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

Carello is blind. To access online visual content, he uses a “screen reader,” which reads text aloud to him from websites that are designed to support its software. Carello claims that the Credit Union website fails to offer such support. The Illinois Credit Union Act requires that credit union membership be open only to groups of people who share a “common bond,” including “[p]ersons belonging to a specific association, group or organization,” “[p]ersons who reside in a reasonably compact and well-defined neighborhood or community,” and “[p]ersons who have a common employer.” The Credit Union limits its membership to specified local government employees. Membership is required before an individual may use any Credit Union services. Carello is not eligible for, nor has he expressed any interest in, Credit Union membership. He is a tester: he visits websites solely to test Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance, which prohibits places of public accommodation from discriminating “on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of [their] goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations,” and requires them to make “reasonable modifications” to achieve that standard, 42 U.S.C. 12812(a), (b). The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Carello’s claim. Carello lacked standing to sue because he failed to allege an injury in fact. View "Carello v. Aurora Policeman Credit Union" on Justia Law

American, a Cincinnati-based title insurance company, is owned by attorneys Yonas and Rink. The Indiana Department of Insurance randomly audited American and found hundreds of code violations, none of which American denies. Examiners recommended a fine of $70,082 plus $42,202 in consumer reimbursements after deviating upward from the guidelines recommendation. After negotiation, the examiners refused to adjust the fines and added a new sanction: the owners would lose their licenses to do business in Indiana. The Department’s attorney informed American that it could seek administrative review but could face the maximum fine of $9.5 million. American agreed to the recommended sanctions, “voluntarily and freely waive[d] the right to judicial review,” and paid the fees. Yonas and Rink gave up their licenses. Months later, American sued the Department’s Commissioner, Robertson, alleging that the Department imposed higher penalties because American is based in Ohio, not Indiana. American’s equal-protection case rested on expert testimony based on a statistical analysis that found that when the Department audits out-of-state companies, it tends to deviate more from its guidelines than when it audits in-state companies; a comment by a Department examiner made during a recorded phone call; and that Robertson was unable to say definitively during his deposition that no one in his department was motivated by in-state bias. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Robertson without reaching the equal protection claim. American offered no meaningful reason to ignore the agreed order. View "American Homeland Title Agency, Inc. v. Robertson" on Justia Law

Schaumburg’s 2016 ordinance requires commercial buildings to send fire‐alarm signals directly to the local 911 dispatch center, NWCDS, which has an exclusive arrangement with Tyco. To send signals to NWCDS, local buildings must use Tyco equipment. Schaumburg’s notice of the ordinance referred to connection through Tyco and stated that accounts would be charged $81 per month to rent Tyco’s radio transmitters and for the monitoring service. Tyco pays NWCDS an administrative fee of $23 per month for each account it connects to the NWCDS equipment. Tyco’s competitors filed suit charging violations of constitutional, antitrust, and state tort law. The district court dismissed the case. The Seventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of the Contracts Clause claim against Schaumburg. The complaint alleges a potentially significant impairment, the early cancellation of the competitors’ contracts, and Schaumburg’s self‐interest, $300,000 it stands to gain. The court otherwise affirmed, noting that entities not alleged to have taken legislative action cannot be liable under the Contracts Clause. WIth respect to constitutional claims, the court noted the government’s important interest in fire safety. Rejecting antitrust claims, the court stated that the complaint did not allege a prohibited agreement, as opposed to an independent, legislative decision. View "Alarm Detection Systems, Inc. v. Village of Schaumburg" on Justia Law

Four Illinois Villages passed ordinances that require commercial buildings to send fire-alarm signals directly to the local 911 dispatch center through one alarm-system provider, Tyco, which services the area pursuant to an exclusive agreement with the dispatch center. An alarm-system competitor, ADS, sued, citing the Illinois Fire Protection District Act, the Sherman Act, and the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Sherman Act claims fail because they are premised on the unilateral actions of the Villages, which ADS did not sue. The court noted that ADS can compete for the contract now held by Tyco. ADS’s substantive due process claim asserted that the district acted arbitrarily and irrationally by going with an exclusive provider rather than entertaining ADS’s efforts at alternative, methods. The ordinances effectively require the district to work with an exclusive provider and there was thus a rational basis to choose an exclusive provider. View "Alarm Detection Systems, Inc. v. Orland Fire Protection District" on Justia Law

