a different, more deferential standard of review, that specific provision would control over the default rule of de novo review. Insurance companies and plan sponsors began including such provisions in most benefit plans, typically saying the insurer or plan administrator would exercise discretionary judgment in interpreting a plan or deciding whether to pay benefits. Courts would then apply a deferential standard of review under which a denial would stand unless it was “arbitrary and capricious.” Later, state laws were adopted to protect employees and plan beneficiaries from abuse of such discretion. An Illinois insurance law, prohibited provisions “purporting to reserve discretion” to insurers to interpret health and disability insurance policies. The Seventh Circuit rejected a preemption challenge and applied the state law in a case involving a challenge to an insurance provider’s definition of “disability,” The court did not address whether the denial of benefits was arbitrary and capricious. View "Fontaine v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co" on Justia Law

Anzaldi, DeSalvo, and Latin concocted an $8 million fraudulent tax scheme based on a sovereign citizen-type theory that the U.S. government holds hidden bank accounts for its citizens that can be accessed through various legal maneuvers. By filing false tax returns, the three requested more than $8 million for themselves and others in tax refunds. The IRS accepted five of their returns, paying out more than $1 million in refunds before catching onto the scheme. A jury convicted all three of conspiracy to file false claims, 18 U.S.C. 286 and filing false claims upon an agency of the United States, 18 U.S.C. 287. Anzaldi and Latin appealed their convictions. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting Anzaldi’s claim that the court should have ordered a competency examination pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4241(a) before allowing her to represent herself pro se; upholding admission of evidence of how Anzaldi structured her fees to be under $10,000; and rejecting a claim that the court erred by not instructing the jury that willfulness was required to convict, and instead instructing that the defendants had to have acted “knowingly.” View "United States v. Latin" on Justia Law

Religious, not-for-profit organizations challenged the “contraceptive mandate” of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA), 42 U.S.C. 300gg-13(a)(4), arguing that the ACA’s accommodations for religious organizations impose a substantial burden on their free exercise of religion, and that the ACA and accompanying regulations are not the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest, in violation of the plaintiffs’ rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. 2000bb. The district court entered a preliminary injunction. The Seventh Circuit reversed, stating: It is the operation of federal law, not any actions that the plaintiffs must take, that causes the provisions of services that the plaintiffs find morally objectionable. The accommodation has the legal effect of removing from objectors any connection to the provision of contraceptive services. View "Grace Schools v. Burwell" on Justia Law

Avila bought his Chicago home with a $100,500 CitiMortgage loan. Five years later, a fire made the house uninhabitable. Avila’s insurance carrier paid out $150,000. CitiMortgage took control of the proceeds and paid $50,000 to get the restoration underway. CitiMortgage later inspected the work and found that it needed to be redone. By then Avila had missed several mortgage payments. CitiMortgage applied the remaining $100,000 toward Avila’s outstanding mortgage loan. Avila’s home was not repaired. CitiMortgage never claimed that restoration was economically infeasible or would reduce its security interest. Nor had any of three special conditions described in the mortgage occurred. Avila sued, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and the mortgage contract, seeking to represent a class of defaulting CitiMortgage borrowers whose insurance proceeds had been applied to their mortgage loans rather than repairs. The district court dismissed, reasoning that the allegations did not support a fiduciary duty on CitiMortgage’s part and Avila was barred from pursuing his contract claim because he had materially defaulted on his own obligations. The Seventh Circuit agreed that allegations of a fiduciary relationship were inadequate as a matter of law, but held that a claim that the mortgage agreement remained enforceable after his missed payments was plausible in light of the agreement’s structure and the remedies it prescribes in the event of default. View "Avila v. CitiMortgage, Inc." on Justia Law

Libertyville Toyota is a 140-employee car dealership with an 80-person service department. In 2011 Libertyville’s owner, AutoNation, became aware of interest in unionization and held meetings with the affected staff, the last of which was surreptitiously recorded. Around the same time, Libertyville suspended an automotive painter, Huerta, after receiving an anonymous voicemail accusing Huerta of promoting the union cause and of receiving a charge of driving under the influence. Huerta was ultimately fired. The Union filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board. An administrative law judge concluded that certain comments by the AutoNation executives at the recorded meeting violated the National Labor Relations Act, but did not uphold the accusation that AutoNation had unlawfully suspended and discharged Huerta because of his union activity. The Board affirmed as to the meeting but reversed as to Huerta’s discharge. The Seventh Circuit determined that the decision was supported by substantial evidence and entitled to enforcement. View "AutoNation, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd." on Justia Law