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

A tenured professor at the University of Illinois Chicago School of Law, Jason Kilborn, included an expurgated racial slur in a law school exam question. This led to an investigation by university officials, who found that Kilborn had created a racially hostile environment and violated the university's nondiscrimination policy. Consequently, Kilborn was suspended from teaching until he completed a diversity training program and was denied a two percent raise. Kilborn sued several university officials, alleging violations of his constitutional rights to free speech and due process.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed Kilborn's federal claims with prejudice, finding that his speech was not constitutionally protected. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice. Kilborn appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the dismissal of Kilborn's First Amendment retaliation claim, concluding that his speech was constitutionally protected under the Supreme Court's decisions in Connick v. Myers and Pickering v. Board of Education. The court found that Kilborn's speech addressed matters of public concern and that the university's actions could be seen as pretextual. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Kilborn's remaining federal claims, including his compelled speech and procedural due process claims. The court also vacated the dismissal of Kilborn's state law claims for further consideration by the district court. View "Kilborn v. Amiridis" on Justia Law

Eural Black, the defendant, sought a sentence reduction under the compassionate release statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), citing the First Step Act's anti-stacking amendment. Black was serving a 40-year sentence, 30 years of which were due to stacked § 924(c) convictions. The First Step Act, passed in 2018, restricted the stacking of sentences under § 924(c), but Congress made this amendment nonretroactive. In 2024, the United States Sentencing Commission amended a policy statement to allow prisoners serving unusually long sentences to seek reductions due to changes in the law.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Black's motion, relying on the Seventh Circuit's decision in United States v. Thacker, which held that the First Step Act's anti-stacking amendment is not an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release. Black appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court reaffirmed its holding in Thacker, stating that the anti-stacking amendment cannot be considered an extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction, even when combined with other factors. The court found that the Sentencing Commission's policy statement in § 1B1.13(b)(6), which allowed for such consideration, exceeded its statutory authority and conflicted with the First Step Act. Consequently, the court held that Black was ineligible for a sentence reduction based on the anti-stacking amendment and affirmed the district court's decision. View "USA v Eural Black" on Justia Law

In August 2022, Jamond Rush was charged with possessing an unregistered firearm, specifically an AR-15 rifle with a 7.5-inch barrel, in violation of the National Firearms Act (NFA). Rush moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the statute under which he was charged was unconstitutional based on the Supreme Court's decision in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen. The government opposed, citing the Supreme Court's earlier decision in United States v. Miller, which upheld similar regulations. The district court denied Rush's motion, holding that Bruen did not affect the constitutionality of regulating unregistered short-barreled rifles. Rush entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss, and was sentenced to 30 months in prison.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois reviewed the case and denied Rush's motion to dismiss, leading to his appeal. The court held that Rush's conduct was not protected by the Second Amendment's plain text or historical understanding.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the NFA's requirement to register certain firearms, including short-barreled rifles, is constitutional. The court relied on the precedent set by United States v. Miller, which upheld similar regulations, and found that the NFA's provisions are consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court concluded that the regulation of short-barreled rifles does not violate the Second Amendment, as these weapons are not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes like self-defense. The court affirmed Rush's conviction and the denial of his motion to dismiss. View "United States v. Rush" on Justia Law

Charles Bich and the Bruno Bich Trust made a series of loans to WW3 LLC, owned by Curt Waldvogel, for constructing an oil-processing facility in North Dakota. Waldvogel assured the Bichs that their investment would be secured by real and personal property. However, the project failed, and the Bichs did not recover their investment, leading them to sue for breach of contract.The Eastern District of Wisconsin court found that Waldvogel's promise to secure the loans with property was a "special promise" under Wisconsin law, requiring compliance with the statute of frauds. Since there was no written agreement meeting the statute's requirements, the court ruled the loan agreement unenforceable. The court also determined that the promise would have constituted a mortgage, which also needed to satisfy the statute of frauds. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the breach of contract claim but allowed the unjust enrichment claim to proceed to trial. The jury awarded the Bichs $200,000 for unjust enrichment, and the court held Waldvogel and WW3 jointly and severally liable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that the promise to secure the loans with property was a mortgage under Wisconsin law and required a written agreement to be enforceable. The court found that the emails exchanged between the parties did not constitute a final agreement and did not meet the statute of frauds' requirements. Consequently, the breach of contract claim failed, and the unjust enrichment award remained the only compensation for the Bichs. View "Bich v WW3 LLC" on Justia Law

