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

Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, an illegal alien, was arrested in Chicago after firing a pistol at passing cars during a period of civil unrest. He was indicted for possessing a firearm as an illegal alien under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A). Carbajal-Flores moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the statute violated his Second Amendment rights. The district court denied his initial motion but reconsidered after the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, which established a new framework for evaluating Second Amendment challenges.The district court ultimately found § 922(g)(5)(A) facially constitutional but held it unconstitutional as applied to Carbajal-Flores, reasoning that historical traditions only supported disarming untrustworthy or dangerous individuals, and Carbajal-Flores did not fit that description. The government appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Second Amendment's protections do not extend to illegal aliens, as historical evidence shows a consistent tradition of disarming individuals who have not sworn allegiance to the sovereign. The court found that § 922(g)(5)(A) aligns with this tradition, as it only disarms illegal aliens who have not taken an oath of allegiance. The court concluded that the statute is constitutional both on its face and as applied to Carbajal-Flores, reversing the district court's decision and remanding the case for further proceedings. View "United States v. Carbajal-Flores" on Justia Law

Dr. Alan Braid, a Texas OB/GYN, admitted in a Washington Post editorial to performing an abortion in violation of the Texas Heartbeat Act (S.B. 8). This led to three individuals from different states filing lawsuits against him under the Act's citizen-suit enforcement provision, seeking at least $10,000 in statutory damages. Facing potential duplicative liability, Dr. Braid filed a federal interpleader action in Illinois, seeking to join the claimants in a single suit and also sought declaratory relief to declare S.B. 8 unconstitutional.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed Dr. Braid’s suit, citing the Wilton-Brillhart abstention doctrine due to the existence of parallel state-court proceedings. The court reasoned that the Texas state courts were better suited to resolve the issues, particularly given the unique enforcement mechanism of S.B. 8. The district court also questioned whether Dr. Braid had a reasonable fear of double liability but ultimately found that it had jurisdiction before deciding to abstain.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court agreed that the district court had jurisdiction over the interpleader action but concluded that abstention was appropriate under the Colorado River doctrine, which allows federal courts to defer to parallel state-court proceedings in exceptional cases. The court emphasized that the Texas courts were better positioned to resolve the complex state-law issues and that abstention would avoid piecemeal litigation and conflicting judgments. The court also noted that the Texas courts could adequately protect Dr. Braid’s rights and that the federal suit appeared to be an attempt to avoid the state-court system. View "Braid v. Stilley" on Justia Law

Pierre Robinson and Derrick Swanson, members of the Evans Mob gang in Chicago, were charged with murdering rival gang members to enhance their status within the gang. Swanson entered a cooperation agreement and pleaded guilty, while Robinson went to trial. At Robinson's trial, his cousin Anise, who had previously identified him as the shooter in a recorded statement and grand jury testimony, claimed memory loss and could not identify him in court. The district court admitted her prior statements as evidence. Robinson was convicted by a jury after a four-day trial.In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Robinson was convicted of murder in aid of racketeering and sentenced to life in prison. Swanson, who cooperated with the government, received a 30-year sentence and five years of supervised release. Swanson's sentence included a condition allowing probation officers to search his workplace, which he contested as inconsistent with the oral pronouncement of his sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. Robinson argued that the admission of Anise's statements violated his Confrontation Clause rights and that his trial counsel was ineffective. The court held that Robinson had an adequate opportunity to cross-examine Anise, thus satisfying the Confrontation Clause. The court also found that Robinson's counsel's performance did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness. Swanson's challenge to his supervised release condition was rejected, as the written judgment did not contradict the oral pronouncement. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgments. View "United States v. Swanson" on Justia Law

A group of nine plaintiffs, led by Alexander Carter, filed a class action lawsuit against the Cook County Sheriff, challenging a policy at the Cook County Jail that destroys inmates' government-issued identification cards if left unclaimed after the inmate is transferred to the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC). The plaintiffs argued that this policy violated the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. The district court dismissed the case, finding that precedent foreclosed each of the plaintiffs' claims.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted the Sheriff’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claim was foreclosed by the precedent set in Lee v. City of Chicago. The court also found that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment claims were indistinguishable from those rejected in Conyers v. City of Chicago and Kelley-Lomax v. City of Chicago. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claims but did not appeal the procedural due process claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the Fourth Amendment claim was foreclosed by Lee, which rejected the notion of a "continuing seizure" of lawfully seized property. The court also found that the Fifth Amendment takings claim failed because the plaintiffs had abandoned their property by not following the jail's property retrieval procedures. Finally, the court concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim failed because the plaintiffs did not show the inadequacy of state law remedies or an independent constitutional violation. View "Carter v. Cook County Sheriff" on Justia Law

Marissa Darlingh, a guidance counselor at an elementary school in the Milwaukee Public School District, attended a rally in April 2022 where she delivered a profanity-laden speech denouncing gender ideology and transgenderism. She identified herself as a school counselor and vowed that no student at her school would transition under her watch. After a video of her speech was posted on YouTube, school officials investigated and eventually fired her for violating employment policies, including using abusive language and undermining the district's mission to provide an equitable learning environment.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, with a magistrate judge presiding, applied the Pickering balancing test and concluded that the school district's interests as a public employer outweighed Darlingh's speech rights. The judge denied her request for a preliminary injunction and dismissed her First Amendment claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that while Darlingh spoke on a matter of public concern, her speech was incompatible with her role as a school counselor. The court emphasized that her extreme vulgarity and belligerent tone diminished her First Amendment interests. Additionally, her role required a high degree of public trust, and her speech conflicted with the school district's obligation to provide a supportive educational environment. The court concluded that the school district's interests outweighed Darlingh's free-speech rights, and her speech fell outside the scope of First Amendment protection in the public-employment context. View "Darlingh v Maddaleni" on Justia Law

