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

Officers Simpson and Patrick drove to Perez’s house to execute seven felony arrest warrants. Simpson approached Perez behind the house. After a brief exchange, Perez bolted. Perez wove her way through the neighborhood—including across a two-way street—in a chase the length of two football fields. Patrick ordered her to stop. Perez did not comply. Patrick fired his taser but missed. Perez kept fleeing, heading toward another two-lane street, intending to cross. A row of moving cars stood in her way, so she stopped. Perez alleges she raised her hands and stood still, expecting to be handcuffed. Patrick claims she did not raise her hands and instead took off running. Patrick made the split-second decision to fire his taser again. It connected. Perez fell forward and hit her chin on the ground, fracturing her jaw. She later pled guilty to evading police and resisting arrest.Perez filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging excessive force. The district court denied Patrick’s request for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The Sixth Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to review the denial of summary judgment, 28 U.S.C. 1291, where the decision depended on issues of fact. View "Perez v. Simpson" on Justia Law

Alyssa was visiting her friend when Lundy, intoxicated forced his way into the house. A neighbor called 911 after hearing “a woman crying” and someone “being thrown around.” Lundy left before officers arrived. The women stated that Lundy left in a red Pontiac. Officers, looking for Lundy, received another call. Lundy had returned with a gun. Officer Martin returned to the house in about two minutes, activated his bodycam, and recorded the women saying that Lundy pointed the gun at them, loaded it, and threatened to kill them in front of Alyssa and Lundy’s young children. Officer Brown found Lundy near the house and looked through the window of the red Pontiac. A loaded pistol sat on the passenger’s seat. During booking, Lundy stated that he’d take the gun charge because “it’s mine.”Lundy was convicted of possessing a firearm as a felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). The prosecution introduced Martin’s bodycam footage and Martin’s testimony about that conversation. Lundy argued that because Alyssa did not testify, her out-of-court statement was barred. The Sixth Circuit upheld the admission of that evidence. The excited-utterance exception applied because there was an event startling enough to cause nervous excitement, the statement was made before there was time to contrive or misrepresent, and the statement was made while Alyssa was under the stress of the excitement caused by the event. The statement was nontestimonial, and the Confrontation Clause does not apply. View "United States v. Lundy" on Justia Law

Michigan’s Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (UUPA) allows the state to take custody—not ownership—of unclaimed property “in trust for the benefit of the rightful owner” After publishing required notices, the state sells or liquidates the unclaimed property within three years of receiving it, unless the owner brings a valid claim, then deposits the proceeds into its general fund, subtracting reasonable administration costs; the owner can no longer reclaim his property, but can still recover the “net proceeds” from its sale. UUPA apermits owners to recover the interest earned on their property and post-liquidation interest if the property accrued interest before the state took custody of it.Two companies delivered O’Connor’s properties—checks collectively worth no more than $350— to the state after he failed to claim them. The state liquidated them. O’Connor filed a claim for compensation. Michigan reimbursed O’Connor for the value of his property, but not any post-liquidation interest. O’Connor alleges that neither the state nor the third-party holders provided him with the statutorily required notices. O’Connor sued Michigan under the Fifth Amendment; Michigan’s Treasurer, and the Administrative Manager of the Unclaimed Property Program, under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Sixth Circuit held that the officials are entitled to qualified immunity on O’Connor’s taking claims but not his due process claims. The district court correctly dismissed O’Connor’s claims against the state but should not have dismissed them with prejudice. View "O'Connor v. Eubanks" on Justia Law

Since 1979, Tennessee has made it a crime for anyone other than election officials to distribute the state’s official form for applying to vote absentee. During much of this time, Tennessee kept close guard of this form to deter fraud. Election officials now make the form widely available online so that eligible voters may easily apply. According to the Plaintiffs, this change has rendered the ban on distributing the application form “outdated.” They want to distribute the form while encouraging absentee voting at their get-out-the-vote drives. They allege that the First Amendment gives them the right to do so and that, because they seek to distribute the form while expressing a political message, the ban is subject to strict scrutiny.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit. Tennessee’s ban prohibits an act--distributing a government form--that qualifies as conduct, not speech. While the First Amendment provides some protection to “expressive conduct,” strict scrutiny does not apply to Tennessee’s ban because it neutrally applies no matter the message that a person seeks to convey and because it burdens nobody’s ability to engage in actual speech. At most, the Supreme Court’s lenient First Amendment test for neutral laws that regulate conduct applies and the ban survives that nondemanding test, View "Lichtenstein v. Hargett" on Justia Law

Carafem provides abortion care, birth control, and STD testing in several states. One clinic was in a medical office building in a Nashville suburb. Carafem filed suit under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, 18 U.S.C. 248, alleging that on July 26, 2022, the OSA defendants refused to move from the building's front doors and blocked the entrance for several minutes before police ordered them to move to the sidewalk. The defendants allegedly stated that they would return each day and ‘escalate’ activities. During an alleged incident on July 28, approximately 60 people associated with OSA attempted to enter Carafem’s clinic by pretending to seek services. After being denied entry, one stated that “either they [are] gonna let us in or we take this whole building down.”The district court granted a temporary restraining order and, later, a preliminary injunction under the Act. The defendants filed an interlocutory appeal and later moved the court to take judicial notice of Carafem’s announcement that it was pausing in-person services at the clinic due to Tennessee’s new abortion ban. The Sixth Circuit dismissed and remanded, The issue of whether the court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction has been overtaken by a dispute over whether intervening events warranted modifying or dissolving that injunction, raising new factual and legal issues that the district court is best positioned to resolve. View "FemHealth USA, Inc. v. Williams" on Justia Law

