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

In 2022, Condarius Tripplet pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute controlled substances. The district court sentenced him to 188 months in prison, applying a drug-premises enhancement. This enhancement adds two levels to the base offense level when a defendant maintains a premises for drug manufacturing or distribution. Tripplet acknowledged maintaining an apartment but disputed that its primary use was for drug distribution, noting he lived there with his girlfriend and her two children.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan found that Tripplet had significant quantities of illegal drugs, cash, a firearm, and drug manufacturing tools in the apartment. The court also noted that he regularly distributed drugs from this residence. Based on these findings, the court applied the drug-premises enhancement, resulting in a higher offense level and a longer sentence. Tripplet appealed the application of this enhancement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the drug-premises enhancement was correctly applied. The court noted that the enhancement does not require drug operations to be the sole purpose of the premises, only that it be one of the primary uses. Given the substantial quantities of drugs, cash, and drug-related tools found in the apartment, along with evidence of regular drug transactions, the court affirmed the district court's decision to apply the enhancement. The court concluded that the totality of the evidence supported the inference that Tripplet maintained the apartment for drug trafficking purposes, justifying the enhancement and the resulting sentence. View "United States v. Tripplet" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, who regularly engage in cryptocurrency transactions, challenged amendments to 26 U.S.C. § 6050I, which now require reporting certain cryptocurrency transactions to the federal government. They argued that the law violates their constitutional rights under the Fourth, First, and Fifth Amendments, and exceeds Congress's enumerated powers. The plaintiffs claimed that the law's requirements would force them to disclose private information, incur compliance costs, and potentially expose them to criminal penalties.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky dismissed the case, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the plaintiffs' claims. The court ruled that the claims were either not ripe for adjudication or that the plaintiffs lacked standing. Specifically, the court found that the Fourth Amendment claim was not ripe because the law was not yet effective and the Department of Treasury was still developing rules. The First Amendment claim was dismissed for lack of standing, as the court deemed the plaintiffs' injuries too speculative. The court also found the Fifth Amendment vagueness claim unripe due to pending regulatory action, and the enumerated-powers claim unripe for similar reasons. The Fifth Amendment self-incrimination claim was dismissed as not ripe because the plaintiffs had not yet asserted the privilege.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in dismissing the enumerated-powers, Fourth Amendment, and First Amendment claims. The appellate court held that these claims were ripe for review and that the plaintiffs had standing. The court noted that the plaintiffs, as direct objects of the law, would indeed be subject to the reporting requirements and incur compliance costs, thus suffering an injury in fact. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Fifth Amendment vagueness and self-incrimination claims as not ripe. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "Carman v. Yellen" on Justia Law

Marta Lidia Tista-Ruiz De Ajualip, a native of Guatemala, applied for asylum and withholding of removal for herself, her three children, and her grandson after entering the U.S. in 2016. They fled Guatemala due to threats from Marta’s son-in-law, Marvin, who had a history of domestic violence and gang affiliations. Despite credible testimony about the abuse and threats, an immigration judge (IJ) denied their asylum and withholding claims, citing outdated precedent that did not recognize domestic violence victims as a protected group under U.S. asylum laws.The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings in 2016. In 2019, the IJ denied Marta’s claims, relying on Matter of A-B-, which stated that domestic violence victims generally do not qualify for asylum. The IJ also applied the wrong legal standard for withholding of removal. In 2023, the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirmed the IJ’s decision, despite acknowledging a significant change in precedent that overruled Matter of A-B-. The Board did not remand the case for further review and summarily affirmed the denial of withholding of removal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the Board’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal was inconsistent with current precedent and immigration authority. The court held that the Board failed to consider the record as a whole and did not properly evaluate the evidence regarding the particular social group (PSG) and the Guatemalan government’s inability to protect Marta’s family. The court granted Marta’s petition for review, vacated the Board’s denial, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the updated legal standards. View "Tista-Ruiz de Ajualip v. Garland" on Justia Law

