Justia U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In this case, an individual attended the 2022 Kentucky Derby in Louisville, Kentucky, with a group to engage in expressive activities such as preaching, distributing literature, and displaying signs near the event. The area surrounding Churchill Downs was subject to a special event permit issued by the city government, which allowed Churchill Downs to restrict access to certain public streets and sidewalks to ticket holders and credentialed individuals. The plaintiff and his group entered a fenced-off, restricted area beyond posted “No Trespassing” signs, despite lacking event tickets or credentials. After repeated warnings from private security and law enforcement, the plaintiff was arrested by a Kentucky State Police trooper for criminal trespass.The plaintiff filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his free speech, free exercise, and due process rights, as well as a Monell municipal liability claim against the city government and claims against the arresting officer. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims. It found the free speech restriction content-neutral and justified under intermediate scrutiny, concluded the free exercise claim was not properly developed, determined the permitting scheme was not unconstitutionally vague, dismissed the Monell claim for lack of an underlying constitutional violation, and granted qualified immunity to the arresting officer.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the restricted area was a limited public forum and the ticketing and access restrictions were content-neutral and survived intermediate scrutiny. The court found no evidence of viewpoint discrimination, held that ample alternative channels for communication existed, and determined that the plaintiff failed to preserve his free exercise claim and did not establish a due process violation. The Monell claim failed for lack of a constitutional violation, and qualified immunity was properly granted to the officer. View "Blankenship v. Louisville-Jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov't" on Justia Law

The plaintiff claimed that Michigan had taken custody of between $200 and $600 in unclaimed property belonging to her. She alleged that, under Michigan’s Uniform Unclaimed Property Act, the state would return her property if she requested it but would not pay her any interest earned while the property was in the state’s custody, unless the property was originally interest bearing. Without first submitting a claim to reclaim her property, she brought a suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials responsible for Michigan’s unclaimed property program, arguing that the state’s failure to pay interest amounted to an unconstitutional taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment. She sought declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of herself and a putative class.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed her case, concluding that she lacked Article III standing because Michigan law did not grant her a property right to interest earned on her unclaimed property. The district court reasoned that, without such a property right, she could not demonstrate an injury from the state’s retention of interest.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that the plaintiff had standing, as her complaint alleged a concrete financial injury: the state’s withholding of interest that she claimed was rightfully hers. The court held that the district court improperly conflated the merits of whether she was entitled to interest with the standing inquiry. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal for lack of standing and remanded for further proceedings, emphasizing that the record was insufficient to resolve the merits of the takings claim at this stage. View "Hendershot v. Stanton" on Justia Law

Joseph Hehrer was detained in the Clinton County Jail in Michigan following charges related to operating a vehicle under the influence and a probation violation. While in custody, Hehrer began to exhibit symptoms of illness, including vomiting and abdominal pain. Over four days, jail medical staff evaluated him multiple times but failed to diagnose his underlying diabetes. Despite continued deterioration, corrections officers deferred to the medical professionals’ judgment and followed their instructions. Hehrer’s condition worsened until he was transported to a hospital, where he died from diabetic ketoacidosis.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan reviewed the estate’s claims, which included federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the county and its officers for deliberate indifference to medical needs, as well as a Monell claim for failure to train. The estate also brought state-law claims against the contracted medical provider and its staff. A magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to the county and its officials on the federal claims, finding no deliberate indifference or Monell liability, and advised declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The district court adopted these recommendations and entered final judgment for the defendants.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Sixth Circuit held that the corrections officers acted reasonably by deferring to medical staff and did not act with deliberate indifference under the applicable Fourteenth Amendment standard. The court further held that the estate failed to show a pattern or obvious need for additional training to support Monell liability. Finally, the Sixth Circuit found no abuse of discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims. View "Hehrer v. County of Clinton" on Justia Law

