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

Queen, a Bowling Green firefighter, 2011-2016, was subject to harassment because he is an atheist. According to Queen, he was forced to participate in Bible studies; his co-workers and supervisors badgered him regarding his sexuality and regularly disparaged minorities. In 2012, Queen complained to his supervisor, Rockrohr, who “responded in hostility.” Rockrohr later told Queen that he had discussed the matter with the fire chief and they both believed that Queen “needed to get employment somewhere else.” Queen apologized. Queen’s employment conditions did not improve. Queen was intentionally tripped while retrieving his gear and was regularly subject to disparaging remarks. Stress and anxiety caused Queen to take a leave of absence. While on leave, Queen received many phone calls from his supervisors asking why he was absent.Queen resigned and filed suit under the Kentucky Civil Rights Act, alleging hostile work environment based on religion and gender, constructive discharge, retaliation, and violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment on hostile work environment based on religion and gender and the FMLA claims. On interlocutory appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity to the city on the claims for hostile work environment based on religion and for retaliation and denial of qualified immunity to Rockrohr for the retaliation claim. View "Queen v. City of Bowling Green" on Justia Law

Dowl pleaded guilty to presenting false tax returns, 18 U.S.C. 286. He received a sentence of 30 months of imprisonment plus 24 months of supervised release. On supervised release, Dowl was charged with four new state crimes; failing to inform his probation officer that he had police contact; communicating with his co-defendant despite instructions to the contrary; failing to make payments on his restitution, fine, or special assessment; and failing to get a job. At a hearing, the court reviewed the evidence and allowed Dowl to tell his side of the story. The court deferred judgment on three of the four new state criminal law violations and dismissed the fourth and found Dowl gainfully employed. Dowl had failed to notify his probation officer about police contact, impermissibly communicated with his co-defendant, and did not pay his fines. After considering the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors, the court returned Dowl to prison for 11 months, giving Dowl and his attorney the opportunity to raise any objections. Dowl had none.The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting Dowl’s argument that the court committed reversible error by not directly addressing him to solicit an allocution. The court employed the “plain error” standard because Dowl did not raise any objection during his revocation hearing. View "United States v. Dowl" on Justia Law

In 2018, Fowler pled guilty to possession of child pornography and violations of the conditions of his supervised release from a previous conviction for the same. In addition to possessing child pornography, Fowler had failed drug testing, had threatened his parole officer, and had tried to harass his girlfriend to recant her testimony. The district court ordered Fowler to pay a $5,000 special assessment for possession of child pornography under the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, 18 U.S.C. 3014. The court also varied upward and sentenced Fowler to the maximum statutory penalty for violating the conditions of his supervised release, imposing a 120-month sentence for possessing child pornography and a consecutive 36-month sentence for violating the terms of his supervised release.The Sixth Circuit vacated as to the assessment and remanded for a determination of indigency. The district court committed plain error by failing to address Fowler’s ability to pay; the parties did not contemplate the $5,000 special assessment as a part of the waiver provision in the plea agreement. The court affirmed the sentence. The district court did not consider an impermissible factor (whether Fowler had actually touched a child) and Fowler had no other challenge to the reasonableness of his sentence, View "United States v. Fowler" on Justia Law

Sumlin was convicted of the distribution of drugs that caused the 2015 death of Carrie Dobbins, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), which carries enhanced penalty provisions. The Sixth Circuit affirmed his convictions and his sentence to life in prison. The district court properly denied Sumlin’s suppression motion, given that the affidavit established a sufficient nexus between his drug trafficking activity and residence that was searched. The court properly admitted testimony by the victim’s sister, Kelly, who was Sumlin’s former girlfriend and had purchased drugs from him. Kelly’s testimony about Sumlin's drug-trafficking and that Sumlin was with Carrie on the day of her overdose was intrinsic proof that was relevant for providing background information and contextualizing the government’s case against Sumlin. Sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict that Sumlin distributed the drugs that caused Carrie’s death. View "United States v. Sumlin" on Justia Law

