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

Police in Milwaukee searched Michael Yumang’s car and home in 2019 and 2022, finding distribution quantities of methamphetamine, a handgun, and ammunition. Before the 2022 search, a postal inspector intercepted a package containing a quarter pound of meth addressed to Yumang’s residence from California. Yumang admitted to regularly obtaining meth from California and reselling it in Wisconsin. He was charged with three drug-trafficking offenses related to each meth seizure and the intercepted shipment, as well as unlawful possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime.After an indictment and pretrial proceedings, Yumang waived his right to a jury trial and had a bench trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The government called multiple witnesses, including three forensic chemists who analyzed the seized meth, confirming its purity and quantity. Prior to trial, the government disclosed—subject to a protective order—that the DEA chemist who tested the 2019 meth had been placed on a performance improvement plan in 2023. At trial, Yumang’s attorney sought to cross-examine the chemist about the plan, but the judge ruled the information irrelevant since the performance issues arose years after the chemist’s work on the case. The judge found Yumang guilty on all counts and imposed a sentence of 180 months.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Yumang argued that briefly closing the courtroom to make a record of the sidebar discussion about the chemist’s performance plan violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial, and that the exclusion of the proposed cross-examination was both evidentiary error and a Confrontation Clause violation. The Seventh Circuit held that the five-minute courtroom closure was too trivial to constitute a Sixth Amendment violation and that excluding the cross-examination was neither an evidentiary nor constitutional error. The court affirmed the judgment. View "USA v Yumang" on Justia Law

Indiana amended its laws in 2022 to prohibit and criminalize the use of telehealth and telemedicine for abortions, requiring that abortion-inducing drugs be dispensed and consumed in person by a physician in a hospital or qualified surgical center. The Satanic Temple, a Massachusetts-based religious nonprofit, operates a telehealth abortion clinic serving only patients in New Mexico but seeks to extend these services to its Indiana members. It does not run, nor intends to operate, an in-person abortion clinic in Indiana or maintain ties to Indiana hospitals or surgical centers. The Temple filed suit against the Indiana Attorney General and Marion County Prosecutor, seeking to enjoin enforcement of the criminal statute (§ 16-34-2-7(a)) and to obtain declaratory relief under Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana reviewed the case and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing. The court found that the Satanic Temple failed to identify any specific member who suffered an injury from the challenged law, thus lacking associational standing. It also held that the Temple itself lacked standing, as it could not show an injury in fact and could not demonstrate that favorable relief would redress its alleged harms due to other Indiana laws independently barring its intended conduct.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Seventh Circuit held that the Satanic Temple lacked both associational and individual standing. The Temple failed to identify a specific injured member and relied only on statistical probabilities and generalized claims of stigmatic injury, which were insufficient. Additionally, the Temple did not present concrete plans to violate the law, and even if § 16-34-2-7(a) were enjoined, other statutes would independently prevent its telehealth abortion services in Indiana. Thus, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Satanic Temple, Inc. v Rokita" on Justia Law

A former lieutenant in a county sheriff’s office was accused of using excessive force during two arrests. After an internal investigation was initiated, he was suspended and scheduled for a public hearing before a merit board, which is required under Indiana law for disciplinary actions. The lieutenant alleged that the sheriff manipulated both the investigation and the merit board to ensure an unfavorable outcome for him. Faced with the possibility of an unfair hearing and negative publicity, the lieutenant negotiated a severance agreement with the sheriff: he would resign and waive his hearing in exchange for withdrawal of the charges and a promise of a neutral reference.Despite the agreement, on the day the resignation became effective, two county prosecutors and the sheriff broadly disclosed the excessive-force allegations to local legal professionals and the lieutenant’s current and prospective employers, including through Brady/Giglio disclosures. The disclosures described the alleged misconduct and claimed issues with the lieutenant’s credibility, leading to his suspension from his part-time job and the loss of other employment opportunities. The lieutenant claimed these actions were part of a premeditated scheme to render him unemployable in law enforcement.In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, the complaint was dismissed. The district court found that absolute and qualified immunity protected the prosecutors and that the sheriff could not be liable because the lieutenant had voluntarily resigned, waiving his due process rights. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the prosecutors were entitled to absolute immunity only for Brady/Giglio disclosures made in pending criminal cases. For disclosures to the bar association and employers, neither absolute nor qualified immunity applied at this stage because the alleged coercion through misrepresentation could constitute a procedural due process violation. The appellate court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Martin v. Goldsmith" on Justia Law

