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

In early October 2025, the President of the United States invoked his authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 to federalize and deploy members of the National Guard in Illinois, despite opposition from the state’s Governor. The President justified this action by citing the need to address violent assaults against federal immigration agents and property, particularly in the context of increased protests at an ICE facility in Broadview, Illinois, following the launch of “Operation Midway Blitz.” Although protests had grown in size and occasionally involved minor disruptions and isolated incidents of violence, state and local law enforcement consistently maintained control, and federal agencies reported continued success in their operations.The State of Illinois and the City of Chicago filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, challenging the federalization of the Guard. They argued that the statutory conditions for such action under § 12406 were not met, and that the move violated the Tenth Amendment and the Posse Comitatus Act. After an adversary hearing, the district court granted a temporary restraining order, finding insufficient evidence of rebellion or inability to execute federal law with regular forces, and enjoined the federalization and deployment of the Guard. The administration appealed and sought a stay of the order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s order, applying clear error review to factual findings and de novo review to statutory interpretation. The Seventh Circuit held that the President’s decision to federalize the National Guard under § 12406 is judicially reviewable and that, even granting substantial deference to the executive, the statutory predicates for federalization were not met on the current record. The court denied the administration’s motion for a stay pending appeal as to deployment, but continued to stay the portion of the order enjoining federalization. View "Illinois v. Trump" on Justia Law

SuperValu, Inc. participated in a multiemployer pension plan, contributing on behalf of its employees for over a decade. In September 2018, SuperValu sold several stores to Schnuck’s Markets, Inc., with five of those stores employing workers covered by the pension plan. This sale qualified for a statutory “safe harbor,” meaning SuperValu did not incur withdrawal liability for the sold stores, as Schnuck’s agreed to continue contributions. Later, SuperValu closed its remaining stores and fully withdrew from the plan, triggering withdrawal liability. The pension fund calculated SuperValu’s total liability and the annual installment payments required, using statutory formulas. In calculating the payment schedule, the fund deducted the sold stores’ contribution base units for only the most recent five years, not the entire ten-year lookback period, which resulted in higher annual payments for SuperValu.SuperValu challenged the fund’s calculation, arguing that the contribution base units for the sold stores should have been excluded for all ten years, not just five. The dispute was submitted to arbitration under federal law, where the arbitrator ruled in favor of the fund. SuperValu then sought review in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. The district court granted summary judgment to the fund, holding that the relevant statutory text did not require the deduction of the sold stores’ units for the entire ten-year period, and that SuperValu’s arguments based on legislative history and statutory purpose could not override the plain language.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The Seventh Circuit held that the statute governing the payment schedule for withdrawal liability does not require a pension fund to deduct contribution base units for stores sold under the safe harbor provision for the entire ten-year lookback period. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "SuperValu, Inc. v. UFCW Unions and Employers Midwest Pension Fund" on Justia Law

An inmate at a Wisconsin correctional institution was attacked by another prisoner, resulting in serious injury. The inmate alleged that prison officials were aware of the risk of such an attack but failed to take preventive action. After the incident, medical staff did not arrange for the inmate to see a specialist within the recommended timeframe. The inmate claimed to have filed a formal complaint about both the lack of protection and inadequate medical care by placing a completed complaint form in his cell door for collection on January 2, 2017. He did not receive an acknowledgment of receipt and, after inquiring with a complaint examiner a month later, was told no complaint had been received. He then filed a new complaint, referencing his earlier attempt and supporting it with a journal entry and correspondence to other inmates.The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that the inmate failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court relied on the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Lockett v. Bonson, finding that the inmate’s evidence was insufficient to show timely filing and that he should have followed up sooner when he did not receive an acknowledgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The appellate court found that, unlike in Lockett, the inmate provided more than a mere assertion of timely filing, including a sworn declaration, a journal entry, and references in subsequent complaints. The court held that this evidence created a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether a timely complaint was filed. The Seventh Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the lower court to determine whether the exhaustion issue is intertwined with the merits, which could entitle the parties to a jury trial under Perttu v. Richards. View "Breyley v. Fuchs" on Justia Law