After a hearing under 18 U.S.C. 3184, a magistrate certified Venckiene as extraditable to Lithuania for the prosecution of alleged offenses arising from a custody battle over Venckiene’s niece. The Secretary of State granted the extradition. Venckiene obtained a temporary stay and sought habeas corpus relief, claiming that the magistrate failed to apply the political offense exception in the extradition treaty and erred in finding probable cause that she was guilty of the offenses. Venckiene and others alleged political and judicial corruption in connection with her niece’s allegations of sexual abuse and claimed that the allegations evolved into protests that culminated in the formation of a new political party and the suspicious deaths of four people, including Venckiene's brother. Venckiene claimed that extradition violated her due process rights and that she might be subject to “particularly atrocious procedures or punishments” in Lithuania. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. While there is a political dimension to Venckiene's actions, they do not qualify as relative political offenses, which require a finding of “violent political disturbance or uprising.” Venckiene’s actions were not objectively those of someone furthering a political agenda; a video and transcript support the charges that Venckiene attempted to prevent law enforcement from entering her home and seizing her niece to execute a court order. Without specific evidence of atrocious conditions that Venckiene is likely to experience if extradited, blocking this extradition after the executive has approved it would go beyond the role of the court in the extradition process. View "Venckiene v. United States" on Justia Law

Collins was a tenured professor at the University. A faculty committee found that Collins had misused grant money by purchasing equipment other than that in his grant proposals and using the equipment for personal purposes and concluded that his actions warranted “dismissal for serious cause” under the Academic Articles incorporated in Collins’s faculty contract. After an internal review, Notre Dame’s president dismissed Collins. Before criminal charges were filed against him, Collins filed suit, alleging breach of contract. Before his guilty plea, the district court granted Collins summary judgment on liability, finding that Notre Dame breached the contract by allowing one faculty member to both play a role in informal mediation and then serve on the hearing committee. The court did not decide whether the committee’s findings amounted to sufficient cause to dismiss a tenured faculty member. After Collins’s 2013 guilty plea to a federal felony charge for theft of government grant funds in this same conduct, Notre Dame re‐instituted Collins’s adjudication and dismissed him again. After the guilty plea, the court reaffirmed its earlier breach of contract finding, held a trial on damages, and awarded Collins $501,367, calculated as his lost compensation from his June 2010 dismissal until his February 2013 conviction. The Seventh Circuit reversed. The contract did not prohibit one faculty member from participating in informal mediation and then serving on the hearing committee and the undisputed facts show “serious cause” sufficient to warrant Collins’s dismissal. View "Collins v. University of Notre Dame Du Lac" on Justia Law

Green Bay police arrested Desotell while investigating a retail theft. He admitted to owning two bags containing methamphetamine and a handgun, which police discovered while searching a vehicle that had been involved in the theft earlier that day. Desotell was not a suspect in the theft but was charged with conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, and knowingly using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. Desotell agreed to plead guilty but later moved to suppress the evidence. While the motion was pending, the government indicated that he had to sign the plea agreement by March 9, 2018. Thinking that signing the agreement would mean withdrawing the motion, Desotell delayed. The government prepared for trial. Desotell unsuccessfully moved to enforce the unsigned plea agreement. Desotell then signed a plea agreement and the government withdrew the information. The district court confirmed that the agreement was a general plea, not a conditional plea and contained “no reservations of any right to appeal.” Desotell, through counsel, agreed but emphasized that he did not believe the waiver was effective because, at the time Desotell initially agreed to the wording, he had not contemplated filing his motion to suppress. The district court stated repeatedly that a defendant must expressly reserve his right to appeal. The court accepted the plea and sentenced Desotell to 180 months in prison—the mandatory minimum. The Seventh Circuit dismissed, based on the appeal waiver. View "United States v. Desotell" on Justia Law