Israel Ruiz was convicted by an Illinois jury of first-degree murder and aggravated discharge of a firearm for an offense he committed at age 18 in 1998. In 2000, he received a 40-year prison sentence without the possibility of parole for murder and a concurrent 15-year sentence for the firearm offense. In 2019, Illinois enacted a law (Public Act 100-1182) allowing parole eligibility for young adults convicted of first-degree murder committed under age 21, but only for those sentenced on or after June 1, 2019. Ruiz, sentenced before that date, is ineligible for parole under the Act.Ruiz filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against Illinois’s governor and other state officials. He alleged that the Act’s prospective application violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause and the Eighth Amendment. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that established Seventh Circuit precedent foreclosed Ruiz’s Fourteenth Amendment claim and that the Act’s prospective-only application did not render his sentence cruel or unusual under the Eighth Amendment. Ruiz appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. It held that the Act’s limitation to offenders sentenced on or after its effective date did not violate the Equal Protection Clause, as rational-basis review permits such prospective legislative distinctions, consistent with prior circuit decisions such as United States v. Speed and United States v. Sanders. The court also held that Ruiz’s sentence was not unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment, as Supreme Court precedent limiting life without parole for offenders under 18 did not apply to Ruiz. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Ruiz v. Pritzker" on Justia Law

Julius Robinson was convicted of murders committed during drug offenses and sentenced to death in the Northern District of Texas. His convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Robinson then filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. §2255, which was denied by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, and the Fifth Circuit denied him a certificate of appealability. Subsequent efforts to reopen his case were treated as requests to file second or successive §2255 petitions, which were also denied.After these unsuccessful attempts, Robinson sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. §2241 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, where he was incarcerated. He raised five issues, including claims about the jurisdiction of the trial court, alleged prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and violations of his rights under the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. The district court dismissed Robinson’s §2241 petition, holding that §2255(e) barred review because Robinson had not shown that the remedy under §2255 was inadequate or ineffective, referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. Hendrix.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that, under Jones and its own recent decision in Agofsky v. Baysore, §2255(e) does not permit a federal prisoner to seek relief under §2241 merely because he cannot satisfy the requirements for filing a second or successive §2255 motion, unless the sentencing court is unavailable. The Seventh Circuit further clarified that prior circuit decisions allowing such claims under §2241 are no longer authoritative. The court also rejected Robinson’s Suspension Clause argument and affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the petition. View "Robinson v. Lammer" on Justia Law

Ryan O’Donnell and Michael Goree each had their vehicles disposed of by the City of Chicago after failing to pay multiple traffic tickets. The City acted under a municipal code provision that allows for immobilization, towing, and eventual disposition of vehicles registered to owners with outstanding violations. O’Donnell’s vehicle was sold to a towing company at scrap value; Goree’s vehicle was relinquished to a lienholder. Neither was compensated or had proceeds offset against their ticket debt.After these events, O’Donnell and Goree filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. Their complaint alleged that the City’s forfeiture scheme was facially unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause and the Illinois constitution, and included a state-law unjust enrichment claim. They also asserted a Monell claim against the towing company, URT United Road Towing, Inc. The district court dismissed all claims for failure to state a claim, finding that the vehicle forfeiture under the traffic code was not a taking.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The appellate court held that the City’s graduated forfeiture scheme is an exercise of its police power to enforce traffic laws rather than a taking for public use. The court reasoned that this type of law enforcement forfeiture does not trigger the Takings Clause of either the federal or Illinois constitutions. The court further found that because there was no constitutional violation, the plaintiffs’ Monell and unjust enrichment claims also failed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of all claims. View "O'Donnell v City of Chicago" on Justia Law