Several pilots were terminated by United Airlines after the company implemented a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. These pilots, represented by their union, the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), believed that the union did not do enough to oppose United’s vaccination policies. The pilots had previously filed grievances challenging the mandate, arguing that United’s actions violated the status quo required under the Railway Labor Act because the collective bargaining agreement had expired. ALPA did not support these grievances or file its own, but did file a separate grievance arguing that termination for being unvaccinated was not justified. The pilots’ termination grievances remain pending at their request.After their terminations, the pilots sued ALPA in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to adequately oppose United’s vaccine mandate. ALPA moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the claim was unripe and failed to state a claim. The district court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of ripeness but granted the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court also denied the pilots’ request to file an amended complaint, finding that amendment would be futile.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decisions de novo. The Seventh Circuit held that the case was ripe because the pilots’ alleged harm—termination—had already occurred. However, the court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the pilots failed to plausibly allege that ALPA’s actions were arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, as required to state a claim for breach of the duty of fair representation. The court also affirmed the denial of leave to amend, finding that the proposed amended complaint would not cure the deficiencies. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Wickstrom v Air Line Pilots Association, International" on Justia Law

An Arab American faculty member began working at a university as an adjunct instructor and later held a term faculty position. In April 2017, he and another faculty member were informed that their contracts would not be renewed due to budget constraints. Around the same time, the university received a letter from an attorney alleging that the faculty member had engaged in repeated acts of sexual misconduct with a student. The university’s Title IX coordinator initiated an investigation, during which the faculty member admitted to a sexual relationship with the student but claimed it was consensual and began after she was no longer his student. The student did not participate in the investigation, and the coordinator found insufficient evidence of misconduct. The department chair and the faculty member discussed his possible reappointment as an adjunct, but after the student filed a lawsuit alleging sexual harassment and other misconduct, the university decided not to hire him as an adjunct, citing low course enrollment, his compensation request, and the lawsuit. A second investigation was launched, and this time the coordinator found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the faculty member had sexually harassed the student. The university then deemed him ineligible for future employment.The faculty member sued the university and two former employees in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, among other claims. The district court dismissed his other claims and granted summary judgment to the university on the § 1981 claim, finding that the university had provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions and that the faculty member had not shown these reasons were pretext for racial discrimination.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Seventh Circuit held that the faculty member failed to present evidence that the university’s stated reasons for its employment decisions were pretext for racial discrimination. View "Saud v DePaul University" on Justia Law

Police responded to a 911 call in Marshfield, Wisconsin, reporting that Jaison Coleman had threatened to kill his wife, Lisa Coleman, and was still inside their home. Officer Jamie Kizer arrived and spoke with Lisa on the porch, asking about the safety of her children and the location of her husband. Lisa hesitated to answer questions about her children’s safety and initially declined to allow the officer inside. After a brief pause, Lisa returned to the doorway, and following further discussion, she agreed to let Officer Kizer and his colleagues enter the home. Once inside, Lisa directed the officers to the children’s location and indicated where Coleman might be. The officers found Coleman, conducted a protective pat down, and learned from the children that Coleman had threatened Lisa with a gun.Based on information obtained during their entry, the officers secured a warrant to search the home, which led to the discovery of several firearms. Coleman was indicted for unlawful possession of a firearm as a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He moved to suppress the firearms, arguing that Lisa had not consented to the officers’ entry. A magistrate judge found that Lisa had consented and recommended denial of the motion. The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and denied the suppression motion, also concluding that the officers did not exceed the scope of Lisa’s consent. Coleman pleaded guilty but reserved the right to appeal the suppression ruling.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s findings for clear error. The appellate court held that Lisa’s consent was voluntary and that the officers acted within the scope of her consent. The court affirmed Coleman’s conviction, finding no error in the district court’s rulings. View "United States v. Coleman" on Justia Law

Amy Hadley’s home in South Bend, Indiana, was significantly damaged when law enforcement officers executed a search warrant in pursuit of a murder suspect they believed was inside her residence. The officers, acting on information that the suspect had accessed his Facebook account from Hadley’s IP address, obtained a warrant and forcefully entered the home, causing extensive property damage, including the use of tear gas and destruction of personal items. Hadley, who had no connection to the suspect, was denied compensation by both the City of South Bend and St. Joseph County for the $16,000 in damages.After her request for compensation was denied, Hadley filed suit in Indiana state court, seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of her Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, specifically invoking the Takings Clause. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that Seventh Circuit precedent, particularly Johnson v. Manitowoc County, foreclosed her claim. The district court agreed and dismissed the complaint, finding that the Takings Clause did not entitle her to compensation for property damage resulting from the execution of a lawful search warrant.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that, under its precedent in Johnson v. Manitowoc County, the Fifth Amendment does not require the government to compensate property owners for damage caused by law enforcement executing a valid search warrant. The court declined to overrule Johnson and found that Hadley’s arguments did not warrant revisiting the established rule. View "Hadley v. City of South Bend" on Justia Law