The defendant, Rolando Joel De Leon De Paz, pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. De Leon had been removed from the U.S. five times previously, with his first removal in 2002 following a conviction for the sale and delivery of methamphetamine. Subsequent removals occurred in 2008, 2013, 2016, and 2022, each following separate convictions for illegal reentry. Despite escalating sentences for each conviction, De Leon reentered the U.S. again and was arrested in January 2023. He was indicted for illegal reentry and pleaded guilty after the district court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment on equal protection grounds.The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin calculated a sentencing Guidelines range of 21 to 27 months but imposed an above-Guidelines sentence of 48 months. The court justified the sentence by emphasizing De Leon's repeated illegal reentries and the failure of previous escalating punishments to deter him. The court also noted De Leon's struggle with alcohol, which contributed to his criminal behavior, although this was not the main reason for the above-Guidelines sentence.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 the district court acted within its discretion in imposing the 48-month sentence, finding that the justifications provided were consistent with the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The court noted that De Leon's repeated offenses and the ineffectiveness of prior sentences warranted the above-Guidelines sentence. Additionally, the appellate court rejected De Leon's argument that the district court improperly relied on his alcohol dependence and found no abuse of discretion in the sentencing decision. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of De Leon's motion to dismiss the indictment, citing recent precedent. View "United States v De Leon De Paz" on Justia Law

Curtis Walker, who was 17 years old when he committed murder, was sentenced to life in prison with a parole eligibility date set for 2071, effectively making it a life-without-parole sentence. After serving nearly 30 years, Walker sought postconviction relief, arguing that his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment based on a series of Supreme Court decisions regarding juvenile offenders sentenced to life without parole. Walker's request for a "meaningful opportunity" to demonstrate his rehabilitation was denied by the Wisconsin state courts, prompting him to file a federal habeas corpus petition.The Wisconsin Court of Appeals denied Walker's postconviction motion, holding that his sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment because the sentencing judge had considered his youth and its attendant circumstances. The Wisconsin Supreme Court denied review. Walker then filed a federal habeas petition, which the district court dismissed as untimely and without merit, concluding that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals did not unreasonably apply federal law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief. The court held that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals did not unreasonably apply Supreme Court precedent, particularly in light of the decisions in Miller v. Alabama, Montgomery v. Louisiana, and Jones v. Mississippi. The Seventh Circuit concluded that the state court's decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as the Supreme Court's precedents did not clearly establish a categorical prohibition against sentencing corrigible juvenile offenders to life without parole. View "Walker v Cromwell" on Justia Law

Michael Williams was convicted by a Wisconsin jury of reckless homicide and possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. He appealed his convictions to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, arguing that a jury instruction unconstitutionally lowered the government's burden of proof and that the prosecutor's closing arguments improperly shifted the burden of proof to him. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied his petition for review.Williams then filed a petition for habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The district court held that the state appellate court reasonably applied Supreme Court precedent in concluding that it was not reasonably likely the jury applied the instruction in an unconstitutional manner. The court also held that Williams had not demonstrated that the prosecutor's remarks violated clearly established Supreme Court precedent.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Williams raised the same two arguments. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals did not unreasonably apply Supreme Court precedent regarding the jury instruction on reasonable doubt. The court also found that the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments did not shift the burden of proof to the defense in a manner that violated due process, especially considering the trial court's curative instructions. The Seventh Circuit concluded that Williams had not shown that the state court's rulings were so lacking in justification as to constitute an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. View "Williams v Meisner" on Justia Law

Mark Johnson was convicted by an Indiana jury of felony rape, felony criminal confinement, and misdemeanor battery. He appealed, arguing that the exclusion of certain DNA evidence and the destruction of the victim's blood sample before toxicology testing violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. The Indiana Court of Appeals vacated his convictions for criminal confinement and battery on double jeopardy grounds but affirmed the rape conviction. Johnson's petition to transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court was denied. He then sought post-conviction review in state court and, after exhausting state remedies, sought federal habeas review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana denied Johnson's habeas petition, concluding that his DNA-related claim was procedurally defaulted and that the state court reasonably applied federal law in determining that the State had not acted in bad faith when discarding the blood sample. Johnson appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Johnson's claim regarding the exclusion of DNA evidence was procedurally defaulted because he failed to raise it in his petition for transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court. Additionally, the court found that the Indiana Court of Appeals reasonably applied federal law in determining that the police had not acted in bad faith when disposing of the blood sample, as the evidence was only potentially exculpatory and there was no clear indication of bad faith. The court concluded that the state court's decision did not deviate from established federal law or constitute an unreasonable determination of the facts. View "Johnson v Sevier" on Justia Law

Antonio Smith, an inmate at Green Bay Correctional Institution in Wisconsin, was on a prolonged hunger strike to protest prison conditions. After refusing to leave his cell for a wellness check, correctional officers used force to extract him for three consecutive days without incident. On the fourth day, Captain Jay Van Lanen used pepper spray, despite knowing Smith had a medical contraindication. Smith experienced severe respiratory distress and was placed naked in a cold cell for 23 hours.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that there were no Eighth Amendment violations. Smith appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that a jury could determine that the use of pepper spray and the conditions of Smith's confinement violated the Eighth Amendment. However, the court ultimately affirmed the district court's decision based on qualified immunity, which protects officials from liability unless they violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.The court held that while the actions of Captain Van Lanen and Lieutenant Retzlaff could be seen as excessive and lacking legitimate penological purpose, the specific rights violated were not clearly established at the time. Therefore, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. The court also found no evidence of excessive force during Smith's escort to the health unit, affirming summary judgment for the defendants on all claims. View "Smith v Kind" on Justia Law