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

Police discovered the bodies of two men, both shot in the head, in a burning car in Jackson County, Michigan. Barbara Mercer lived with her boyfriend, Richard Janish, and her friend, Jessica Campbell. Mercer had recently tricked one of the victims, Thomas, into giving her crack cocaine without payment, resulting in threatening messages from Thomas. The night of the killing, Mercer and Janish discussed the threats, and Janish ultimately shot and killed both victims. Mercer and Janish then attempted to destroy evidence by burning the bodies in the victims’ car. Both were arrested, and their statements to police, as well as Campbell’s testimony, formed the basis of the prosecution’s case. Mercer was convicted by a jury of two counts of second-degree murder, tampering with evidence, and arson.The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Mercer’s convictions, rejecting her claims that the trial court erred by denying a defense-of-others jury instruction, that her counsel was ineffective, and that the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing arguments. The Michigan Supreme Court denied further review. Mercer then filed a federal habeas petition in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The district court granted habeas relief on the ground that Mercer’s due process rights were violated when the trial court failed to give a defense-of-others instruction, but denied relief on her other claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s grant of habeas relief on the jury-instruction claim, holding that Mercer’s claim did not satisfy the requirements for relief under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of relief on Mercer’s remaining claims regarding ineffective counsel and prosecutorial misconduct, finding that the state court’s decisions were not contrary to or unreasonable applications of clearly established federal law. View "Mercer v. Stewart" on Justia Law

A Canadian citizen married an American citizen in 2017. The couple lived in Canada until 2020, then moved to Hawaii, where the American spouse began working as a physician. The Canadian spouse entered the United States on a tourist visa and soon applied for lawful permanent residency. To support this application, the American spouse signed a federal Affidavit of Support, committing to maintain the non-citizen’s income above 125% of the federal poverty line. The Canadian spouse obtained permanent residency in 2021. Around that time, the marriage ended, and the American spouse moved to Michigan and filed for divorce. In 2022, the parties entered into a settlement agreement and consented divorce judgment in Michigan, in which they resolved all issues—including spousal support—and released any claims against each other.The Canadian spouse later filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging that his former spouse had failed to provide the financial support required by the Affidavit of Support. The former spouse moved to dismiss, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and that the divorce judgment precluded the claim. The district court rejected the jurisdictional argument but agreed that claim preclusion under Michigan law barred the lawsuit, and dismissed the action.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The court held that federal courts must give state court judgments the same preclusive effect they would have under state law, pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Act. The court ruled that Michigan claim preclusion law applied, and that the prior divorce judgment barred the new lawsuit because the claim could have been raised in the divorce proceedings. The court also rejected arguments that federal law or preemption required a different result. View "Ramgoolam v. Gupta" on Justia Law

After a series of violent crimes in Detroit, including a gas station robbery and a home invasion, police identified Derek Aaron as the primary suspect based on witness descriptions, security footage, and phone records. Officers located Aaron at a local gas station, where they attempted to arrest him without explicitly informing him of the arrest. Aaron, a large man, resisted by refusing to place his hands behind his back, repeatedly asking for an explanation, and physically pulling his arms away. The officers responded by taking him to the ground and using knee strikes to subdue him before successfully handcuffing him. Subsequent criminal charges against Aaron were dismissed, possibly due to his autism diagnosis, which was unknown to the officers at the time.Aaron, through his legal guardian, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging that the officers used excessive force during the arrest and that other officers failed to intervene. The officers moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The district court granted qualified immunity on the failure-to-intervene claims but denied it on the excessive force claims, finding that a jury could determine the officers violated clearly established rights. The officers appealed the denial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on the excessive force claims. The appellate court held that, given the seriousness of the suspected crimes, Aaron’s physical resistance, and the absence of a clearly established legal prohibition against the officers’ conduct under similar circumstances, the officers did not violate Aaron’s clearly established constitutional rights. Therefore, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity, and the district court’s order was reversed. View "Aaron v. King" on Justia Law

Americare Healthcare Services, Inc., a third-party home care provider in Ohio, and its owner, Dilli Adhikari, hired live-in workers—most of whom cared for their own family members—to provide services to elderly or disabled clients. Between October 2018 and October 2021, Americare failed to pay overtime wages to these employees, claiming entitlement to exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): the “Companionship Services Exemption” and the “Live-In Exemption.” The Department of Labor, however, had promulgated a 2013 regulation that prohibited third-party employers from relying on these exemptions.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted summary judgment to the Department of Labor, finding Americare and Adhikari liable for willful violations of the FLSA’s overtime requirements. The district court further held that the 2013 Third-Party Regulation was valid, and that Americare and Adhikari lacked standing to challenge a related regulatory definition that narrowed the scope of “companionship services.” Americare and Adhikari appealed only the district court’s rulings on the regulation’s validity and their lack of standing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case, applying the framework for agency rulemaking authority post-Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The Sixth Circuit held that the FLSA’s express statutory delegation allowed the Department of Labor to define and delimit the applicability of the companionship and live-in exemptions, including excluding third-party employers from their reach. The court further held that Americare and Adhikari lacked standing to challenge the definition of companionship services because the bar to their use of the exemption arose from the third-party regulation, not from the definition itself. The judgment of the district court was therefore affirmed. View "Department of Labor v. Americare Healthcare Services" on Justia Law