In 2020, Eric Noble, a security guard at the Cincinnati and Hamilton County Public Library, shared an insensitive meme on his personal Facebook page during the Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests. The meme, which was visible only to his Facebook friends, was taken down within 24 hours after his mother advised him to do so. However, some of his colleagues at the Library saw the post and complained. Following an investigation, the Library terminated Noble's employment, citing a violation of its harassment policy and a loss of confidence in his ability to perform his duties impartially.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, holding that the Library's actions did not violate Noble's First Amendment rights as a public employee. Noble appealed the decision, arguing that his termination was a result of exercising his right to free speech.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Noble's Facebook post was protected speech under the First Amendment. The court found that Noble spoke on a matter of public concern and that his interest in expressing his views outweighed the Library's interest in maintaining workplace efficiency. The court noted that there was no evidence of public disruption or that Noble's post had a significant impact on Library operations. Consequently, the court remanded the case with instructions to grant summary judgment in favor of Noble on his First Amendment retaliation claim. View "Noble v. Cincinnati & Hamilton County Public Library" on Justia Law

In 1984, Richard Wershe, Jr., at fourteen, was recruited by the FBI as a drug informant. Over the next few years, he was involved in dangerous drug operations under the direction of federal and state officers. In 1987, Wershe was arrested and convicted of possessing a large quantity of cocaine, receiving a life sentence without parole, which was later amended to allow parole eligibility. While incarcerated, he cooperated with law enforcement in various investigations, including "Operation Backbone" and a grand jury against the "Best Friends" gang, based on promises of assistance with his parole. Despite his cooperation, Wershe was denied parole in 2003 and was only released in 2017, subsequently serving time in Florida for an unrelated charge until his release in 2020.Wershe filed two lawsuits: one in July 2021 against the City of Detroit and various federal and state officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens, and another in October 2022 against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). He alleged constitutional violations and tort claims related to his time as a juvenile informant and subsequent parole denial. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed both lawsuits with prejudice, ruling that Wershe’s claims were time-barred and not subject to equitable tolling.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The court held that Wershe’s claims were indeed time-barred under the applicable statutes of limitations and that he was not entitled to equitable tolling. The court found that Wershe had constructive knowledge of the filing deadlines, did not diligently pursue his claims, and that the defendants would be prejudiced by the delay. Additionally, the court ruled that the district court did not err in dismissing the complaints with prejudice or in its handling of materials outside the pleadings. View "Wershe v. City of Detroit" on Justia Law

Yanjun Xu, a Chinese citizen and member of China’s Ministry of State Security, was convicted of conspiracy to commit economic espionage and conspiracy to steal trade secrets from multiple aviation companies over a five-year period. Xu was also convicted of attempted economic espionage by theft or fraud and attempted theft of composite fan-blade technology from GE Aviation. He was sentenced to a combined 240 months’ imprisonment. Xu appealed, seeking to vacate the judgment and remand for a new trial, arguing that the district court erred in failing to dismiss Counts 1 and 2 as duplicitous and abused its discretion in admitting expert testimony in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b). Alternatively, Xu sought to have his sentence vacated, arguing it was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denied Xu’s motion to dismiss the indictment, finding that the conspiracy counts were not duplicitous as they alleged a single overarching conspiracy. The court also admitted expert testimony from James Olson, a retired CIA officer, who testified about espionage techniques and tradecraft, which Xu argued violated Rule 704(b). The court overruled Xu’s objections, finding that Olson’s testimony did not directly opine on Xu’s intent but rather described common practices in espionage.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the indictment was not duplicitous as it charged a single conspiracy with multiple overt acts. The court also found that Olson’s testimony did not violate Rule 704(b) and that any potential error was cured by the district court’s limiting instructions to the jury. Additionally, the appellate court found Xu’s sentence to be procedurally and substantively reasonable, noting that the district court properly calculated the intended loss and considered the § 3553(a) factors. The court concluded that Xu’s sentence was within the Guidelines range and not disparate compared to similarly situated defendants. View "United States v. Yanjun Xu" on Justia Law

Jane Doe, a student in a dual enrollment program with the University of Kentucky, reported being raped by John Doe (JD) in her dorm room. The University held four student conduct hearings. The first three hearings resulted in JD's expulsion or suspension, but each decision was overturned by the University’s appeals board due to procedural errors. After the third reversal, Doe filed a Title IX lawsuit against the University. In the fourth hearing, the panel ruled against her, and Doe claimed the University mishandled this hearing in retaliation for her lawsuit.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky granted summary judgment in favor of the University, concluding that Doe could not establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title IX. The court found that Doe was no longer a student at the time of the fourth hearing and thus could not claim adverse school-related actions. It also limited its analysis to the allegations in Doe’s complaint, excluding additional evidence presented in opposition to summary judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded the case. The court held that Doe could suffer adverse school-related actions even if she was not a current student and that the University’s disciplinary proceedings are educational programs under Title IX. The court found that the University’s delays, procedural errors, and failure to adequately prosecute JD could dissuade a reasonable person from pursuing a Title IX claim. The court also held that Doe presented sufficient evidence to establish a causal connection between her lawsuit and the adverse actions. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Doe v. University of Kentucky" on Justia Law

