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

A group of parents, represented by Parents Defending Education (PDE), challenged the Olentangy Local School District's policies that prohibit harassment based on gender identity, including the intentional use of non-preferred pronouns. PDE argued that these policies violated the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause. The policies in question include the Anti-Harassment Policy, the Personal Communication Devices (PCD) Policy, and the Code of Conduct, all of which aim to prevent harassment and bullying within the school district.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denied PDE's motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of these policies. The court found that PDE had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment claims. Specifically, the court held that the policies did not unconstitutionally compel speech, did not constitute viewpoint discrimination, and were not overbroad. The court also determined that PDE had not shown that the policies would likely cause irreparable harm.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that PDE had not met the burden of showing a clear likelihood of success on the merits. The court found that the school district's policies were consistent with the standard for regulating student speech established in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which allows schools to regulate speech that could substantially disrupt school activities or invade the rights of others. The court also held that the policies did not unconstitutionally compel speech, as students could use first names instead of pronouns, and that the policies were not overbroad. The court concluded that PDE had not demonstrated that the balance of equities or the public interest favored granting a preliminary injunction. View "Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District" on Justia Law

Marc Susselman received a traffic ticket from a Washtenaw County Sheriff’s deputy for failing to yield to a police cruiser with flashing lights. This ticket was later dismissed, but Susselman received another citation for failing to obey a police officer directing traffic. The Michigan circuit court ultimately dismissed the second ticket as well. Susselman then filed a federal lawsuit asserting constitutional and state law claims against Washtenaw County, the Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Office, the sheriff’s deputy, and Superior Township, Michigan.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted the defendants' motions to dismiss all claims. Susselman appealed the decision. The district court had found that the Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Office could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that Susselman had waived certain state-law claims. The court also dismissed Susselman’s federal claims, including First Amendment retaliation and Fourteenth Amendment malicious prosecution, as well as state-law claims for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that Susselman failed to plausibly allege a constitutional violation or behavior by the deputy that would support his claims. Specifically, the court found that the issuance of the second ticket did not constitute a violation of substantive due process or First Amendment rights. Additionally, the court determined that Susselman did not establish a civil conspiracy or meet the requirements for his state-law claims. The court also concluded that Susselman did not identify any municipal policy or custom that resulted in a constitutional violation, thus dismissing his claims against Washtenaw County and Superior Township. View "Susselman v. Washtenaw County Sheriff's Office" on Justia Law

In September 2018, Bryana Baker was arrested and taken to Butler County Jail, where she began experiencing drug withdrawal symptoms. After attempting to escape, she was placed in disciplinary isolation. Despite multiple mental health assessments indicating she was not suicidal, Baker was placed on suicide watch due to erratic behavior. On September 24, she was removed from suicide watch but was not cleared for single-celling. The next day, after a series of altercations with her cellmate, Officer April Riahi closed Baker’s cell door. Shortly thereafter, Baker was found hanging in her cell and later died.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted summary judgment to the defendants, including Officer Riahi, Sheriff Richard Jones, and Butler County. The court found no evidence of deliberate indifference or constitutional violations by the defendants.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that Officer Riahi was entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established law indicated her actions were unconstitutional. The court also found that Sheriff Jones could not be held liable under supervisory liability since there was no underlying constitutional violation by Riahi. Additionally, the court ruled that Butler County was not liable under municipal liability theories because there was no deliberate indifference to a clearly established right. Lastly, the court determined that Riahi and Jones were entitled to Ohio statutory immunity on the state-law claims, as their actions did not amount to recklessness under Ohio law.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, granting summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. View "Campbell v. Riahi" on Justia Law

