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

The Bail Project, a nonprofit organization, advocates for the abolition of cash bail and pays cash bail for thousands of individuals across the country to show that conditioning a pretrial defendant’s release upon the payment of money is not necessary to secure appearances at future court dates. Indiana House Enrolled Act 1300 requires charitable bail organizations to register with the state and limits for whom such organizations can pay cash bail.The Project sought to enjoin Indiana’s Department of Insurance from enforcing the law, arguing that HEA 1300 (which had not yet gone into effect) would violate its First Amendment right to free speech and its Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. The district court held that The Project had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The payment of cash bail is not protected by the First Amendment. Although The Project pays bail with the intent to communicate its message and to further its advocacy, a reasonable observer would not understand the conduct itself as communicating any message without additional explanatory speech. HEA 1300 does not violate the Equal Protection Clause because it is rationally related to Indiana’s legitimate interest in regulating the pretrial detention of criminal defendants. View "The Bail Project, Inc. v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Insurance" on Justia Law

Bureau Chief Korza received a complaint regarding Snowden’s handling of a claim. Korza found discrepancies in Snowden’s records. Korza and a division administrator met with Snowden and her union representative and gave Snowden copies of the records. Korza continued his review and found many additional problems. Korza consulted with the Department’s Labor Relations office. Korza lacked the authority to discharge anyone and was advised that discharge was an appropriate penalty for the falsification of records. Korza summarized his findings for the director of the Division and recommended termination. At a later pre-disciplinary meeting, Snowden and her union representative were given a statement of charges. Korza stated that the discipline was undetermined because Snowden had not had an opportunity to respond, but that the charged violations were subject to discipline including discharge. Snowden’s written rebuttal did not contest the factual basis for the charges but noted arguable shortcomings in the investigation. At a final meeting, Korza advised Snowden that she was being placed on suspension pending discharge. Director Hoffman later signed a form terminating Snowden. Snowden pursued a grievance, which resulted in Snowden being allowed to resign without reinstatement rights.Snowden filed suit, asserting due process violations, claiming that Korza had decided to discharge her before the pre-disciplinary meeting and was not the impartial decision-maker. The Third Circuit affirmed the summary judgment rejection of the suit. Korza was not the decision-maker. Snowden was given notice and the opportunity to respond before that decision was made, plus a post-discharge grievance process. View "Snowden v. Illinois Department of Human Services" on Justia Law

Luster was buying a house on contract and had already paid the owner at least 20 percent of the price of the home. The village contacted Luster to obtain the property to create a municipal park. Luster rebuffed this offer. The village then contacted the seller. Luster claims the village knew of his contract but convinced the seller to convey a warranty deed to the village without notifying Luster. The village then sent a letter to Luster demanding immediate possession of the property. According to Luster, he was unable to insure the house because of the ownership dispute. The house burned down while Luster was attempting to quiet title, destroying his family’s possessions and leaving them homeless. Luster sued the village under 42 U.S.C. 1983, seeking damages for his lost property and the village’s “malicious conduct.” He alleged that the village took the home without adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard.The Seventh Circuit vacated the dismissal of the complaint. Luster’s complaint does not allege or permit a reasonable inference that he was deprived of his property by the random, unauthorized acts of any village employee. Absent any obvious reason why the village could not have provided advance notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before it seized Luster’s property interest, the adequacy of a post-deprivation remedy is irrelevant. View "Luster v. Village of Ashmore" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, three transgender boys, were denied access to the boys’ bathrooms at school. The boys sued the districts and the school principals, alleging sex discrimination under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The boys requested preliminary injunctions that would order the schools to grant them access to the boys’ bathrooms and, in the case of two boys, access to the boys’ locker rooms when changing for gym class. The district courts granted the preliminary injunctions.The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that litigation over transgender rights is occurring all over the country and that at some point the Supreme Court will likely step in with more guidance than it has furnished so far. The district courts appropriately followed Circuit precedent in crafting narrowly tailored and fact-bound injunctions. There was no abuse of discretion in the balancing of the equities and the public interest. The records showed only speculative harms, which are not enough to tip the balance. View "A.C. v. Kutruff" on Justia Law

After a New Year’s Eve hit-and-run left one person dead and another injured, Jones became a suspect and turned himself in. During a recorded interrogation at 1:18 a.m., an officer read Jones his Miranda rights and fully explained those rights. Jones asked what penalty he was potentially facing. The officer refused to answer, asking multiple times if Jones wanted to proceed with questioning. The officer stated that others had placed him at the scene of the accident, police knew Jones fled because he was scared, Jones did the right thing coming in, and it was important for Jones to get his side of the story on record. After saying he felt horrible, Jones asked, “So y’all can get a public pretender right now?” After some laughter, a detective responded, “You said it right, pretender … they’re called public defenders.” After more chuckling, the detective said: “Obviously due to the time right now, we can’t.” At one point the detective stated that he believed the maximum punishment was 15 years. Jones then told the detectives what happened, implicating himself.The Wisconsin trial court denied his motion to suppress, concluding that Jones's joking reference to a “public pretender” cannot constitute a genuine request. A state appellate court affirmed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of habeas relief. Jones’s question about a lawyer, whether earnest or in jest, was too ambiguous to invoke his right to counsel under Supreme Court law. View "Jones v. Cromwell" on Justia Law