Leon Hensley, a high school nurse, was found to have surreptitiously recorded minors using the bathroom. An investigation revealed that he had hidden a camera in the nurse’s office bathroom stall, capturing videos of 57 students. Additionally, officers found multiple "upskirt" recordings and photos from inside a tanning bed. Hensley was indicted on 25 counts of production and attempted production of child pornography and pleaded guilty to all counts.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee sentenced Hensley to 293 months of confinement. During sentencing, the probation office recommended a five-level adjustment to Hensley’s offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3D1.4 for multiple counts of similar severity and another five points under § 4B1.5(b)(1) for engaging in a pattern of prohibited sexual conduct. Hensley objected, arguing that this constituted impermissible double counting. The district court disagreed and sentenced him within the adjusted range, acknowledging its discretion but choosing to consider the higher guideline recommendation to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not err in its application of the sentencing guidelines. It found that the text of § 4B1.5(b)(1) explicitly allows for its application in addition to other provisions, thus permitting what Hensley termed "double counting." The appellate court also determined that the district court understood its discretion to deviate from the guidelines, as evidenced by its detailed explanation and decision to use a hypothetical lower range while still considering the higher guideline recommendation. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "U.S. v. Hensley" on Justia Law

In late 2019, Verizon Wireless identified a coverage gap in Berlin Township, Ohio, and partnered with TowerCo to construct a cell tower to address this issue. TowerCo secured a lease with the local school district to build the tower on school property. Initially, TowerCo notified local residents as required by zoning regulations but later claimed immunity from these regulations under Ohio's "Brownfield immunity" doctrine, arguing that the project served a public purpose. Despite this claim, the Township insisted on compliance with local zoning laws, leading to a dispute.The Township filed a complaint in the Delaware County Common Pleas Court seeking a declaratory judgment and an injunction to halt the tower's construction. TowerCo counterclaimed under the Telecommunications Act (TCA) and removed the case to federal court. After negotiations failed, TowerCo filed a separate federal lawsuit asserting TCA violations and sought a preliminary injunction to continue construction. The district court granted the preliminary injunction, finding that the Township's actions likely violated the TCA by effectively prohibiting wireless services.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's order. The appellate court held that the Township's filing of a state court lawsuit did not constitute a "final action" under the TCA, which is necessary to trigger the Act's remedies. Additionally, TowerCo failed to file its federal TCA claims within the 30-day statutory deadline after the Township's state court filing. The court concluded that TowerCo's claims were not ripe and were time-barred, and thus, TowerCo could not show a likelihood of success on the merits. Consequently, the preliminary injunction was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "TowerCo 2013, LLC v. Berlin Township Board of Trustees" on Justia Law

Nathaniel Jackson was convicted of a capital offense and sentenced to death. His sentencing was marred by judicial bias and misconduct, including ex parte communications between the judge and prosecutor and the prosecutor ghostwriting the judge’s sentencing opinion. When this misconduct was revealed, the Ohio appellate courts ordered new sentencing proceedings. However, the trial judge denied Jackson’s motion to present additional mitigating evidence and resentenced him based on the old record, issuing a nearly identical opinion to the original one.The Ohio appellate courts affirmed Jackson’s sentence despite the trial judge’s misconduct. Jackson then filed a habeas corpus petition in federal district court. The district court granted the petition on the grounds that Jackson was unconstitutionally denied the opportunity to present mitigating evidence but denied his other claims, including judicial bias.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Ohio’s standard for assessing judicial bias was contrary to clearly established federal law. On de novo review, the court found that the trial judge was unconstitutionally biased. The court also held that the exclusion of mitigating evidence at Jackson’s resentencing violated the Eighth Amendment, as capital defendants have the right to present all relevant mitigating evidence. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus on the mitigating-evidence claim, reversed the denial on the judicial-bias claim, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Jackson v. Cool" on Justia Law