Smith pleaded guilty to receipt of child pornography and was sentenced to 90 months of imprisonment and 20 years of supervised release, which began in November 2017. In August 2018, Smith’s probation officer, filed a petition, stating that Smith failed to participate in sex offender treatment, failed to participate in mental health treatment, failed to comply with location monitoring, and failed to make scheduled payments of fines. The advisory Sentencing Guidelines imprisonment range was three-to-nine months with a maximum of two years. The government sought a sentence of one year and one day due to Smith’s dishonesty and refusal to cooperate. The court referenced Smith’s manipulative behavior, lies, and refusal to participate in treatment or follow the court’s orders and discussed the seriousness of the child pornography offense, Smith’s history, the need to protect the public, and the need to promote respect for the law. The court noted that “[t]his is an extraordinary case, extraordinary dissidence, extraordinary deliberate efforts to violate the Court’s order, extraordinary in [Smith’s] effort to avoid treatment.” The court gave Smith a 24‐month sentence, with no supervised release to follow. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court gave a sufficient explanation of the factors it considered in determining the appropriate sentence and the sentence is supported by compelling justifications. Smith was manipulative, dishonest, breached the court's trust, disregarded the rule of law, and proved unwilling to seek the treatment the original sentencing court found necessary. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

In 2004, Conroy was charged with solicitation of murder, solicitation of murder for hire, and attempted first‐degree murder. The court determined that Conroy was fit to stand trial. In 2007, Conroy pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 30 years in prison. He did not appeal. Conroy received mental health services through the Illinois Department of Corrections and, in 2007, was diagnosed with depressive and schizoaffective disorders. In 2008, Conroy’s evaluations indicated that he was “alert and oriented,” and his “[t]hought processes were logical, coherent and goal-directed.” Conroy “denied any auditory [or] visual hallucinations or delusions.” In 2009, Conroy filed an unsuccessful state court post-conviction petition, arguing that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by coercing him into pleading guilty. In 2014, Conroy filed other unsuccessful state court post-conviction motions. In 2016, Conroy filed a federal court petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254, alleging ineffective assistance. Conroy argued that the limitations period for filing his petition should be equitably tolled because his mental limitations prevented him from understanding his legal rights. The district court determined that Conroy’s mental limitations were not an extraordinary circumstance and that he failed to show that he had been reasonably diligent in pursuing his claim. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting evidence of Conroy’s competency in prior years. Conroy did not meet the “high bar” for equitable tolling. View "Conroy v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Vyloha, a Czech citizen, entered the U.S. in 1998 and overstayed his visa. In 2006, after he was convicted of DUI, DHS charged Vyloha with removability, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(B). The notice indicated that the hearing’s time and date were to be determined. Days later, a notice was mailed to Vyloha’s attorney setting the date. On October 13, 2006, Vyloha appeared before and presented a letter from his counsel, requesting rescheduling. Vyloha indicated that he preferred to proceed in English. The IJ personally served Vyloha with notice of his rescheduled hearing in May 2007 and orally warned him about the consequences of failing to appear. Vyloha did not appear at that hearing. The IJ ordered him removed in absentia. Shortly thereafter, police arrested Vyloha for driving with a suspended license. While serving a sentence for that offense, Vyloha learned that there was an ICE detainer on him. ICE did not take him into custody at the conclusion of his sentence, but, in 2017, apprehended Vyloha. He moved to reopen his proceedings and to rescind the in absentia order, claiming he had no notice of the 2007 hearing due to his limited English and exceptional circumstances due to his counsel’s ineffectiveness. The BIA upheld the denial of that motion. Vyloha unsuccessfully sought reconsideration based on the Supreme Court’s 2018 "Pereira" decision, arguing that because his initial Notice lacked the specific date, the immigration courts did not have subject-matter jurisdiction. The Seventh Circuit agreed. Vyloha could have argued that his Notice was statutorily deficient before the Pereira decision, so his challenge is untimely. Given his personally-served notice and appearance at a hearing, Vyloha cannot show prejudice that would excuse his forfeiture. View "Vyloha v. Barr" on Justia Law