Claudette Rabdeau sought disability benefits under the Social Security Act, claiming that her cervical spine disorder, severe headaches, and mental impairments rendered her unable to work since June 2014. Medical records showed that while Rabdeau experienced significant pain and frequent headaches beginning in 2014, her symptoms were generally well-managed through medication and treatments, including Botox injections, until May 2018, when her condition worsened and became disabling.Rabdeau’s initial application for benefits was denied by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in 2018, who found she could still work during the relevant period. After a remand from the Social Security Administration Appeals Council for further consideration of her migraines and mental impairments, the same ALJ issued a partially favorable decision in 2019, finding Rabdeau disabled only from May 9, 2018 onward. Rabdeau appealed the unfavorable portion, and the Appeals Council remanded the case again in 2021, citing insufficient evaluation of evidence regarding her headaches prior to May 2018. On remand, a different ALJ reviewed the case and, after considering testimony from a new vocational expert, denied benefits for the period before May 2018, finding her impairments were not severe enough to be disabling. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin affirmed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s affirmance, applying the “substantial evidence” standard. The court held that the second ALJ was not required to address the prior ALJ’s findings as long as the decision was supported by substantial evidence. The Seventh Circuit found that the medical record supported the ALJ’s conclusion and affirmed the denial of benefits for the period before May 2018. View "Rabdeau v. Bisignano" on Justia Law

Patrick Jones Jr. was hired as a probationary deputy sheriff by the Lake County Sheriff’s Office and sent to a police training academy. During his training, Jones obtained a document from his girlfriend, believing it to be a study guide, and offered to share it with classmates. The document was actually a cheat sheet for a prior version of the Illinois state law enforcement exam. After an investigation by the training institute, which concluded Jones likely did not understand the document’s true nature, the Sheriff’s Office nonetheless terminated his employment. The termination letter, authored by Undersheriff Lawrence Oliver, cited Jones’s conduct as violating the office’s code of conduct and was distributed internally and to the office’s Merit Commission. Jones later struggled to find new law enforcement employment, attributing this difficulty to the termination letter.Jones filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, alleging that the termination letter was defamatory and that it deprived him of occupational liberty in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment for the Sheriff’s Office and Undersheriff Oliver, finding that Jones failed to show it was virtually impossible for him to find new employment and that the statements in the letter were either true or opinion, and that Oliver was entitled to absolute immunity under Illinois law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that the Sheriff’s Office was not a proper defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because Jones did not allege a policy or custom as required for municipal liability. The court further held that Jones’s occupational liberty claim failed because there was no evidence that Undersheriff Oliver publicly disclosed the termination letter. Finally, the court held that Undersheriff Oliver was entitled to absolute immunity under Illinois law for statements made within the scope of his official duties. View "Jones v. Lake County Sheriff's Office" on Justia Law

Five Indian citizens entered the United States on F-1 student visas, completed their studies, and enrolled in “optional practical training” (OPT) programs. They allege that the organizations providing their OPT programs failed to deliver any actual training or work, and ultimately ceased communication. After returning to India for brief visits, each attempted to reenter the United States. At the airports, immigration officials revoked their visas. Four were subjected to expedited removal, while the fifth was permitted to withdraw his application for entry. All five returned to India and subsequently filed suit from abroad.The plaintiffs brought their case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, invoking the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to challenge the administrative findings that they had misused the OPT program. They claimed they never received notice of any administrative proceedings or an opportunity to respond. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, relying on 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(A)(i), which generally bars judicial review of individual determinations or claims arising from expedited removal orders under §1225(b)(1). The court found that the plaintiffs’ attempt to challenge the underlying findings, rather than the removal orders themselves, did not avoid the jurisdictional bar.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that §1252(a)(2)(A)(i) precludes judicial review not only of expedited removal orders but also of the underlying justifications for those orders. The court further concluded that the administrative findings regarding the OPT programs were not “final” agency actions reviewable under the APA, as they were merely steps leading to the removal orders. Thus, the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the plaintiffs’ claims. View "Dubey v. Department of Homeland Security" on Justia Law