Edward Gibbs was indicted in August 2018 for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine mixture. He pleaded guilty in November 2020 and was sentenced to 200 months of imprisonment and 5 years of supervised release. Gibbs appealed the sentence, and the case was remanded for resentencing due to a sentencing error. Before resentencing, the United States Probation Office recommended twenty-one conditions of supervised release, including conditions "m" and "r."The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Evansville Division, resentenced Gibbs to 180 months of imprisonment and 5 years of supervised release. During the resentencing hearing, Gibbs confirmed that he had reviewed the proposed conditions of supervision with his attorney and had no objections. He also waived a formal reading of the conditions. The district court entered an amended final judgment on September 1, 2023.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. Gibbs argued for the first time on appeal that two conditions of his supervised release were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The court determined that Gibbs had waived his objections to these conditions by affirmatively stating at the resentencing hearing that he had no objections and by waiving the formal reading of the conditions. The court held that this waiver precluded appellate review of his claims. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "USA v Gibbs" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Thomas Ghelf, Tricia Hansen, Constance and Thomas Klein, Maureen Sommerfeld, and Mississippi Sports and Recreation, Inc. (MSR), own abutting properties in the Town of Wheatland, Vernon County, Wisconsin. They alleged that the Town, its officials, Vernon County, the County Treasurer, and unknown agents and employees engaged in a harassment campaign against them. This included coordinated complaints about their businesses, unlawful arrests, failures to respond to emergency services, excessive property tax assessments, a foreclosure action, and the designation of a private driveway as a public road.The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin dismissed the plaintiffs' tax assessment and road claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, abstained from exercising jurisdiction over the foreclosure claims, and dismissed the remaining claims for failure to state a claim. The court held that the Tax Injunction Act and principles of comity barred the tax assessment and foreclosure claims. It also found that the plaintiffs' claims related to events before September 15, 2016, were time-barred by the statute of limitations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the tax assessment and foreclosure claims, agreeing that the Tax Injunction Act and comity principles deprived the district court of jurisdiction. The appellate court also upheld the dismissal of claims related to events before September 15, 2016, as time-barred. However, the Seventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' road claims, finding that these claims were not barred by claim or issue preclusion. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the road claims, and the court held that Town Chairman Jayne Ballwahn should not be dismissed from the suit at this stage. View "Ghelf v Town of Wheatland" on Justia Law

Brian Gustafson was convicted of wire fraud in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. He was employed as a manager at a Public Storage facility in Deerfield, Illinois, where he facilitated the theft of valuable items from a tenant's storage unit. Gustafson provided a key to John Garcia, who, along with Marilyn Rothschild, sold the stolen items. The stolen goods included antiques and artwork valued at $185,000. Garcia and Rothschild sold these items to buyers, receiving payments in cash and checks, which initiated interstate wire transfers.The district court sentenced Gustafson to twenty-four months in prison, followed by two years of supervised release, and ordered him to pay $330,237 in restitution. Gustafson filed motions for a judgment of acquittal and a new trial, arguing that he did not cause the interstate wire transmissions. The district court denied these motions, concluding that while Gustafson may not have known wire transmissions would occur, their use was reasonably foreseeable given the high value of the stolen items.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. Gustafson challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for his wire fraud conviction, prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments, and the restitution order. The appellate court held that the use of wires was reasonably foreseeable due to the high value and volume of the stolen items and the involvement of geographically distant buyers. The court also found that the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments did not deprive Gustafson of a fair trial and that the restitution order did not violate his Sixth Amendment rights. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "USA v Brian Gustafson" on Justia Law