The defendant pleaded guilty in 2010 to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a large quantity of cocaine base, for which he was sentenced to a lengthy prison term and a supervised release period. His sentence was later reduced under the First Step Act, resulting in a shorter prison term and an eight-year supervised release. After his release, the defendant demonstrated significant rehabilitation, complied with all conditions of supervision, and maintained steady employment and a stable residence, with no new criminal conduct.Following his positive adjustment, the defendant filed three separate motions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee seeking early termination of his supervised release. The district court denied the first motion, acknowledging his model behavior but emphasizing the seriousness of his offense and the statutory minimum term. The second motion was denied based solely on the judge’s custom of not considering early termination until at least half of the supervised release term had been served. After appealing this denial, the defendant filed a third motion, which the district court also denied, reiterating the importance of its fifty-percent custom and referencing deterrence and public safety.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the consolidated appeals. The court held that the district court abused its discretion by employing a blanket rule requiring completion of at least half the supervision term before considering early termination, instead of conducting an individualized assessment under the relevant statutory factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and § 3583(e)(1). The appellate court concluded that the district court’s reliance on its custom, without adequate consideration of the defendant’s circumstances and the statutory factors, was improper. The Sixth Circuit vacated the district court’s orders and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Collins" on Justia Law

A sitting district court judge in Kentucky faced potential discipline from the state Judicial Conduct Commission (JCC) after making statements to a newspaper during her reelection campaign. The statements concerned her prior suspension for inappropriate comments about an attorney accused of diverting funds from her husband’s law firm. The JCC claimed her remarks to the newspaper were false or misleading, implicated her opponent, and downplayed the seriousness of her misconduct. The Commission sent her a proposed agreed public reprimand order, which she refused to sign. Believing the JCC’s actions chilled her speech and threatened enforcement under three specific judicial conduct rules, the judge sued JCC officials, alleging violations of her First Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky partially granted and partially denied the judge’s claims. It granted her summary judgment and a permanent injunction on her as-applied challenge to Rule 4.1(A)(11), which prohibits judicial candidates from knowingly making false statements of material fact, finding the JCC’s enforcement against her statements unconstitutional. However, the district court denied her as-applied challenges to Rules 1.2 and 2.4(B), which address judicial independence and the influence of personal relationships, as well as her facial challenges to all three rules.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found the judge had standing to sue and that the district court properly granted her an injunction under Rule 4.1(A)(11). However, the appellate court held that the district court erred in denying her as-applied challenges to Rules 1.2 and 2.4(B), as the JCC’s enforcement was not supported by evidence of false statements. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the injunction as to Rule 4.1(A)(11), reversed as to Rules 1.2 and 2.4(B), and remanded for entry of a permanent injunction against enforcement of all three rules as applied to the judge’s statements. View "Dutton v. Shaffer" on Justia Law

After receiving a chapter 7 discharge, the debtor filed for chapter 13 protection just two days later. She owned a vehicle subject to a lien held by a secured creditor, Santander, and proposed a chapter 13 plan allowing her to keep the vehicle by paying Santander’s claim in full with modified interest. However, due to the timing of her prior chapter 7 discharge, she was ineligible for a chapter 13 discharge under section 1328(f) of the Bankruptcy Code. Recognizing this, her plan provided that Santander would retain its lien until the debt was paid in full or until completion of all plan payments, rather than until a discharge was entered.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio considered Santander’s objection that the plan failed to comply with section 1325(a)(5)(B)(i)(I), which allows a creditor to retain its lien until the debt is paid in full under nonbankruptcy law or until a discharge under section 1328. The bankruptcy court overruled Santander’s objection and confirmed the plan, reasoning that the plan met all the substantive requirements and that strict adherence to the statutory discharge provision would elevate form over substance.On appeal, the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit reviewed the bankruptcy court’s order de novo. The Panel held that the statutory language of section 1325(a)(5)(B)(i)(I) is unambiguous and mandatory: a secured creditor must retain its lien until the debt is paid in full under nonbankruptcy law or until a chapter 13 discharge is entered. Because the debtor was ineligible for a discharge, and Santander did not accept the plan, the bankruptcy court erred by confirming a plan that added a new event not found in the statute (completion of plan payments). The Panel reversed the bankruptcy court’s confirmation order and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "In re Tucker" on Justia Law