The Twenty-first Amendment permits the states to regulate the sales of alcohol within their borders. Michigan is among several states with a three-tier system that forbids alcohol producers (first tier) to sell directly to retailers or consumers. Producers must sell to wholesalers within the state (second tier); those wholesalers sell exclusively to in-state retailers, who sell to consumers. Businesses at each tier must be independently owned; no one may operate more than one tier, Michigan imposes minimum prices and prohibits wholesalers from offering volume discounts or selling on credit. For liquor (not wine and beer), the state is the wholesaler in Michigan.In 2016, Michigan amended its law to allow in-state retailers to deliver directly to consumers using state-licensed “third party facilitators” or common carriers like FedEx or UPS. A wine retailer based in Fort Wayne, Indiana and Michigan wine consumers alleged that the new law violated the Commerce Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The district court extended delivery rights to out-of-state retailers. Michigan obtained a stay.The Sixth Circuit reversed. The Twenty-first Amendment permits Michigan to treat in-state retailers differently from out-of-state retailers. There is no inherent right to sell intoxicating liquors by retail. Some reduction in consumer choice is inevitable in a three-tier system, which is intended to make it harder to sell alcohol. View "Lebamoff Enterprises, Inc., v. Whitmer" on Justia Law

The Spriggs’ bank account was established to receive social security checks. The Spriggs’ great-grandson, Vance, filled out an application in Mr. Spriggs’s name for a debit card to draw on the checking account. Mr. Spriggs had never used a debit card. The Spriggses did not authorize Vance to do so. Bank cameras photographed Vance using the card to withdraw cash. Vance also used the card for personal expenses. At another bank, Vance used Mr. Spriggs’s social security number to establish an account and obtain a $15,000 cash advance. Vance made other, unsuccessful loan applications. Upon being notified by the banks about suspicious activities involving his identity, Mr. Spriggs filed a police report. The police arrested Vance. While searching Vance’s car, the police located a large stash of personal and financial documents belonging to the Spriggses, including bank statements, tax return forms, property-tax bills, and a car title.The Sixth Circuit affirmed Vance’s convictions for access-device fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1029(a)(5), and two counts of aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C. 1028A(a)(1), and his 65-month sentence. The court rejected arguments that the district court failed to make adequate findings of fact after the bench trial, improperly denied a motion for judgment of acquittal, and failed to correctly calculate the loss amount connected to Vance’s charges under Sentencing Guidelines 2B1.1. View "United States v. Vance" on Justia Law

Electors voted to establish a commission of citizens to adopt district boundaries for the Michigan Senate, Michigan House of Representatives and U.S. Congress, every 10 years. Article IV, section 6 of the amended Michigan Constitution establishes the membership criteria for this “independent citizens redistricting commission,” excluding eight classes of individuals with certain current or past political ties. A final decision to adopt a redistricting plan requires a majority vote, including at least two commissioners who affiliate with each major party, and at least two who do not affiliate with either party. Commission members may not discuss redistricting matters outside of an open meeting, except under specific circumstances. The Republican Party and individuals sought a preliminary injunction, alleging that the eligibility criteria violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments; that allowing applicants to self-identify as Republicans violated the Party’s freedom of association; that the Commission’s composition was viewpoint-discriminatory; and that the speech provision violated the First Amendment.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief. The Amendment’s eligibility criteria do not burden the plaintiffs based on their status as Republicans. Even if the criteria imposed a moderate burden on First Amendment activities, they would satisfy a “flexible analysis.” There is no constitutional limitation on Michigan making the forbearance from certain activities a condition of sitting on the commission. The eligibility criteria are essential to the definition of this Commission and its independence from partisan meddling. The Party does not have a First Amendment right to control the self-affiliation of commissioner-applicants. Although the speech provision does burden the commissioners’ freedom to speak about redistricting, this burden is outweighed by Michigan’s more-than-adequate justifications. Michigan’s effort to ensure that a sizeable minority of commission members are non-affiliated does not violate the First Amendment. View "Daunt v. Benson" on Justia Law