An elected county commissioner was arrested during a public board meeting after she repeatedly interrupted the reading of a letter that criticized her prior statements about alleged inmate mistreatment in the county jail. The commissioner, known for her confrontational stance toward her fellow commissioners and county officials, objected to the letter being read without prior notice and continued to speak over the clerk despite warnings and calls to order from her colleagues. Two sheriff’s deputies present as security arrested her for disrupting a lawful meeting under an Ohio statute. She was processed and released the same day, and the criminal complaint was later dismissed.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted partial summary judgment in favor of the commissioner on her federal claims for First Amendment retaliation and Fourth Amendment unlawful seizure, and denied qualified immunity and statutory immunity to the defendants on these claims and related state-law claims for false arrest and civil conspiracy. The defendants, including the deputies, fellow commissioners, and sheriff, appealed the denial of immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the deputies had probable cause to arrest the commissioner for disrupting the meeting, and thus all defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claim. The court also concluded that only the deputies were personally involved in the arrest for purposes of individual First Amendment liability and that the presence of probable cause generally precluded the First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim, but remanded for the district court to consider whether exceptions to this rule applied. Regarding the state-law claims, the court affirmed the denial of statutory immunity, finding genuine issues of material fact as to whether the defendants acted in bad faith by allegedly conspiring to arrest the commissioner in retaliation for her speech. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Frenchko v. Monroe" on Justia Law

A man seeking treatment for mental health issues voluntarily admitted himself to a hospital in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Medical staff determined he needed emergency medication and began to physically restrain him when he refused a shot. An off-duty police officer, working as a hospital security guard and wearing his police uniform, intervened. He twisted the patient's arm behind his back, and when the patient pulled away to relieve pain, the officer punched the patient’s head into a cinderblock wall, causing head trauma. The patient remained nonviolent throughout and was smaller in stature than those restraining him.Following the incident, the Chattanooga Police Department conducted an internal investigation. Opinions within the review process were divided, but the interim chief ultimately found no policy violation. The patient filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, alleging excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, multiple state-law torts, and municipal liability against the City for failing to train or supervise the officer. The district court granted summary judgment for the officer on all but the assault and battery claim, finding qualified immunity on the excessive force claim, and granted summary judgment for the City on all claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Sixth Circuit held that, although a reasonable juror could find the officer’s use of force excessive under the circumstances, the law was not clearly established that an officer in this situation could not use such force. Therefore, the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. The court also found that the City was not liable under Monell since the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a final policymaker’s actions were the moving force behind his injury. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "Guptill v. City of Chattanooga" on Justia Law

An attorney who chaired the Davidson County Election Commission was also employed at a law firm that represented the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County. The Election Commission became involved in a dispute over whether a citizen-initiated tax-repeal referendum should be placed on the ballot, a measure opposed by the city government and certain city council members. The attorney, acting as commission chair, supported certifying the referendum. Following pressure from city officials, including a council member who threatened to withdraw city business from the law firm if the attorney continued supporting the referendum, the law firm terminated the attorney’s employment after he refused to change his position.The attorney filed suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, asserting violations of his First Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, among other claims. The district court denied motions to dismiss based on qualified immunity filed by both the council member and the law firm. The court concluded that the council member’s alleged conduct violated clearly established First Amendment law and that the law firm, as a private entity, was not entitled to qualified immunity.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit determined that both the council member and the law firm were eligible to assert qualified immunity due to their public functions in this context. The court held that the council member was not entitled to qualified immunity because the complaint plausibly alleged he violated clearly established First Amendment rights by causing the attorney’s firing due to protected speech. However, the court found that the law firm was entitled to qualified immunity, as there was no clearly established law prohibiting a law firm from firing an employee in response to client pressure under these circumstances. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity for the council member, reversed as to the law firm, and remanded for further proceedings. View "DeLanis v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville" on Justia Law

