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

The Randolph-Sheppard Act, 20 U.S.C. 107(a), provides economic opportunities by granting blind persons priority to operate vending facilities at certain government properties. When a blind vendor, Belsha, was awarded certain vending operations in Racine County, Wisconsin, a different blind vendor, Taylor, became unhappy and challenged the award. The Act is administered by state licensing agencies; Taylor’s challenge traveled first through Wisconsin’s regulatory process. Although Taylor achieved some success through the Wisconsin Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, she commenced federal administrative proceedings with the Secretary of Education. An arbitration panel awarded Taylor money damages and a permanent vending machine services contract for a site in Racine.The district court vacated the arbitration decision, ruling that there were no material deficiencies in the choice of Belsha for the Racine site, that the arbitration panel’s key factual findings were not supported by substantial evidence, and the arbitration panel’s ultimate conclusion was arbitrary and capricious. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The arbitration panel mistakenly substituted the APA standard of review for the burden of proof of a disappointed vendor under the Act. View "Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development v. Taylor" on Justia Law

In 1997, Plaintiffs co-founded Gray Matter Holdings. A 1999 Withdrawal Agreement with Gray Matter entitled Plaintiffs to royalties on the sales of “Key Products.” In 2003, Gray Matter sold some assets to Swimways. After that sale, Plaintiffs took Gray Matter to arbitration four times over their royalty rights. The third arbitration determined that Gray Matter did not transfer its royalty obligations under the Withdrawal Agreement to Swimways but only transferred its intellectual property rights; Gray Matter, not Swimways, remained responsible for any royalty compensation owed to Plaintiffs. The fourth arbitration found no evidence to support Plaintiffs’ claim that Swimways tendered fraudulent filings to the Patent and Trademark Office regarding the intellectual property rights in the Key Products and that all intellectual property rights in the Key Products at issue had been transferred to Swimways.Plaintiffs filed suit, alleging that they were entitled to royalties for the Key Products and that Swimways tendered the alleged fraudulent filings. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint and the imposition of $271,926.92 in sanctions. The claims were barred by principles of res judicata and the arbitrations were “binding and final” under the Withdrawal Agreement. An accounting showed that attorneys and staff spent 273.1 hours, charging an average rate of about $1,000 per hour, preparing the motions to dismiss and for sanctions. View "Matlin v. Spin Master Corp." on Justia Law

Mzembe and two others kidnapped another man, shot him, beat him, and held him for ransom, then abandoned him in an alley. Separate federal juries found the three men guilty of multiple federal crimes. Mzembe was sentenced to 44 years' imprisonment. Intervening changes in law required the Seventh Circuit to vacate the convictions under 18 U.S.C. 924(c) for discharging a firearm in a crime of violence. Between Mzembe’s federal sentencing hearings, Mzembe was convicted in Indiana state court for crimes committed before the kidnapping and was sentenced to 62 years, consecutive to the federal sentence. The state sentence became final.Mzembe's Guidelines range for the remaining federal crimes was life in prison; he was sentenced to 36 years, to run consecutively. The court addressed mitigation evidence and said that a below-guideline sentence would be appropriate but said: I don’t know if I have the authority to run the sentences concurrent … if I do ... I don’t think it would be an appropriate exercise of my authority” because the state judge decided that the reasonable punishment for the state crime included consecutive sentencing. The written opinion stated: It is one thing for a federal court to modify a federal sentence in light of changes in federal law, but it would be a different thing for a federal court to restructure the state sentence.The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the judge gave an inadequate explanation for his decision, erred in deferring to the state court’s intervening judgment to make the sentences consecutive, and imposed an unreasonably severe sentence. View "United States v. Mzembe" on Justia Law

