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

Adams Outdoor Advertising owns billboards throughout Wisconsin, including 90 in Madison. Madison’s sign-control ordinance comprehensively regulates “advertising signs,” to promote traffic safety and aesthetics. The ordinance defines an “advertising sign” as any sign advertising or directing attention to a business, service, or product offered offsite. In 1989, Madison banned the construction of new advertising signs. Existing billboards were allowed to remain but cannot be modified or reconstructed without a permit and are subject to size, height, setback, and other restrictions. In 2009, Madison prohibited digital displays; in 2017, the definition of “advertising sign” was amended to remove prior references to noncommercial speech. As amended, the term “advertising sign” is limited to off-premises signs bearing commercial messages.Following the Supreme Court’s 2015 “Reed” decision, Adams argued that any ordinance treating off-premises signs less favorably than other signs is a content-based restriction on speech and thus is unconstitutional unless it passes the high bar of strict scrutiny. The judge applied intermediate scrutiny and rejected the First Amendment challenge. The Supreme Court subsequently clarified that nothing in Reed altered its earlier precedents applying intermediate scrutiny to billboard ordinances and upholding on-/off-premises sign distinctions as ordinary content-neutral “time, place, or manner” speech restrictions. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit. View "Adams Outdoor Advertising Limited Partnership v. City of Madison, Wisconsin" on Justia Law

In 2013. Yankey pleaded guilty to conspiring to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine. 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), 846. The court sentenced Yankey to 115 months in prison followed by 48 months of supervised release. His prison term was 36 months below the bottom of the advisory guideline range. In 2020, Yankey began his term of supervised release. The probation office’s summary indicates that Yankey associated with people engaged in criminal activity and had a certain person at his home who his probation officer had specifically and repeatedly warned could not be there. During a 2022 probation visit, drugs and paraphernalia were found in Yankey’s home. Yankey admitted that in March 2022, he had used methamphetamine and cocaine.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the revocation of Yankey’s supervised release and his sentence of 24 months in prison followed by 24 more months of supervision. The judge’s questions and comments indicate that he considered mitigation arguments about Yankey’s family support, employment history, and efforts toward sobriety. The judge considered the sentencing factors: the nature and circumstances of the offense, the characteristics of the defendant, and the need for treatment. The court’s decision that the prior below-guideline sentence justified a revocation sentence at the top of—but still within—the guideline range was not plainly unreasonable. View "United States v. Yankey" on Justia Law

Braun suffered a seizure and crashed into a telephone pole while driving. Palatine Officer Licari and other officers responded. Braun could not remember what happened. Licari suspected that Braun was intoxicated. The crash occurred late at night. Braun had slurred speech, bloodshot and glassy eyes, and difficulty balancing; he stated that he lived in “Chicago-Miami” and that he had consumed a beer earlier. After observing Braun struggle with field sobriety tests, Licari arrested him. Though an ambulance had been dispatched to the scene, Braun said he was fine and declined medical assistance. At the police station, Licari administered a Breathalyzer test. Braun passed but, based on other indicators of intoxication, Licari took him to a hospital to collect blood and urine samples for more sensitive testing. When the booking process was completed, Braun was released. He suffered another seizure while at the station.Braun sued Licari and the village under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging false arrest and failure to provide medical care. The district judge dismissed a “Monell” claim about widespread police misconduct and later entered granted the defendants summary judgment on the other claims. The court found that Licari had probable cause to arrest Braun for DUI; Licari's failure to provide medical care was not objectively unreasonable. The medical-care claim against the village failed for lack of evidence. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Licari neither knew nor had reason to know of Braun’s initial seizure or other medical needs. View "Braun v. Village of Palatine" on Justia Law