A corrections officer employed by the Michigan Department of Corrections suffered a significant hip injury while performing his duties, which led to extended medical leave and ultimately permanent work restrictions. After exhausting his leave, he was placed in a transitional employment position within the department, but this assignment was temporary and not designed to be indefinite. The employee requested a permanent accommodation due to his ongoing disability, but the department denied the request, citing a lack of suitable vacancies. He then entered a leave status that preserved certain employment benefits but ended his active employment. During this period, he became the subject of workplace misconduct investigations, though the most serious allegations were not substantiated. After recovering from surgery, he sought reinstatement but was denied due to an unresolved disciplinary matter, and later declined offers to return to work.He brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging claims under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for failure to accommodate his disability and for retaliation in response to his accommodation request and related legal actions. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the failure-to-accommodate claim, finding he was not qualified for his original position with or without reasonable accommodation. The retaliation claim was tried before a jury, which found for the defendants.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was asked to determine, among other issues, whether § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act provides a private cause of action for retaliation. The court held that it does not, concluding that neither the text of § 504 nor its cross-reference to the Americans with Disabilities Act unambiguously creates such a cause of action, as required for Spending Clause legislation. The court also affirmed the district court’s summary judgment on the failure-to-accommodate claim, finding no genuine dispute of material fact. The judgment for the defendants was affirmed. View "Smith v. Michigan Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Two Lansing police officers responded to a 911 call reporting a domestic disturbance involving Stephen Romero. Although the initial caller, Stephen’s wife Ashly, stated that Stephen was unarmed and had not threatened her, a second caller reported a shooting, and a third clarified that no one had been shot, though it was unclear if the officers received this update. Upon arrival, the officers encountered Stephen outside a car, with Ashly in the driver’s seat. The officers drew their weapons and ordered Stephen to the ground. Stephen, holding two cell phones, complied by placing them on the ground and raising his hands. After further commands, Stephen got on his knees, raised his shirt to show a holstered gun, and reached for it, prompting the officers to shoot him. While wounded and lying on the ground, Stephen again reached toward his waist and the officers fired a second time. Stephen died at the scene, and the incident was recorded on body cameras.Ashly, as personal representative of Stephen’s estate, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, alleging excessive force under the Fourth Amendment, failure to intervene, and municipal liability for inadequate training under Monell v. Department of Social Services of New York City. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that the officers’ use of deadly force did not violate clearly established rights and dismissing all claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the excessive-force claim, holding that Ashly plausibly alleged a violation of Stephen’s clearly established rights when the officers fired a second round of shots while he was wounded and on the ground, no longer posing an immediate threat. The court affirmed the dismissal of the failure-to-intervene and municipal liability claims, finding insufficient opportunity for intervention and inadequate factual allegations regarding city policy or training. View "Romero v. City of Lansing, Mich." on Justia Law

A resident of University Heights, Ohio, who practices Orthodox Judaism, sought to use his home for group prayer sessions due to religious obligations and restrictions on travel during the Sabbath. After inviting neighbors to participate in these gatherings, a neighbor complained to city officials, prompting the city’s law director to send a cease-and-desist letter, warning that using the home as a place of religious assembly violated local zoning laws. The resident then applied for a special use permit to operate a house of worship but withdrew his application before the city’s Planning Commission could reach a decision, stating he did not wish to operate a house of worship as defined by the ordinance. Despite withdrawing, he later filed a federal lawsuit against the city and several officials, alleging violations of federal and state law, including constitutional and statutory claims.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted summary judgment for the city and its officials. The court found that the plaintiff’s claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and the Ohio Constitution were unripe because there was no final decision by the relevant local authorities regarding the application of the zoning ordinance to his property. The court also rejected his Fourth Amendment and Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act) claims on the merits and declined supplemental jurisdiction over a state public records claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The court held that most of the plaintiff’s claims were unripe because he withdrew his application before any final decision was made by the city’s zoning authorities, and thus there was no concrete dispute for federal review. The court also held that his facial challenges to the ordinance were forfeited and, in any event, failed as a matter of law. The court further concluded that the Fourth Amendment and FACE Act claims failed on the merits and found no abuse of discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim. View "Daniel Grand v. City of University Heights, Ohio" on Justia Law

Donovan Lewis, a twenty-year-old Black man, was fatally shot by a Columbus police officer while in bed at his apartment during an attempted arrest on outstanding warrants. His estate filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Columbus and the police chief, alleging that the city’s police department maintained a policy or custom of racially discriminatory policing and excessive force, which led to Lewis’s death. The complaint sought damages and permanent injunctive relief, including specific reforms to police disciplinary and employment practices that were rooted in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) negotiated by the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), Capitol City Lodge #9.After the estate initiated the suit, FOP moved to intervene as of right or, alternatively, permissively, arguing that the proposed reforms would violate the CBA and impact its legal obligations as the exclusive bargaining representative for Columbus police officers. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denied FOP’s motion without prejudice, finding that FOP had only a limited interest in the remedial phase and that any liability-phase interest was adequately represented by the City. The court invited FOP to renew its motion if the estate prevailed or if settlement discussions occurred.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of intervention. The Sixth Circuit held that FOP satisfied all requirements for intervention as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2): FOP demonstrated a substantial legal interest in the subject matter, impairment of its interests absent intervention, and that the City may not adequately represent those interests. The court concluded that FOP should be allowed to intervene in all phases of the litigation and reversed the district court’s denial of intervention. View "Estate of Lewis v. City of Columbus, Ohio" on Justia Law