Hogenkamp pleaded guilty to a federal crime and was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment plus 25 years’ supervised release. Fourteen months before the anticipated end of his custodial time (April 2021), he asked the district court to modify the terms of his supervised release. The judge denied his motion as premature, suggesting that Hogenkamp wait until after his release to seek a change in those terms.The Seventh Circuit remanded. A prisoner is entitled to know, before he leaves prison, what terms and conditions govern his supervised release. Those terms govern where a person may live, with whom he may associate, and what jobs he may hold from the day he walks out of prison. Federal judges may alter the terms and conditions of supervised release at any time, 18 U.S.C. 3583(e)(2). A district judge has the discretion to determine the apt time for decision—provided that a motion made a reasonable time in advance of release is resolved before supervised release begins--and to decide whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary. Hogenkam’s date is approaching; further delay in making a decision is appropriate only if the court has reason to think that better information will be available in the next few months. View "United States v. Hogenkamp" on Justia Law

Calderone, a Chicago police communications operator, was off duty, driving her car when another motorist, Garcia, threw a drink into Calderone’s vehicle, then pulled to the side of the road. Calderone stopped behind Garcia’s car. The women exited their cars and argued. Garcia returned to her vehicle and tried to drive away. Calderone blocked Garcia’s exit. Garcia again got out of her vehicle, grabbed Calderone by the hair, and threw her to the ground. Calderone then shot Garcia with her handgun, which she was legally permitted to carry. The bullet lacerated Garcia's vital organs; she was hospitalized for several months.Calderone was indicted for attempted murder. The city administratively charged her with violations of Personnel Rules and, after a hearing, fired Calderone. Calderone asserts the city did not respond to her claim that the discharge was in self-defense. An Illinois state court acquitted Calderone of attempted murder based on self-defense. The city subsequently reinstated Calderone and held a hearing to determine her back pay.Calderone sued, arguing that her termination deprived her of her Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, that the city deprived her of property and liberty rights without due process, and that the Personnel Rules were vague. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the claims. Even if Calderone has a constitutional right to discharge her firearm in self-defense, qualified immunity shielded her supervisors from suit because precedent has not clearly established that right. View "Calderone v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

Sandefur, a Cook County corrections officer, suffers from spinal disk desiccation and osteoarthritis in his knees. In 2011, Sandefur received a handicapped parking placard from the Illinois Secretary of State. His application asserted that he could not walk without an assistive device and that the impairment was permanent. In 2015, at age 55, Sandefur was accepted to the Police Academy. An instructor noticed the handicapped parking placard in Sandefur’s car. Sandefur said it was there for his wife. When another officer asked about the placard, Sandefur said that it was his wife’s but that he also used it. Wanting to confirm that Sandefur was medically cleared to participate in the Academy’s physical training, Academy officials met with Sandefur, who stated that he was not requesting any accommodations in the Academy. During a formal investigation, Sandefur’s explanations did not improve or become consistent. An investigator concluded that Sandefur had demonstrated an “inability to provide truthful responses to basic questions.” The Sheriff’s Office dismissed Sandefur from the Academy. He returned to his corrections job.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the summary judgment rejection of Sandefur’s suit, which alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12112, and his due process rights. The Sheriff’s Office dismissed Sandefur based on its honest belief that he had lied about his disability, not because he had a disability. There is no evidence that anyone involved in the investigation or dismissal harbored any unlawful animus. View "Sandefur v. Dart" on Justia Law