The counties filed suit in the Northern District of Ohio against manufacturers and distributors of prescription opioids. More than 2,700 other opioid cases have been transferred there by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL). The first Case Management Order put the Counties’ cases on “Track One,” with a March 2019 trial date, setting a deadline in April 2018 for the Counties to amend their complaints. The Counties then asserted claims against 12 Pharmacies as “distributors” of pharmaceuticals to their own retail pharmacies, expressly declining to bring "dispenser" claims. Distributors ship pharmaceuticals wholesale; dispensers fill prescriptions. The Track One parties engaged in massive discovery.Rather than ruling on summary judgment motions, the district court granted the Counties’ motion to sever all but one Pharmacy (Walgreens) from Track One. Trial had been rescheduled for October 2019. The 11 Pharmacies settled with the Counties, agreeing to pay $260 million. The district court canceled the trial, then allowed the Counties to amend their complaints to add “dispenser” claims and ordered discovery to proceed anew. The court refused to rule on dismissal motions and ordered the Pharmacies to produce data on every prescription that they had filled for any opioid medication, anywhere in the U.S., dating back to 2006. The Sixth Circuit ordered that the amendments to the complaints be stricken, noting that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply in MDL under 28 U.S.C. 1407 and had been disregarded in several instances. View "In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation" on Justia Law

A masked gunman attempted to rob a Columbus Ohio restaurant. Employees escaped and flagged down a police officer. A man, matching the robber's description, discarded distinctive clothing items as he ran away. A pocket contained a handgun matching that used in the robbery. Police apprehended Smith nearby. DNA material matching Smith was found on the discarded items. Smith retained attorney Armengau. Detectives connected Smith to earlier restaurant robberies with “a strikingly consistent method of operation.” They requested cell phone records for a phone number that Smith had given to his probation officer; Smith’s phone had been used near and at the approximate time of most of the robberies.Smith was charged with 18 robberies. Smith’s attorney, Armengau, was indicted for sex crimes. The judge handling Smith’s case recused himself. At Smith’s request, Armengau continued to represent Smith; Armengau’s criminal charges were unknown to the jury. Smith received three continuances. During trial, the prosecutors offered a plea deal for 27 years’ imprisonment. Armengau conceded to the court that he did not share the offer because prior discussions with Smith led Armengau to believe that a 27-year sentence would not be accepted. Smith was present and did not object. The prosecutors stated that the offer would remain open. Smith never asked to discuss a plea. The jury convicted Smith for 12 robberies. With prior-offender gun charges, the judge sentenced Smith to 84 years’ imprisonment.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of habeas relief, rejecting ineffective assistance and Confrontation Clause claims, based on the Armengau’s stipulation to limit the number of trial witnesses, his failure to communicate the plea offer, and the “conflict” posed by his own criminal charges. View "Smith v. Cook" on Justia Law

In a 2006 Ypsilanti drive-by shooting, two teenagers, inside a mobile home, were killed. Four people, including Tackett, were charged. Tacket was found guilty on two counts of first-degree murder and two counts of possessing a firearm during the commission of a felony. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. After unsuccessful state-court proceedings, Tackett filed a federal habeas corpus petition.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief. Even assuming that Tackett’s gun misfired, the jury could have reasonably concluded that Tackett was guilty of first-degree murder under an aiding-and-abetting theory. The facts supported an inference of an intent to kill and there was more than enough time for the shooters to take a “second look.” There was evidence that premeditation and deliberation took place during that time. Tackett provided assistance to the other shooters, knowing all the facts known to the shooters. The court rejected Tackett’s argument that he could have been convicted as a principal, or as an aider and abettor and that the trial court erred by failing to give the jury a special instruction that they had to unanimously agree as to which of these theories was the basis for their verdict. There was no constitutional problem in the fact that two other defendants were convicted of second-degree murder while Tackett was convicted of first-degree murder. The court also rejected ineffective assistance claims. View "Tackett v. Trierweiler" on Justia Law