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

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

Rodriquez D’Aundre Pam was shot and killed by Evansville police officers responding to a 911 call reporting that a man matching Pam’s description was in a backyard with a handgun, allegedly pointing it at a dog and at the caller. Officers arrived, encountered Pam on the property, and repeatedly ordered him to show his hands and get on the ground. Pam did not comply, appeared to reach for the doorknob, then moved along the house, put his hands in his pockets, and removed them when ordered. As officers continued to issue commands, Pam raised his left hand and kept his right hand at his side. Officers then fired multiple shots, killing him. A handgun was found near Pam’s body. Body camera footage captured the incident, but the video was unclear as to whether Pam was holding a gun at the moment he was shot.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted summary judgment in favor of the officers, finding it undisputed that Pam pointed a gun at them before they fired. Pam’s estate appealed, challenging the grant of summary judgment for Officers Offerman and McQuay.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the estate. The court found that, while the video did not conclusively show Pam pointing a gun, the officers’ belief that Pam was threatening them with a firearm was objectively reasonable given the circumstances, including the 911 report, Pam’s actions, and the recovery of a gun. The Seventh Circuit held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their perception and response did not violate clearly established law. The court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment. View "Pam v. City of Evansville" on Justia Law

Devin Seats was convicted in Illinois state court in 2012 of three felonies related to a shooting, including aggravated battery with a firearm, armed habitual criminal, and aggravated discharge of a firearm. His pre-sentence investigation report listed six prior felonies, three of which were for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon. The sentencing judge referenced Seats’s “considerable criminal background” but did not specifically mention the vacated convictions. Seats was sentenced to concurrent prison terms.After his conviction was affirmed by the Illinois Appellate Court and the Illinois Supreme Court denied review, Illinois law changed. The Illinois Supreme Court held that certain subsections of the aggravated unlawful use of a weapon statute were unconstitutional, which affected two of Seats’s prior convictions. Seats sought post-conviction relief, arguing that his sentence was based on inaccurate information due to the inclusion of these now-invalid convictions. The Illinois Appellate Court vacated his armed habitual criminal conviction but declined to order resentencing, finding that the vacated convictions did not result in a greater sentence. The Illinois Supreme Court denied further review.Seats then filed a federal habeas petition in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, arguing that his sentence was based on inaccurate information and that the statute of limitations should run from the date his prior convictions were vacated. The district court dismissed the petition as untimely, calculating the limitations period from the date his conviction became final. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that Seats forfeited his argument for a later limitations period by not raising it in the district court and that the circumstances did not warrant plain error review. The court also found that the Illinois Appellate Court reasonably determined the sentencing judge did not rely on the vacated convictions. View "Seats v Nurse" on Justia Law

Otis Elion pleaded guilty to distributing methamphetamine in federal court in 2017. His sentence was enhanced under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines as a “career offender” based on three prior convictions, including two Illinois state convictions for delivery of a look-alike substance. The enhancement depended on whether those state convictions qualified as “controlled substance offenses” under the Guidelines, which required a categorical approach comparing the elements of the state statutes to the federal definition.After sentencing, Elion filed a federal habeas petition in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, arguing that his attorney was ineffective for failing to object to the career offender enhancement. The district court initially denied relief. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (in Elion I) found Elion was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to object and remanded for the district court to determine whether counsel’s performance was deficient under Strickland v. Washington.On remand, the district court held an evidentiary hearing and found that Elion’s attorney had identified the correct legal issues, researched the relevant law, and reasonably applied the categorical approach, even though she ultimately reached an incorrect legal conclusion. The district court concluded her performance was not deficient.Reviewing the case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Seventh Circuit held that an attorney’s reasonable but mistaken legal conclusion does not automatically constitute deficient performance under Strickland. The court found that, at the time of sentencing, existing caselaw did not sufficiently foreshadow the argument that ultimately succeeded, and that counsel’s overall performance met prevailing professional norms. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Elion v USA" on Justia Law