Officers found Turner, a homeless Champaign man well-known to the police, on the ground, rolling around with his pants down, flailing his arms, and babbling unintelligibly, then walking back and forth across the street. Turner responded to the officers incoherently. They decided to detain Turner and send him to a hospital for mental health treatment. While waiting for the ambulance, Turner ran away. The officers gave chase. An officer grabbed Turner’s shoulder. A struggle ensued. Officers pulled Turner to the ground and turned him on his stomach. Struggling to restrain Turner, the officers determined that Turner was not breathing and rushed to get a portable defibrillator. Less than three minutes after the officers noticed that Turner was not breathing, the ambulance arrived. Paramedics rushed Turner to the hospital. He never regained a pulse. An autopsy later determined that Turner died from cardiac arrhythmia—his heart gave out after beating too fast during the encounter--likely caused by an underlying condition. Turner had an enlarged heart and insufficient blood supply to his heart’s chambers. There were no signs of suffocation or trauma to Turner’s body.The district court dismissed a suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, holding that the officers acted legally to detain Turner and used reasonable force in response to his resistance. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The question is not whether officers used best police practices but whether they violated Turner’s Fourth Amendment rights. The officers did not use excessive force. View "Turner v. City of Champaign" on Justia Law

Indiana law provides that state’s election polls open at 6 a.m. and close at 6 p.m. In 2019, Indiana enacted amendments: only a county election board has standing in an Indiana court to request the extension of the hours and only if the board’s members unanimously vote to file suit, IND. CODE 3- 11.7-7-2. Before a court may extend the poll hours, several findings must be made, including that the polls were substantially delayed in opening or subsequently closed during normal polling hours and any extension must be limited to not more than the duration of time the polls were closed and only for those polls whose opening was delayed.Common Cause challenged the amendments as burdening the fundamental right to vote, divesting state courts of jurisdiction to hear federal claims in violation of the Supremacy Clause, and depriving voters of procedural due process. On September 22, 2020, the district court granted a preliminary injunction.The Seventh Circuit reversed. Indiana may enforce the statutes as written. The court noted that no decision of the Supreme Court or any court of appeals has held that the Constitution requires a state to provide a private right of action to enforce any state law. To the extent that federal law will require Indiana to provide such an extension, voters can invoke their federal rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The amendments do not place a burden on the right to vote, View "Common Cause Indiana v. Lawson" on Justia Law

Applecars is a member of a network of Wisconsin used-car dealerships. McCormick owned a majority share in each dealership. Each dealership received management services from Capital M, which McCormick also owned. Capital M tracked shared dealership inventory, held employee records, and issued identical employee handbooks for each dealership; Capital M’s operations manager hired and fired each dealership’s general manager. The employees of each dealership gathered as one for events several times per year. The dealerships advertised on a single website, which included some language suggesting a single entity and some indicators that each dealership is a separate entity. Each dealership properly maintained corporate formalities and records. Capital M billed each dealership separately. Each dealership had a distinct general manager, bank accounts, and financial reports. The dealerships separately filed and paid taxes, paid employees, and entered into contracts.Prince worked at Applecars for several months before he was fired. Prince claims his firing was retaliatory and sued Applecars and its affiliates for racial discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The court granted the defendants summary judgment, noting that Applecars had fewer than 15 employees and was not subject to Title VII. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. There is insufficient evidence to support Prince’s theory that the court should pierce the corporate veil of the network, aggregating the number of employees such that Title VII would apply. View "Prince v. Appleton Auto LLC" on Justia Law

A Wisconsin jury found Gage guilty of repeatedly sexually assaulting his daughter, H.R.G., when she was a child. Gage asserted that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to interview and present testimony from his son and mother, Josh and Nancy. Gage was living with Nancy at the time of the assaults and most of the assaults occurred on Nancy's property. The state appellate court concluded that Gage was not prejudiced by his trial counsel’s failure to call those witnesses because their testimony in post-conviction proceedings concerned only matters such as the layout of Nancy's house.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of habeas relief. The state court’s decision was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, despite its incorrect recitation of the "Strickland" prejudice standard. The state court’s analysis focused on the consistency between Josh’s and Nancy’s testimony at the post-conviction hearing and H.R.G.’s testimony at trial, which can reasonably be interpreted as “whether the proffered testimony could have affected the outcome,” or its likely impact on the verdict. The state court noted that Josh’s and Nancy’s testimony did not undermine H.R.G.’s testimony in any significant way. View "Gage v. Richardson" on Justia Law