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

The plaintiff, GEFT Outdoor, LLC, challenged an Evansville, Indiana ordinance that distinguishes between on-premises and off-premises signs, arguing it violated the First Amendment. Initially, the district court agreed, but the Supreme Court's decision in Austin v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin, LLC, led to a remand. GEFT then focused on the ordinance's permit and variance criteria, claiming the City might consider a sign's message. However, the City does not request message information for permits, and the ordinance's criteria do not involve the sign's message. GEFT's variance application was denied due to non-compliance with size and spacing rules, which GEFT argued was unconstitutional.The district court dismissed GEFT's complaint, finding the ordinance's size and placement rules valid and the variance criteria specific enough to avoid content discrimination. The court referenced Leibundguth Storage & Van Service, Inc. v. Downers Grove, which upheld a similar ordinance. GEFT appealed, but the Seventh Circuit's decision in GEFT Outdoor, LLC v. Monroe County, which upheld similar variance criteria, further weakened GEFT's position. GEFT argued potential content discrimination, but the court found no substantial invalidity in the ordinance's application.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and found that GEFT's facial challenge failed because it did not show that a substantial portion of the ordinance's applications were unconstitutional. GEFT had not contested the size and location rules, effectively conceding their validity. The court noted that GEFT's focus on a variance disqualified it from a facial challenge. The district court's decision was modified to clarify that GEFT lost on the merits, not for lack of standing, and the judgment was affirmed. View "GEFT Outdoor, LLC v. City of Evansville" on Justia Law

The case involves Michelle Gilbank, who lost custody of her daughter, T.E.H., in state court proceedings in Wisconsin. Gilbank alleged that various officials involved in those proceedings violated her federal constitutional rights. The events began when Gilbank, who had a history of drug use, moved into her ex-partner Ian Hoyle's apartment. Following an anonymous tip, police and social workers investigated and found evidence of Gilbank's drug use. On August 21, 2018, Gilbank was arrested for drug possession, and her daughter was temporarily placed with Hoyle. Subsequent state court hearings resulted in the continued placement of T.E.H. with Hoyle until Gilbank regained custody in March 2020.In the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, the court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The court found that some of Gilbank’s claims were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents federal courts from reviewing state court judgments. The court also ruled that the remaining claims failed on the merits, including claims of unreasonable search, denial of due process, and unlawful eviction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case en banc. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, agreeing that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred claims based on injuries caused by state court judgments. The court also affirmed summary judgment on the merits for claims not barred by Rooker-Feldman, including those related to the urinalysis, interrogation without an attorney, and the removal of T.E.H. The court found that Gilbank had consented to the urinalysis, that her Fifth Amendment rights were not violated as her statements were not used in a criminal proceeding, and that there was no seizure of T.E.H. by government actors. The court also rejected the existence of a "fraud exception" to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. View "Gilbank v. Wood County Department of Human Services" on Justia Law

In September 2020, Michael Karmo informed a friend that he was traveling to Kenosha, Wisconsin, with firearms during a period of civil unrest. The friend reported this to local police, who then notified the FBI. The FBI, believing Karmo intended to shoot people and loot, requested real-time cell site location information (CSLI) from AT&T under exigent circumstances. Law enforcement located Karmo in a hotel parking lot, where he consented to searches of his vehicle and hotel room, revealing multiple firearms. Later, it was clarified that Karmo did not explicitly state he intended to shoot people and loot.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin reviewed the case. Karmo moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the CSLI collection, arguing that the exigent circumstances form contained false information. He also requested a Franks hearing to challenge the veracity of the form. The district court denied his motion, and Karmo subsequently pleaded guilty while reserving his right to appeal the suppression issue.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court assumed, without deciding, that the CSLI collection constituted a Fourth Amendment search. It held that law enforcement reasonably believed probable cause and exigent circumstances existed, justifying the warrantless search. The court found that even without the misrepresentation in the exigency form, the totality of circumstances supported a reasonable belief of a public safety threat. The court also determined that a Franks hearing was inapplicable because no judge had made a probable cause determination based on the form. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. Karmo" on Justia Law

Robert Decker, a federal inmate, requested electronic access to the full, daily editions of the Federal Register from his prison law library. The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) denied his request, prompting Decker to file a pro se lawsuit under the Administrative Procedure Act. He claimed that the denial violated his First Amendment rights to receive information and petition the government. The BOP argued that its policy was justified by the need to conserve limited resources.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of the BOP. The court applied the framework from Turner v. Safley, concluding that the BOP’s policy was reasonably related to its legitimate penological interest in conserving resources. The district court also denied Decker’s motions for the recruitment of counsel, finding that he was competent to litigate his case despite the challenges of incarceration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, agreeing that the BOP’s policy was reasonably related to its legitimate interest in conserving resources. The court noted that the BOP provided access to documents pertaining to the Bureau and the U.S. Parole Commission and allowed inmates to receive print copies of the Federal Register through the mail. The court found that Decker had alternative means to exercise his First Amendment rights, although they were less convenient. The court also upheld the district court’s denial of Decker’s motions for the recruitment of counsel, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.In summary, the Seventh Circuit held that the BOP’s policy of providing limited electronic access to the Federal Register was constitutionally valid under Turner v. Safley and that the district court did not err in denying Decker’s request for appointed counsel. View "Decker v. Sireveld" on Justia Law