The case concerns a man who, in 2005, forcibly entered his estranged wife’s home, threatened her with a knife, and sexually assaulted her. He was convicted by a jury in Allen County, Indiana, of rape, burglary, and related offenses, and sentenced to 70 years in prison. The evidence at trial included testimony from the victim, their daughter, and other witnesses, as well as the defendant’s own statements to police. The defendant had a history of domestic abuse and was subject to a protective order at the time of the offenses.After his conviction, the defendant appealed, but the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Indiana Supreme Court denied review. He then filed a state postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, specifically that his trial attorney failed to pursue plea negotiations and made poor decisions regarding witness strategy. For over a decade, his postconviction attorneys took no substantive action to develop the record. When he proceeded pro se, the state court required him to submit affidavits, but he was unable to obtain one from his trial counsel. The state trial court denied relief, finding insufficient evidence that plea negotiations would have changed the outcome, and the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, focusing on the lack of corroborating evidence for his claims. The Indiana Supreme Court again denied review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case after the district court denied federal habeas relief and an evidentiary hearing. The Seventh Circuit held that, under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, the failure of postconviction counsel to develop the record is attributed to the petitioner, and the statutory exceptions for evidentiary hearings did not apply. The court also found that the state appellate court’s decision was not unreasonable under federal law. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of habeas relief. View "Ford v Reagle" on Justia Law

John Seiwert, who had a long history of daily heroin and crack cocaine use, was found in possession of firearms at his home in Illinois shortly after his father’s death. Law enforcement, investigating Seiwert’s drug dealer, observed frequent contact between the two and recovered firearms and drug paraphernalia from Seiwert’s residence. Seiwert admitted to using crack cocaine just hours before police arrived and to being a daily user for twenty years. He was charged with two counts of possessing a firearm as an unlawful user of, or addict to, a controlled substance under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3).The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied Seiwert’s pretrial motions to dismiss the indictment, which argued that § 922(g)(3) was unconstitutionally vague and violated the Second Amendment, both before and after the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen. At trial, the government presented evidence of Seiwert’s drug use and firearm possession, and the jury convicted him on both counts. The district court denied Seiwert’s post-trial motions and sentenced him to concurrent terms of imprisonment and supervised release.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed Seiwert’s arguments that § 922(g)(3) violated the Second Amendment, was unconstitutionally vague, and that the evidence was insufficient. The court held that, under the Bruen framework, § 922(g)(3) does not violate the Second Amendment as applied to Seiwert, finding it analogous to historical laws disarming the intoxicated and mentally ill. The court also found that its prior decision in United States v. Cook foreclosed Seiwert’s vagueness challenge, and that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the conviction. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "USA v Seiwert" on Justia Law

A pharmaceutical company participated in a federal program that required it to report the average price it received for drugs sold to wholesalers, which in turn affected the rebates it owed the government under Medicaid. From 2005 to 2017, the company sold drugs to wholesalers at an initial price, but if it raised the price before the wholesaler resold the drugs to pharmacies, it required the wholesaler to pay the difference. The company reported only the initial price as the average manufacturer price (AMP), excluding the subsequent price increases, which resulted in lower reported AMPs and thus lower rebate payments to the government. The company justified this exclusion by categorizing the price increases as part of a bona fide service fee to wholesalers, even though the increased value was ultimately paid by pharmacies.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois reviewed the case after a qui tam action was filed by a relator, who alleged that the company’s AMP calculations were false and violated the False Claims Act (FCA). The district court granted summary judgment to the relator on the issue of falsity, finding the AMP calculations and related certifications were factually and legally false. The issues of scienter (knowledge) and materiality were tried before a jury, which found in favor of the relator and awarded substantial damages. The company appealed, challenging the findings on falsity, scienter, and materiality, while the relator cross-appealed on the calculation of the number of FCA violations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the company’s exclusion of price increase values from AMP was unreasonable and contradicted the plain language and purpose of the relevant statutes, regulations, and agreements. The court also held that the jury reasonably found the company acted knowingly and that the false AMPs were material to the government’s payment decisions. The court rejected the cross-appeal on damages, finding the issue was not properly preserved for appeal. View "Streck v Eli Lilly and Company" on Justia Law