Check out the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature written by members of the Institute for Justice.
New cert petition filed by IJ! The Ninth Circuit recently granted qualified immunity to a California officer who disclosed a confidential domestic violence complaint, leading to a brutal attack. IJ has asked the Supreme Court to address this decision, which conflicts with precedent on official deliberation.
Is school choice racist? IJ Senior Attorney Michael Bindas sets the record straight in the Syracuse Law Review. Listen to IJ’s Anthony Sanders discuss Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. on the Advisory Opinions podcast.
Stay granted.
Is the Rio Grande “navigable”? The en banc Fifth Circuit is divided on this issue in relation to a 1,000 foot stretch where tethered buoys were installed by Texas’ governor. The majority overturns a preliminary injunction, but the full trial is still pending. A concurring judge suggests that if the governor perceives an invasion similar to 19th century cattle rustlers, courts should defer. Dissents argue for consideration of Gibbons v. Ogden.
In New Orleans, a crime lab employee raises concerns about the reliability of a drug test. The response from superiors is to subject lab employees to the same test, leading the employee to request leave. When his supervisor visits his home with armed officers for a wellness check, they forcibly enter and take him to police headquarters. The employee sues, alleging Fourth Amendment violations. Fifth Circuit rules that the supervisor is not entitled to qualified immunity, but the two officers are protected under the Nuremberg defense.
A timeline unfolds involving a Brentwood, Tenn. police detective obtaining a search warrant for a lawyer’s private Facebook records in 2018. When the lawyer learns of the search in 2020, she brings a First Amendment retaliation suit in 2022. The Sixth Circuit determines the lawsuit is time-barred under the one-year statute of limitations, citing the lawyer’s knowledge of the search details in 2018. Various concurrences express differing views on the discovery rule and timeliness of the claim.
An Ohio school district’s policy prohibiting students from using another’s non-preferred pronouns leads to a First Amendment challenge by parents. The Sixth Circuit upholds the policy, suggesting alternatives such as using names or not speaking to avoid pronouns. Dissent argues that the policy compels students to speak against their beliefs and should be halted.
In Saginaw, Mich., two wrongfully accused individuals pursue claims of evidence fabrication and malicious prosecution against a police sergeant. The Sixth Circuit allows their claims to proceed after over five years of incarceration.
A Hamilton County, Ohio judge faces indictments and lawsuits related to backdating documents and arrests made during her trial. The Sixth Circuit reverses a jury verdict, denying claims of retaliation and failure to train employees.
After a hammer attack in Portage County, Ohio, a woman identifies a suspect months later following suggestive police procedures. The Sixth Circuit grants habeas relief due to the impermissible suggestive nature of the identification.
The Seventh Circuit affirms sanctions against an attorney for unreasonable conduct during a deposition.
The Seventh Circuit en banc clarifies the confusion surrounding the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, calling for action from the Supreme Court to address the issue.
The Eighth Circuit emphasizes the importance of petitioning the government as a core component of the First Amendment, highlighting the role of lobbying in the democratic process.
- Missouri’s two-year prohibition on former state legislators and staff working as lobbyists is deemed unconstitutional by the strict scrutiny standard.
- A pretrial detainee at White County, Ark. jail successfully sues officers for ignoring his serious medical needs caused by a spider bite infection.
- Las Vegas police officers face legal consequences for the death of a mentally ill man during an unnecessary restraint.
- A Georgia political candidate’s actions raise questions of racial discrimination in the firing of a city manager.
- The Eleventh Circuit rules against Roy Moore in a defamation case related to accusations of pedophilia.
- The Eleventh Circuit delves into class-certification standards in a case with lurid details.
- Google search warrant case results in lack of standing for the defendant.
- Georgia prison officers are granted qualified immunity in a strip-search case despite violating constitutional rights.
- The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars a case involving allegations of judicial impropriety.
- The Michigan Supreme Court rules against car forfeiture based on insufficient evidence.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court declares an unconstitutional taking in a case involving a botched sewer line installation.
New case! In 2009, officials tried to install a new sewer line on Melisa and Michael Robinson’s property, a small mobile home community they own and operate in Okay, Oklahoma. But they made a hash of it! They didn’t grade the pipes properly, and sewage backed up into the homes. They hit an underground power line, killing the power and blowing out tenants’ refrigerators and air conditioners. Moreover, officials never bothered to obtain the necessary easement or even notify the Robinsons before they started digging. All of which, after 13 years of litigation, led to the Oklahoma Supreme Court (and a jury) declaring the whole thing to be an unconstitutional taking. The Robinsons are now owed over $200k, but—and here’s where IJ comes in—the town says it does not have to pay and that court-ordered judgments are merely unenforceable IOUs. Fiddlesticks! The Fifth Amendment is made of sterner stuff, and the gov’t must pay for what it takes. Click here to learn more.
Could you please rephrase that?
Source link