Vista-Pro Automotive, LLC, a Nashville-based auto-parts corporation, entered bankruptcy proceedings in 2014. In February 2015, Vista-Pro initiated an adversary proceeding against Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc., a New York corporation, to recover approximately $50,000 in unpaid invoices. Vista-Pro mailed a summons and complaint to Coney Island's Brooklyn address, but without addressing it to any specific individual. Coney Island did not respond, leading the bankruptcy court to enter a default judgment against it in May 2015. In April 2016, the trustee appointed for Vista-Pro sent a demand letter to Coney Island's CEO, Daniel Beyda, to satisfy the default judgment. Coney Island acknowledged receipt of this letter.Coney Island later moved to vacate the default judgment in October 2021, arguing that the judgment was void due to improper service, as the summons and complaint were not addressed to an individual as required by Bankruptcy Rule 7004(b)(3). The Southern District of New York bankruptcy court denied the motion, instructing Coney Island to seek relief from the Middle District of Tennessee court. In July 2022, Coney Island filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) to vacate the default judgment, claiming it was void. Both the bankruptcy court and the district court denied the motion as untimely, noting Coney Island's unreasonable delay in filing the motion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that Rule 60(b)(4) motions, which seek to vacate void judgments, must be filed within a "reasonable time" as stipulated by Rule 60(c)(1). The court found that Coney Island's delay in filing the motion was unreasonable, given that it had actual notice of the default judgment by April 2016 but did not move to vacate it until July 2022. The court emphasized that its precedent requires adherence to the reasonable-time limitation for Rule 60(b)(4) motions, even if the judgment is alleged to be void. View "In re Vista-Pro Automotive, LLC" on Justia Law

Mirvat Elgebaly, an Egyptian citizen, was admitted to the U.S. as a conditional permanent resident after marrying American citizen Saladin Muhammad. They later filed a joint petition to remove the conditions on her status, but Muhammad withdrew it, leading to the termination of her conditional status and initiation of removal proceedings. Elgebaly applied for two hardship waivers, claiming she entered the marriage in good faith and suffered extreme cruelty. The immigration judge (IJ) denied both waivers, finding her testimony not credible and insufficiently corroborated, and ordered her removal.Elgebaly appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which dismissed her appeal, affirming the IJ's decision and finding no clear error in the credibility assessment or the conclusion that she did not enter the marriage in good faith. The BIA also found that the IJ conducted the hearing fairly. Elgebaly then filed a motion to reopen proceedings, presenting new evidence, which the BIA denied, stating that the evidence was either not new or not material.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and denied Elgebaly’s petitions for review. The court held that the IJ’s credibility determination was sufficiently detailed to permit meaningful judicial review and that substantial evidence supported the finding that Elgebaly did not marry in good faith. The court also found that the IJ adequately assisted Elgebaly in developing the record during her pro se proceedings. Additionally, the court upheld the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen, agreeing that the new evidence was either previously available or immaterial. Finally, the court rejected Elgebaly’s constitutional challenge to the structure of immigration proceedings, referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, which clarified that immigration adjudications concern public rights and do not require a jury trial. View "Elgebaly v. Garland" on Justia Law

Friends of George’s, Inc. (FOG), a theater organization that performs drag shows, challenged Tennessee’s Adult Entertainment Act (AEA), which criminalizes adult cabaret entertainment in public or where minors could view it. FOG argued that the AEA was facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The district court agreed, declaring the AEA unconstitutional and permanently enjoining District Attorney General Steven Mulroy from enforcing it within Shelby County, Tennessee. Mulroy appealed, questioning FOG’s standing and the merits of the injunction.The United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee initially granted FOG a temporary restraining order against the AEA. The court later ruled in favor of FOG, finding that the AEA violated the First Amendment and was unconstitutionally vague. The court permanently enjoined Mulroy from enforcing the statute within his jurisdiction. Mulroy appealed this decision, arguing that FOG lacked Article III standing and that the AEA was constitutional.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and found that FOG did not meet its burden to show standing. The court held that FOG failed to demonstrate an intention to engage in conduct arguably proscribed by the AEA, as FOG’s performances were described as having artistic value suitable for minors. The court also found that FOG did not face a certainly impending threat of prosecution under the AEA. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of standing. View "Friends of George's, Inc. v. Mulroy" on Justia Law