Doe is a transgender male who was born female. He had breast-removal surgery but no other gender-altering procedure. Doe’s partner is A.B., the mother of R.M. and four other children. Starke County Detective Gray, and Purtee, a family case manager with the Indiana Department of Child Services, met with 17-year-old R.M. to investigate allegations that Doe and A.B. had abandoned him. Ultimately, Doe and A.B. were arrested for neglect of a dependent and nonsupport of a dependent child. During subsequent interviews and proceedings, it was divulged that Doe was born female.After the charges were resolved with deferred prosecution agreements, Doe and A.B. sued the detective, the Sheriff’s Department, and Purtee under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging violations of Doe’s right to privacy in sexual preference under the Fourteenth Amendment and that they were arrested without probable cause contrary to the Fourth Amendment. They later sought to amend their complaint to clarify that Doe’s Fourteenth Amendment claim pertained to the disclosure of gender identity not sexual preference. The district court denied the motion to amend and entered summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, as there is no clearly established right to privacy in one’s sexual preference or gender identity during a criminal or child welfare investigation. The totality of the circumstances provided probable cause for the arrests. View "Doe v. Gray" on Justia Law

Inmate Arce got a sharp knee in the thigh while he was playing soccer at Illinois’s Pinckneyville Correctional Center in June 2017. Since then, he has suffered from severe leg pain, which the prison’s medical providers (Wexford) ultimately concluded was attributable to a blood clot. Arce’s blood clot was successfully treated but his pain persisted. Arce sued Wexford and two of its employees, claiming that they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.The district court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Arce claimed that he suffered from compartment syndrome and that failure to diagnose and treat this condition caused his long-term leg injury. But after five years and numerous visits to Wexford and non-Wexford health professionals, Arce has no evidence aside from his lay speculation that he experienced tissue necrosis in his thigh, the primary consequence of untreated compartment syndrome. Nor did Arce proffer any expert testimony or the results of any medical exam opining that his symptoms are consistent with untreated compartment syndrome. An orthopedist thought that he would benefit from further testing for that condition but Arce has not shown deliberate indifference in denying the recommended two-day follow-up appointment or that the denial was “a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards.” View "Arce v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc." on Justia Law

Booker was convicted of first-degree murder and received a 55-year sentence of 55. After unsuccessfully appealing his conviction, he tried a petition for postconviction relief. At the latter stage, he was represented by Illinois Assistant Appellate Defender Reyna. Booker wanted Reyna to argue that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective. Reyna declined. Booker filed a pro se supplemental brief raising the ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim. The Illinois Appellate Court rejected Booker’s pro se brief because of the state’s rule against hybrid representation.Booker then filed a federal habeas petition, 28 U.S.C. 2254, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective. The district court held that the claim was procedurally defaulted, reasoning that Illinois courts did not violate any federal rule when they denied his attempt to raise the issue in a pro se supplemental brief. The court also held that Booker’s default could not be excused on actual innocence grounds. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Booker must bear the consequences of his decision. Even if Reyna’s advice was not entirely accurate regarding his chances of success, Booker had proceeded pro se in the past and knew that he could do so again to ensure that his preferred arguments were raised, or he could hope that the court would make an exception to the rule against hybrid representation. View "Booker v. Baker" on Justia Law

Dixon Correctional Center Officer Brinkmeier informed inmate Walker that prison policy prohibited prisoners from maintaining “unsearchable” hairstyles like dreadlocks. Walker told Brinkmeier that he was a Rastafarian and had taken a vow not to cut his hair. Brinkmeier later returned with another officer and again ordered Walker to cut his dreadlocks. The officers disciplined Walker for his disobedience, placing him in segregated housing for several days. Walker submitted an emergency grievance, which was denied without explanation. Walker was told that if he did not acquiesce, a tactical unit would forcibly remove his dreadlocks. Walker allowed the prison barber to shave his hair. Walker regrew his dreadlocks and kept them for three years. During security checks, officers ran their gloved hands through his dreadlocks. When he was released from Dixon, Walker’s dreadlocks were roughly the same length as they had been when he entered prison.Walker sued for violations of the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc-1. The district court noted that under Circuit precedent, Walker could not seek monetary damages against individual defendants under RLUIPA; “the only relief available under RLUIPA,” injunctive relief, was moot because Walker had been released. The court also granted the defendants summary judgment on Walker’s First Amendment claim, citing qualified immunity. The Seventh Circuit dismissed an appeal, finding that Walker abandoned his RLUIPA damages claim. View "Walker v. Baldwin" on Justia Law

Fehlman was the Neillsville Police Department’s interim police chief in 2019. In 2020, Mankowski was hired as the permanent chief. Fehlman returned to being a rank-and-file officer. Over the next several months, Fehlman raised concerns about the management of the department, which Mankowski rebuffed. Fehlman and other officers requested a meeting with the Police & Fire Commission (PFC), where Fehlman raised concerns that Mankowski instilled fear in officers; Mankowski lacked professionalism and, while on duty, told a bar owner that he should consider having the owner’s wife dance topless; Mankowski ordered officers to turn off their body cameras in violation of department policy; Mankowski verbally abused suspects; Mankowski changed radio talk procedures in ways that threatened officer safety; Mankowski prioritized speed limit enforcement over responding to an allegation of child abuse at a school.Mankowski subsequently harassed Fehlman, taking away his work credit card and threatening charges of insubordination. Fehlman resigned from the NPD. Mankowski allegedly interfered with Fehlman’s job search by making false, negative comments (Fehlman was hired nonetheless). Fehlman also discovered that his NPD personnel file had been altered and that Mankowski gave information to the unemployment compensation office that led to a delay in benefits.Fehlman sued Mankowski under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violation of his First Amendment rights. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of his complaint. Fehlman’s statements to the PFC were made in his capacity as a public employee, not a private citizen. View "Fehlman v. Mankowski" on Justia Law