Eric Smith was the majority owner, chairman, and CEO of Consulting Services Support Corporation (CSSC), which wholly owned CSSC Brokerage Services, Inc. (CSSC-BD), a registered FINRA broker-dealer. Although CSSC-BD was registered, Smith did not personally register with FINRA, claiming an exemption so long as he was not involved in managing the securities business. However, between 2010 and 2015, Smith actively managed CSSC-BD, including overseeing debt offerings, preparing offering documents with false statements, and soliciting investments totaling $130,000 from four investors. A FINRA examination and investor complaints uncovered these activities.Following an investigation, FINRA’s Department of Enforcement filed a complaint against Smith for violations of federal securities laws and FINRA rules. After a disciplinary proceeding, FINRA found against Smith and imposed sanctions, including $130,000 in restitution and a bar from associating with any FINRA member. Smith appealed to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which affirmed FINRA’s findings and sanctions. Smith then sought review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, arguing that FINRA lacked jurisdiction over him and that the proceedings violated his rights under Article III and the Seventh Amendment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that FINRA had statutory authority to discipline Smith because, despite not registering, he controlled a FINRA member firm and was therefore a “person associated with a member” under the relevant statute. The court found Smith’s constitutional claims barred because he failed to raise them before the SEC as required by statute, and none of the exceptions to the exhaustion requirement applied. The petition for review was denied. View "Smith v. Securities and Exchange Commission" on Justia Law

Four women incarcerated at the Huron Valley Correctional Facility in Michigan suffered from persistent, painful rashes between 2016 and 2019. Despite repeated complaints, medical staff—contracted through Corizon Health—failed to diagnose scabies, instead providing ineffective treatments and attributing the condition to environmental factors like improper laundering. It was only after an outside dermatologist intervened that scabies was correctly identified, prompting prison-wide treatment efforts. However, these efforts were delayed and, in some cases, inadequate, resulting in prolonged suffering for the affected inmates.After their experiences, the four women filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against multiple defendants, including high-level Michigan Department of Corrections officials and Wayne State University medical officers, alleging Eighth Amendment violations and state-law negligence. The district court found that the women’s complaint plausibly alleged “clearly established” Eighth Amendment violations by all defendants and denied the officials’ request for qualified immunity. The court also rejected a claim of state-law immunity, finding that the officials could be the proximate cause of the inmates’ injuries under Michigan law.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denials. The Sixth Circuit held that existing precedent did not “clearly establish” that the non-treating prison officials’ reliance on contracted medical providers was so unreasonable as to violate the Eighth Amendment. Thus, it reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on the federal damages claims. However, the appellate court affirmed the denial of state-law immunity, finding the plaintiffs adequately pleaded proximate cause under Michigan law. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "Machelle Pearson v. MDOC" on Justia Law

A dispute arose between two bourbon companies, each owned by African Americans, regarding which could claim to be the first to distill bourbon in Kentucky. Victory Global, operating as Brough Brothers, began by sourcing bourbon from Indiana in 2020 and later opened its own distillery in Louisville, filling its first barrel of Kentucky bourbon at the end of that year. Fresh Bourbon, started by the Edwardses, developed its recipe and, lacking a distillery, began distilling bourbon at Hartfield & Co. in Bourbon County in 2018 with increasing hands-on involvement. Fresh Bourbon sold its Kentucky-made bourbon in 2020 and later opened its own distillery in Lexington in 2022 or 2023. Both companies marketed themselves as African American-owned, but Brough Brothers objected to Fresh Bourbon’s claims of being the first, arguing those statements were false or misleading.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky reviewed the case on summary judgment. Brough Brothers alleged false advertising under the Lanham Act, asserting that Fresh Bourbon’s marketing contained literally false statements about being the first African American distillery or having the first African American master distiller since slavery. The district court found that the contested statements were, at most, misleading rather than literally false, and that Brough Brothers had not introduced evidence that consumers were actually deceived. It also concluded there was no showing of material impact on consumer decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Fresh Bourbon, holding that the statements in question were ambiguous and not literally false. The court emphasized that, absent unambiguously false statements, Brough Brothers needed to present evidence of consumer deception, which it failed to do. Thus, Brough Brothers’ claims under the Lanham Act could not survive. The decision of the district court was affirmed. View "Victory Global, LLC v. Fresh Bourbon, LLC" on Justia Law