In 2018, the Plaintiffs each purchased real estate in Cleveland, planning to rehabilitate and redevelop the properties. Before those purchases, Cleveland declared the buildings on the properties public nuisances, condemned them, and ordered that they be demolished. Following the purchases, and after the Plaintiffs invested time and resources into renovating the buildings, Cleveland authorized private contractors to demolish them. After the demolition of the buildings, the Plaintiffs sued, arguing that the demolitions violated state laws and federal constitutional provisions. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment on the constitutional claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Each Plaintiff received “notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” After their purchases, Cleveland sent “new owner letters” via certified mail both to the property address and to each Plaintiff's statutory agent, including both the notice of condemnation and demolition order. Neither Plaintiff applied for required rehabilitation permits. View "First Floor Living LLC v. City of Cleveland, Ohio" on Justia Law

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Twitter broadened its definition of censorable, harmful information to include “content that goes directly against guidance from authoritative sources of global and local public health information.” Twitter began permanently suspending any user who received five or more infractions for violating its COVID-19 policy. The plaintiffs,Twitter users who used their accounts to question responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, suffered multiple temporary suspensions. They claim the Biden administration became involved, announcing that “[t]he President’s view is that the major [social-media] platforms have a responsibility ... to stop amplifying untrustworthy content, disinformation, and misinformation, especially related to COVID-19 vaccinations.” Later, the Surgeon General released an advisory statement related to COVID-19 misinformation and (according to Plaintiffs) “command[ed] technology platforms” to take several steps. President Biden stated that social media platforms are “killing people” with COVID-19 misinformation. Days later, USA Today reported that the “[t]he White House is assessing whether social media platforms are legally liable for misinformation.”Plaintiffs sued the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), asserting claims under the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and Administrative Procedure Act, citing HHS’s unlawful efforts to “instrumentalize[] Twitter” to “silenc[e] opinions that diverge from the White House’s messaging on COVID-19.” The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. The plaintiffs have not adequately pleaded that HHS compelled Twitter’s chosen course of conduct, leaving a “highly attenuated chain of possibilities” that is too speculative to establish a traceable harm View "Changizi v. Department of Health and Human Services" on Justia Law

Fillmore County Park in Genoa Charter Township, Michigan, includes a 15-station “Leopold the Lion Reading Trail” with large signs, telling the story. On a wooded 40-acre property a few miles away, Catholic Healthcare created a prayer trail with 14 “Stations of the Cross.” None of the improvements were visible from outside the property. The Township treated the prayer trail as a church building, for which a “special land use” permit was required. At considerable expense, Catholic Healthcare submitted two unsuccessful applications. The Township demanded the removal of the Stations of the Cross, plus a stone altar and mural.Catholic Healthcare sought a preliminary injunction to restore the Stations of the Cross, altar, and mural. The district court twice denied that request, holding that its free-exercise and statutory claims are unripe. The Sixth Circuit reversed. In land-use cases, claims are ripe when the government has adopted a “definitive position” as to “how the regulations at issue apply to the particular land in question.” Here, the Township has uniformly insisted that Catholic Healthcare obtain a special land-use permit and has twice refused to grant a permit. Those events have “inflicted an actual, concrete injury” because the Township has actually forced them to remove the religious displays. Catholic Healthcare is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim under 42 U.S.C. 2000cc(a)(1), the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. View "Catholic Healthcare International Inc. v. Genoa Charter Township, Michigan" on Justia Law

In 1999, the plaintiffs sought to develop condominiums but needed rezoning approval from the Charter Township of Clinton. After a protracted dispute, the plaintiffs sued the Township in Michigan state court. That court entered a consent judgment that dictated the conditions for rezoning the property and completing the project. Years later, after experiencing several setbacks, the plaintiffs sought to amend the consent judgment, but the Township refused.The plaintiffs then filed suit in federal court, alleging several constitutional violations and a breach-of-contract claim. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit. The consent judgment contains a “retaining-jurisdiction” provision providing Macomb County Circuit Court jurisdiction over its interpretation and enforcement. A separate lawsuit filed in federal district court would constitute a collateral attack on the consent judgment, requiring the district court in some way to interpret or enforce it. All of plaintiffs’ alleged constitutional violations stem from the Township’s alleged refusal to “honor its obligations under the Consent Judgment to allow plaintiffs to develop the Subject Property.” View "Republic Building Co., Inc. v. Charter Township of Clinton, Michigan" on Justia Law

Freed fell behind approximately $1,100 on his property taxes. Thomas, Gratiot County’s treasurer, foreclosed on Freed’s property and sold it at a public auction for $42,000. The County retained the entire proceeds. Freed sued the County and Thomas under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and an unconstitutional excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment.Following a remand, the district court granted Freed summary judgment on his Fifth Amendment claim, rejecting Freed’s argument that he was entitled to the fair market value of his property, minus his debt, and holding that Freed was owed just compensation in the amount of the difference between the foreclosure sale and his debt, plus interest from the date of the foreclosure sale. Freed was owed about $40,900 plus interest, $56,800 less than he was seeking. The court also held that Freed’s claims against Thomas were barred by qualified immunity and denied Freed’s subsequent motion for attorney’s fees. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Following a public sale, a debtor is entitled to any surplus proceeds from the sale, which represent the value of the equitable title extinguished. Thomas did not violate a right that was clearly established at the time of her alleged misconduct. View "Freed v. Thomas" on Justia Law