Alvin Beasley was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm after police responded to gunshots at his ex-girlfriend’s house in Danville, Illinois. Officers saw a car fleeing the scene, found Beasley inside, and recovered a discarded firearm. As Beasley was on parole for a felony conviction, he could not lawfully possess a firearm. After a jury found him guilty, a presentence investigation identified three prior felony convictions: armed robbery in 2004, aggravated battery in 2005, and second-degree murder in 2011. The probation office concluded that Beasley qualified for enhanced sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois overruled Beasley’s objection that a jury should decide whether his prior convictions occurred on “different occasions,” and sentenced him to 300 months’ imprisonment. The court relied on then-controlling Seventh Circuit precedent, which permitted judges to make this finding. Beasley appealed, arguing that recent Supreme Court decisions (Wooden v. United States and Alleyne v. United States) required that this factual question be determined by a jury.While the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Erlinger v. United States, holding that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a jury to decide whether prior offenses occurred on different occasions under ACCA. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed that the district court erred under Erlinger, but concluded the error was harmless. The appellate court found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a properly instructed jury would have reached the same result, given the substantial gaps in time and the distinct nature of the offenses. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Beasley" on Justia Law

Juan Mendez was approached by two Chicago police officers investigating a gunshot detected near his home early one morning. As the officers arrived and questioned Mendez and a juvenile on the porch, Mendez suddenly fled, jumping a fence and running down an alley. The officers pursued him, with one warning that Mendez had something in his waistband and then in his hand. During the chase, Mendez fell, got up, and turned toward the officers with an object in his hand. One officer, perceiving a threat, shot Mendez three times, resulting in paralysis from the waist down.Mendez filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against the City of Chicago and the two officers, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, battery under Illinois law, and seeking indemnification from the City. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that, based on body-camera footage and the circumstances, a reasonable officer would have had probable cause to believe Mendez posed a threat to the officers’ safety. The court also found that, without a Fourth Amendment violation, Mendez could not prevail on his state law claims. Mendez appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the record independently and affirmed the district court. The Seventh Circuit held that Officer Szczur had probable cause to believe that Mendez posed a threat of serious physical harm under the totality of the circumstances, making the use of deadly force reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The court also held that the state law battery and indemnification claims failed for the same reasons. The judgment for the defendants was affirmed. View "Mendez v City of Chicago" on Justia Law

Several current and former employees of the City of Chicago, including police officers and an emergency management officer, challenged the City’s COVID-19 vaccination policy. The policy, issued in October 2021, required city employees to either be vaccinated against COVID-19 or undergo regular testing and report their status through an employee portal. Religious exemptions from vaccination were available and granted to these plaintiffs, but the plaintiffs objected to having to submit their vaccination status and test results in the portal, arguing that this reporting requirement violated their constitutional and statutory rights.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, raising claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the First and Fourteenth Amendments via 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act (IRFRA). The district court dismissed the Third Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. It found the Title VII claims factually implausible and concluded that the plaintiffs did not allege a religious practice conflicting with the reporting requirements. The court also held that, since the plaintiffs were granted their requested exemptions from vaccination, they could not succeed on claims based on their refusal to comply with reporting requirements.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The Seventh Circuit held that the policy’s reporting requirements were neutral and generally applicable, subject only to rational-basis review, which the policy satisfied. The court determined that the reporting and disciplinary provisions were rationally related to the City’s legitimate interest in public health and workplace safety. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of all constitutional, statutory, and state-law claims, finding the plaintiffs’ arguments insufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. View "Kondilis v City of Chicago" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, a microbrewery and its owner, operated a seasonal business in a tourist town and became known for engaging in political advocacy. The business applied for various permits to operate both an indoor retail outlet and, later, an outdoor beer garden. Despite being granted permits that included specific conditions—such as restrictions on outdoor operations—the plaintiffs repeatedly violated these conditions, operated without proper permits, and explicitly stated their intention to continue doing so regardless of regulatory decisions. Throughout this period, the owner was vocal in criticizing local officials on social media.After several rounds of permit applications, denials, suspensions, and revocations, the plaintiffs’ most recent permit application for an outdoor beer garden was denied by the county committee, which cited the plaintiffs’ ongoing and willful violations of permit conditions and their declared intent to continue such violations. The plaintiffs appealed administrative actions to the Oneida County Board of Adjustment, which upheld the revocations. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, asserting that the permit denials and revocations constituted retaliation for protected political speech, in violation of the First Amendment. They sought a preliminary injunction to reinstate their permit and prevent further alleged retaliation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction and affirmed it. The Seventh Circuit held that, while the plaintiffs engaged in protected speech and suffered adverse permit actions, they failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment retaliation claim. The court concluded that the permit denials and revocations were based on the plaintiffs’ repeated and admitted violations of permit conditions, not on retaliatory motives, and that the plaintiffs offered no evidence of disparate treatment or pretext. View "Minocqua Brewing Company LLC v Hess" on Justia Law