Courtney Ealy, an inmate in the Illinois prison system, spent five consecutive months in segregation starting in 2019. During this period, he experienced cold temperatures, dirty cells, and faulty plumbing, which he claimed negatively affected his mental and physical health. Ealy sued several prison officials, alleging violations of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. He also filed multiple motions for recruitment of counsel during the litigation.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Cameron Watson, David D. Frank, and Angela McKittrick, and denied Ealy's motions for recruitment of counsel. The court found that Ealy had received due process before being placed in disciplinary segregation and that the conditions of his confinement did not constitute an atypical and significant hardship. The court also determined that Ealy was competent to represent himself despite his claims to the contrary.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Ealy received all the due process he was entitled to, including advance written notice of the charges, an opportunity to be heard, and a written statement of the evidence and reasons for the disciplinary action. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ealy's motions for recruitment of counsel, noting that Ealy's case was not complex and that he appeared competent to represent himself based on his filings. View "Ealy v. Watson" on Justia Law

A sixteen-year-old, Donnell Wilson, was convicted of two murders, armed robbery, and criminal gang activity in Gary, Indiana. Wilson and his accomplice, Jonte Crawford, harassed and robbed a teenager before encountering and fatally shooting two brothers affiliated with a rival gang. Wilson was sentenced to 183 years in prison, which was later reduced to 181 years on appeal due to a vacated gang activity conviction.Wilson sought post-conviction relief, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel and that his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment under Miller v. Alabama, which prohibits mandatory life without parole for juveniles. The Indiana Supreme Court found his trial counsel effective but agreed his appellate counsel was ineffective for not challenging the sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). The court then reduced Wilson’s sentence to 100 years, considering his youth as a mitigating factor.Wilson filed a federal habeas corpus petition, arguing his 100-year sentence was a de facto life sentence violating the Eighth Amendment. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana found the petition timely but denied relief, stating no clearly established law extended Miller to de facto life sentences. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed, agreeing the petition was timely but holding that the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. The Seventh Circuit concluded that Miller’s protections did not extend to Wilson’s 100-year sentence, thus affirming the denial of his habeas petition. View "Wilson v. Neal" on Justia Law

Gary Hicks, a corrections sergeant, was suspended for 10 days by the Illinois Department of Corrections after an internal investigation into his Facebook posts, which were described as "Islamophobic" and "offensive" by a news article. The investigation concluded that Hicks violated Department policies prohibiting conduct unbecoming of a State employee or that may reflect unfavorably on the Department. Hicks admitted to making the posts, which included derogatory comments about various groups and a prayer for a civil war or government overthrow. He sued the Department and officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging First Amendment retaliation and a Fourteenth Amendment challenge to the Department’s policies.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on both claims. The court held that Hicks’s suspension did not violate the First Amendment because his posts were not on matters of public concern, and the Department’s interest in maintaining discipline outweighed his interest in speaking. The court also found that the Department’s policies were not impermissibly vague as applied to Hicks’s conduct and granted qualified immunity to the defendants.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court concluded that the Department’s interest in managing its affairs outweighed Hicks’s interest in posting the content, thus he could not sustain a First Amendment retaliation claim. Additionally, the court found that the Department’s code of conduct was not impermissibly vague as applied to Hicks, as a reasonable officer would understand that his posts were unbecoming and could reflect unfavorably on the Department. Therefore, the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the defendants on both the First and Fourteenth Amendment claims. View "Hicks v. Illinois Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Phillip Robbin was removing a tree from a residential lot in the City of Berwyn when he was confronted by Sarah Lopez, a city inspector. Lopez berated Robbin using racial slurs, which led Robbin to demand disciplinary action against her. The Mayor of Berwyn denied Robbin's request for Lopez's termination, leading Robbin to sue the City, the Mayor, and Lopez for violations of his substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and state law.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed Robbin’s complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), finding that he failed to state a federal claim. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, leading to Robbin's appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that Robbin failed to allege a violation of a fundamental right and that the conduct described did not "shock the conscience," which are necessary elements for a substantive due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court noted that while Lopez's use of racial slurs was deplorable, it did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Robbin's complaint. View "Robbin v. City of Berwyn" on Justia Law

Three sets of parents refused to allow their newborns to receive Vitamin K shots at private hospitals in Illinois, citing concerns about risks and religious reasons. Hospital staff reported the refusals to the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), which investigated the parents for medical neglect. In one case, hospital staff took temporary protective custody of the child. The parents sued the hospitals and certain medical professionals under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the cases, ruling that the private entities could only be liable under § 1983 if they were engaged in state action. The court found that the hospitals and their staff were not acting under color of state law when they reported the parents to DCFS or took temporary custody of the children. The parents appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court held that the hospitals and their staff did not act under color of state law. The court found no evidence of a conspiracy or joint action between the hospitals and DCFS to infringe on the parents' constitutional rights. The court also determined that the hospitals were not performing a public function traditionally reserved to the state, as the mere threat of taking protective custody did not constitute state action. Additionally, the court found no entwinement or symbiotic relationship between the hospitals and the state that would make the hospitals state actors. Therefore, the parents' § 1983 claims could not proceed. View "Scott v. University of Chicago" on Justia Law

Three sets of parents refused to allow their newborns to receive Vitamin K shots at private hospitals in Illinois due to concerns about risks and religious reasons. Hospital staff reported the refusals to the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), which investigated the parents for medical neglect. In one case, hospital staff took temporary protective custody of the child. The parents sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by the hospitals and medical professionals.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the cases, ruling that the private entities were not engaged in state action and thus not liable under § 1983. The parents appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the private hospitals and their staff did not act under color of state law. The court found no evidence of a conspiracy or joint action between the hospitals and DCFS to infringe on the parents' constitutional rights. The court also determined that the hospitals were not performing a public function traditionally reserved to the state, as the mere threat of taking protective custody did not constitute state action. Additionally, the court found no symbiotic relationship or entwinement between the hospitals and the state to the point of largely overlapping identity.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the parents' claims, concluding that without state action, there could be no § 1983 liability. View "Bougher v. Silver Cross Hospital and Medical Centers" on Justia Law