Stapleton lured women into prostitution and exploited them using threats, force, and other forms of coercion. An anonymous tip led to his arrest. Indicted for sex-trafficking crimes, Stapleton claimed that the police had fabricated the anonymous tip and tampered with his cellphone. The court appointed a succession of defense attorneys, but Stapleton constantly disagreed with them regarding his police-misconduct claims. The judge denied his motion to suppress the evidence derived from the anonymous tip. Stapleton then insisted on representing himself. After making the inquiries required by Supreme Court precedent, the judge granted Stapleton’s motion and appointed a standby attorney. Before trial, Stapleton unsuccessfully moved for a court-funded expert to investigate his phone-tampering claim. Before opening statements, Stapleton announced that he would conditionally plead guilty, reserving the right to challenge the suppression ruling. The judge conducted a colloquy and accepted Stapleton’s pleas. Before sentencing, Stapleton unsuccessfully moved to withdraw his pleas. The judge sentenced him to life in prison.Stapleton did not appeal the suppression ruling but argued that his guilty pleas were invalid because he did not have counsel and was confused about his appellate rights and challenged the denial of his motion for a court-funded expert. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Stapleton validly waived his right to counsel after two thorough colloquies; his guilty pleas were also knowing and voluntary. The judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Stapleton’s request for a court-funded cellphone expert. View "United States v. Stapleton" on Justia Law

Balentine, who lived in Kokomo, pooled money from co-conspirators to buy illegal drugs from Riley in Georgia. The two arranged for couriers. Balentine stored the drugs in the homes of his associates, then distributed the drugs to O’Bannon, Jones, Myers, Reed, Owens, Jones, and Abbott. After two years of investigation, officers intercepted a courier and seized methamphetamine and cocaine she was transporting. Myers’s girlfriend drove to Georgia to pick up another shipment; she was also intercepted. To protect the operation, Riley and Balentine plotted to kill a suspected confidential informant. Officers stopped O’Bannon as he drove with the hitmen to the target’s home. Officers found several firearms in the hitmen’s hotel room. With a warrant, a DEA agent searched the conspirators’ residences, finding guns and drugs.Fourteen people were charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and individual counts related to drugs, firearms, murder for hire, and money. laundering. Nine defendants pleaded guilty. The others were convicted on most charges. Ten defendants appealed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, only vacating Jones’s sentence–the court erred in applying a firearm enhancement. The wiretap and search warrant affidavits were sufficient. The district court properly rejected a Batson challenge, focusing on the credibility of the government’s explanations for its strikes. The court upheld the admission of a DEA special agent’s “dual-role” testimony; a related jury instruction was “confusing” but did not merit reversal. Sufficient evidence supported all of the convictions. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

The employers agreed that for the duration of two collective bargaining agreements (CBAs), they would make pension contributions on behalf of covered employees to the Pension Fund. Both CBAs contained “evergreen clauses” that extended them a year at a time until either party provided timely written notice expressing an “intention to terminate.” Both were to expire in January 2019. After the window for timely notice of intention to terminate on that date, the employers and the union signed new CBAs requiring pension contributions to a different fund beginning in February 2019. The employers notified the Fund that they were ceasing contributions, relying on letters the union sent in November 2018.The Seventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of the Fund’s lawsuit. Those letters did not express the union’s intent to terminate the existing CBAs, so as to satisfy the evergreen clause's termination procedure. The letters did not mention termination. They noted the date that the CBAs would expire and expressed a desire to meet to negotiate new agreements; neither of these points communicated an intent to terminate the existing agreements. In the context of an evergreen clause, expiration and termination are distinct concepts. A desire to negotiate a new contract is quite consistent with a desire to leave the existing agreement in place until a new deal is reached. The old agreements renewed under the evergreen clauses; the employers remained obligated to contribute to the Fund for one more year. View "Central States Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Zenith Logistics, Inc." on Justia Law

Aguas received a tenant complaint about a marijuana odor and suspicious drug activity at Apartment 103. He called the police and stated that, on three occasions, he had smelled marijuana when passing by Apartment 103 and in the empty unit directly above it. When Aguas knocked on the door, Turner, opened the door. Investigator Quinley and Aguas swore to these facts in an affidavit. Warrants were issued. The first authorized a canine sniff outside Apartment 103. The second authorized a search of the apartment conditioned on a positive canine alert. A police dog alerted to the presence of drugs. The officers entered the apartment and found firearms, marijuana, heroin, and a scale with heroin residue.Turner was charged with possession of a firearm as a convicted felon, possession of heroin with intent to distribute, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense Turner unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the officers lacked probable cause for the search. Turner stated he did not want to accept the government’s plea agreement. Turner’s counsel confirmed Turner wanted “an open plea.” The Seventh Circuit affirmed the convictions. Turner entered an unconditional plea in open court and waived any objection to the suppression ruling. The court remanded for resentencing, the district court improperly relied on prior state convictions to enhance his statutory maximum sentence. Illinois defines cocaine in a matter “categorically broader than the federal definition.” View "United States v. Turner" on Justia Law