Ralph Thompson was sentenced to 150 months in prison for distributing heroin, fentanyl, and a fentanyl analogue. The district judge noted Thompson's nine prior felony convictions and lack of reform as justification for the lengthy sentence. Thompson did not dispute the list of convictions during sentencing but later argued on appeal that one of the nine convictions was invalid.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois sentenced Thompson as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines, which requires only two prior felony convictions for drug offenses or violent crimes. Thompson did not contest having enough qualifying convictions without the disputed one. The district judge did not indicate that the difference between eight and nine convictions influenced the sentencing decision. The 150-month sentence was below the guideline range of 188 to 235 months for a career offender with an offense level of 31.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. Thompson argued that his conviction for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon should be considered void based on the Illinois Supreme Court's decision in People v. Aguilar, which invalidated the statute under the Second Amendment. However, the court found that Thompson did not suffer prejudice from the consideration of this conviction, as his sentence would not have been different without it. The court also noted that federal law, as established in Custis v. United States, does not allow a defendant to challenge the validity of a prior conviction during federal sentencing unless it was obtained without counsel. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. View "USA v Thompson" on Justia Law

Kevin Pettis, a convicted felon, was found guilty by a jury of illegally possessing a firearm and was sentenced to 120 months in prison by District Judge Colin S. Bruce. Pettis later discovered that Judge Bruce had engaged in ex parte communications with the U.S. Attorney’s Office while his case was pending. Pettis filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence, arguing that Judge Bruce’s conduct demonstrated bias and that his counsel was ineffective.The case was reassigned to Chief District Judge Sara Darrow, who denied Pettis’s motion. Judge Darrow found that Pettis’s claims were untimely and that he did not present evidence of actual bias or extraordinary circumstances warranting equitable tolling. Pettis appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court first addressed the government’s argument that Pettis’s appeal was moot because he had been released from prison and was serving a new sentence for violating supervised release. The court found that the appeal was not moot because Pettis was still serving a term of supervised release, which is part of his sentence.On the merits, the court held that Pettis failed to demonstrate actual bias or a substantial risk of bias by Judge Bruce that would constitute a due process violation. The court also found that Pettis’s claim under the federal recusal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 455, was untimely and did not warrant equitable tolling. The court concluded that Pettis’s counsel’s mistakes did not constitute extraordinary circumstances justifying equitable tolling.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, denying Pettis’s motion to vacate his sentence. View "Pettis v USA" on Justia Law

Jack William Morgan, a Messianic Jew, purchased a turkey log from the commissary at the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Thomson in May 2021, which led to the suspension of his kosher diet approval for thirty days by the institutional chaplain. Morgan claimed this forced him to choose between starvation and violating his religious beliefs, and he chose starvation. After exhausting administrative remedies, he sued the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and the prison warden, Andrew Ciolli, seeking changes to dietary policies and monetary damages under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Morgan has since been transferred to a different BOP facility.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed Morgan’s complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The court found that Morgan did not provide sufficient factual allegations to show that the BOP’s dietary policies substantially burdened his religious exercise. Additionally, the court noted that the BOP is immune from suits for damages under RFRA and that Morgan’s complaint did not include allegations about Ciolli’s conduct.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and focused on two threshold issues: subject-matter jurisdiction and sovereign immunity. The court determined that Morgan did not adequately allege standing to pursue his claim for injunctive relief, as his threat of future injury was too speculative. Furthermore, the court held that federal sovereign immunity barred Morgan’s claim for monetary damages, as RFRA does not waive the federal government’s sovereign immunity against damages suits. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal but modified the judgment to reflect a jurisdictional dismissal. View "Morgan v BOP" on Justia Law