Michigan First Credit Union reimbursed its customers for unauthorized electronic fund transfers resulting from a SIM Swap scam involving T-Mobile USA, Inc. Michigan First sought to recover these funds from T-Mobile, claiming indemnification or contribution under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and state law. The district court dismissed the complaint, ruling that Michigan First failed to state a claim for indemnification or contribution under both the EFTA and state law.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed Michigan First’s claims, finding no basis for indemnification or contribution under the EFTA or state law. Michigan First appealed, arguing that the EFTA implies a right to indemnification or contribution, that the Michigan Electronic Funds Transfer Act (MEFTA) is not preempted by the EFTA, and that its state common-law indemnification claim should stand.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the EFTA does not imply a right to indemnification or contribution for financial institutions, as the statute is designed to protect consumers, not financial institutions. The court also found that the EFTA preempts the MEFTA and any state common-law claims for indemnification or contribution, as allowing such claims would conflict with the EFTA’s comprehensive regulatory scheme. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Michigan First’s complaint. View "Michigan First Credit Union v. T-Mobile USA, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to Tennessee's policy of not allowing amendments to the sex listed on birth certificates based on gender identity. The plaintiffs, transgender individuals, argue that this policy violates their rights under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. They seek a procedure that permits changes to the sex designation on birth certificates based on self-reported gender identity.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee dismissed the plaintiffs' claims. The court found that Tennessee's policy did not violate the Equal Protection Clause because it treated all individuals equally by requiring proof of an error to amend a birth certificate. The court also rejected the substantive due process claim, holding that there is no fundamental right to a birth certificate that reflects gender identity rather than biological sex.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Tennessee's policy does not discriminate based on sex or transgender status and is subject to rational basis review. The policy was found to be rationally related to legitimate state interests, such as maintaining accurate and consistent vital records. The court also concluded that the plaintiffs did not have a substantive due process right to amend their birth certificates to reflect their gender identity, as such a right is not deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition.The Sixth Circuit's main holding is that Tennessee's policy of not allowing amendments to the sex listed on birth certificates based on gender identity does not violate the Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court emphasized that the Constitution does not require states to adopt the plaintiffs' preferred policy and that such decisions are best left to the democratic process. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims. View "Gore v. Lee" on Justia Law

Avantax Wealth Management, Inc. (Avantax) entered into a contract with Marriott Hotel Services, Inc. (Marriott) to host its 2021 annual conference at the Gaylord Opryland Resort & Convention Center in Nashville, Tennessee. The contract included a force majeure clause allowing termination if circumstances beyond control made it illegal or impossible to use the hotel facilities. Due to COVID-19, local health authorities imposed restrictions on gatherings, which Avantax argued made it impossible to hold the conference as planned. Avantax terminated the contract in March 2021, citing these restrictions.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted summary judgment in favor of Avantax, concluding that Avantax had validly terminated the contract under the force majeure clause. The court found that the COVID-19 restrictions in place at the time made it impossible to hold the conference as specified in the contract. Marriott's motion for summary judgment was denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the force majeure clause allowed termination based on the prospective illegality or impossibility of performance, as determined at the time of termination. The court found that Avantax had reasonable grounds to conclude that the conference could not proceed as planned due to the COVID-19 restrictions forecasted by local health authorities. The court also determined that Avantax provided timely notice of termination within the required ten-day period after learning of the basis for termination. Thus, the district court's grant of summary judgment to Avantax was affirmed. View "Avantax Wealth Management, Inc v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc." on Justia Law

O’Bryan Mitchell was involved in an incident where he fled from police while holding a firearm. The police were responding to a report of a man discharging a firearm near Franklin Park in Massillon, Ohio. Mitchell, who matched the suspect's description, fled on foot when ordered to stop. During the chase, he discarded the firearm, which was later recovered and found to be loaded with his DNA on it. Mitchell was also found in possession of methamphetamine and a digital scale. He was indicted on one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and pleaded guilty.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio sentenced Mitchell to 78 months of imprisonment, an upward variance from the Sentencing Guidelines range of 51 to 63 months. The court justified the variance based on Mitchell’s criminal history, his possession of narcotics, his poor institutional adjustment, and his repeated violations of supervised release. The court also ordered that Mitchell’s federal sentence run consecutively to any term of imprisonment arising from any pending state-court conviction or parole violation.Mitchell appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, arguing that his sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. He contended that the district court was predisposed to impose a higher sentence, failed to adequately explain the upward variance, and did not properly consider mitigating factors. He also argued that the court erred by ordering his federal sentence to run consecutively to any state sentence.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. It found that the district court adequately explained its rationale for the upward variance and considered the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The appellate court also held that the district court did not plainly err in ordering the federal sentence to run consecutively to any state sentence, as it had sufficiently considered the relevant factors and the presentence report. View "United States v. Mitchell" on Justia Law