Jerry robbed a cellphone store at gunpoint, The store determined that Jerry had taken 45 phones and watches, valued at $31,599.86. Jerry pleaded guilty to obstruction of commerce by robbery (Hobbs Act robbery), 18 U.S.C. 1951, brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a robbery, section 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), and possession of a firearm by a felon. Sections 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). The district court sentenced Jerry to 264 months as a career offender.The Seventh Circuit remanded for resentencing based on its 2021 “Bridge” holding that Hobbs Act robbery is not categorically a “crime of violence.” On remand, the district court resentenced Jerry to 171 months’ imprisonment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the district court committed procedural error and that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. A court does not commit procedural error simply by listening to purportedly incorrect arguments, nor did the court err in its calculation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines range. The district court’s remarks about the sentencing range were a “personal belief” that cannot reasonably be understood to indicate a personal grudge against Jerry. The court adequately explained that because the Guidelines range did not account for Jerry’s violent conduct and the impact on his victims, a sentence 16-27 percent above that range was appropriate. View "United States v. Jerry" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, firefighters and their union, alleged retaliation for protected First Amendment activity. Mayor Copeland, a former firefighter of 26 years, had implemented cost-cutting measures, including freezing the firefighters' salaries and benefits. During Copeland’s reelection campaign, the firefighter’s political action committee endorsed Copeland’s opponent and other candidates who opposed Copeland’s policies. Copeland was reelected. Several firefighters protested at Copeland’s inauguration. Copeland vetoed an ordinance to restore some of the benefits and directed Fire Chief Serna to develop a new schedule. An 8/24 schedule, whereby a firefighter would work eight hours and then be off 24 hours was proposed. No other fire department in the country has adopted that schedule, which assigns firefighters to different shifts every day. In a secretly-recorded conversation, Serna said: “You can call it retaliation.” The defendants proposed to give up the schedule in exchange for the Union giving up its right to lobby the Common Council. The Union rejected the proposal; the city implemented the 8/24 schedule. The Council later returned the firefighters’ to a 24/48 schedule. Copeland sued the Council, alleging that the ordinance violated his executive power. The state court agreed with Copeland and struck the ordinance—leaving the 8/24 schedule in effect.The Seventh Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction, ordering the city to immediately begin reinstating the old work schedule. There was no evidence that the 8/24 schedule would result in cost savings; the firefighters would suffer irreparable harm without an injunction. View "International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 365 v. City of East Chicago, Indiana" on Justia Law

HyreCar is an intermediary between people who own vehicles and people who would like to drive for services such as Uber and GrubHub. Before leasing a car, HyreCar sends an applicant’s information, including a photograph, to Mitek, which provides identity-verification services. Johnson, a HyreCar driver, brought a putative class action, alleging Mitek used that information without the consent required by the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act. Mitek asked the district court to send the case to arbitration, citing an Arbitration Agreement in Johnson’s contract with HyreCar, applicable to drivers, HyreCar, and “any subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, employees, predecessors in interest, successors, and assigns, as well as all authorized or unauthorized users or beneficiaries of services or goods provided under the Agreement.The district court concluded that suppliers such as Mitek were not covered. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting Mitek’s claim that it is a “beneficiary of services or goods provided under the Agreement.” The “services or goods provided under the Agreement” are vehicles. Mitek cannot be classified as a “user” of HyreCar’s services or goods. Mitek has its own contract with HyreCar, but does not have a contract with any HyreCar driver. The Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 2 does not change the result. The court noted that claims under the Illinois Act cannot be litigated in federal court unless the plaintiff can show concrete harm. Johnson seeks only statutory damages. Johnson’s claim must be remanded to state court. View "Johnson v. Mitek Systems, Inc." on Justia Law