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

A group of Ohio voters sought to amend the Ohio Constitution through a ballot initiative. To do so, they had to submit their proposed amendment, a summary of the amendment, and one thousand supporting signatures to the Ohio Attorney General, who then had to certify that the summary was a fair and truthful statement of the proposed amendment. The Attorney General, David Yost, declined to certify the plaintiffs' summary on at least six occasions. After the most recent denial, the plaintiffs sought review from the Supreme Court of Ohio, which declined to grant expedited review. The plaintiffs then filed a complaint in federal district court, alleging that the Attorney General's enforcement of the certification requirement violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by creating an unconstitutional obstacle to their ballot access and their ability to advocate for their proposed amendment. The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunctive relief.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court found that the plaintiffs had standing to bring their claims and were not barred by sovereign immunity. The court also determined that the certification requirement imposed a severe burden on the plaintiffs' core political speech, and that the state had not shown that the requirement was narrowly tailored to its interests. The court therefore concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim. The court also found that the remaining factors for granting a preliminary injunction weighed in the plaintiffs' favor. The court therefore granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunctive relief, enjoining the Attorney General from enforcing the certification requirement against the plaintiffs. View "Brown v. Yost" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Roy Christopher West, who is serving a life sentence without parole for a conviction that the district judge has attributed to a sentencing error. West was indicted in 2010 on a charge of conspiracy to use interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder for hire. He was tried twice, and during the second trial, he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. However, the indictment did not include any allegation that personal injury or death resulted from the conspiracy, and the jury was not instructed that death was an element of West's offense. The district court sentenced West under the federal murder-for-hire statute, which imposes a life sentence in cases where "death results." The court concluded that sentencing West to life imprisonment under these circumstances violated West's constitutional rights.West initially moved to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate a causation defense. The district court denied that motion. West then moved for compassionate release, arguing that his unconstitutionally imposed life sentence, combined with his rehabilitation while incarcerated, created an extraordinary and compelling circumstance that warranted a sentence reduction. The district court agreed and reduced his sentence to time served. However, the Government appealed, and the appellate court reversed, holding that compassionate release could not be used as a vehicle for second or successive § 2255 motions.West then sought relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The district court construed West's motion as a second or successive § 2255 motion and transferred it. West opposed the transfer and asked the appellate court to remand to the district court for a ruling on the merits of his Rule 60(b) motion. The appellate court vacated the district court's order construing West's motion as a second or successive § 2255 motion and remanded the motion to the district court to consider under Rule 60(b). View "In re: West" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Yvonne Craddock, an African American woman who was terminated from her employment at FedEx Corporate Services following a workplace altercation. Craddock alleged that her termination was racially motivated, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case was presented to a jury, which concluded that FedEx's reason for termination was pretextual, but that Craddock had failed to demonstrate that FedEx intentionally discriminated against her because of her race. Craddock appealed, arguing that the district court had made several errors, including forcing her to bifurcate the liability and damages portions of her trial and excluding testimony and evidence pertaining to events post-termination.The district court had granted FedEx’s motion to dismiss Craddock’s libel claim, Family Medical Leave Act claim, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim, and spoliation claim, but denied dismissal of her Title VII claims. After discovery, the court granted FedEx’s motion for summary judgment on Craddock’s Title VII claims. The case was then taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.The Court of Appeals held that the district court did not abuse its discretion regarding the claims raised by Craddock, and affirmed the jury’s verdict. The court found that the district court's decision to bifurcate the trial was not an abuse of discretion, and that the court's exclusion of testimony and exhibits postdating the termination was not erroneous. The court also found no error in the district court's trial rulings and case management decisions, and concluded that the jury verdict form was not plainly erroneous. The court further held that the cumulative effect of the alleged errors did not deprive Craddock of a trial consistent with constitutional guarantees of due process. View "Craddock v. FedEx Corporate Services, Inc." on Justia Law

An inmate, Timothy Finley, who suffers from severe psychiatric disorders, was placed in a heavily restrictive cell in administrative segregation for approximately three months by prison officials. Finley brought a case against the deputy wardens, Erica Huss and Sarah Schroeder, alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment and his right to procedural due process, as well as disability-discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.The district court granted summary judgment to Huss and Schroeder on all claims. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision on Finley’s procedural due process and statutory discrimination claims. However, the court reversed the lower court's decision on Finley’s Eighth Amendment claim, finding that he presented sufficient evidence to find that the deputy wardens violated his clearly established rights. The court remanded the case for further proceedings on the Eighth Amendment claim. View "Finley v. Huss" on Justia Law

Emmanuel Merritt was convicted for being a felon in possession of firearms and was sentenced to 120 months in prison. Prior to his guilty plea, Merritt had spent several months evading authorities, leading the district court to deny him a two-point reduction in his total offense level for not accepting responsibility. Additionally, the district court increased Merritt's criminal history score by three points due to a past state offense that included a total prison sentence of 870 days. Merritt contested both decisions, arguing that his sentence was only 330 days due to credits he received.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan disagreed with Merritt's objections. It found that Merritt had not clearly demonstrated acceptance of responsibility and that his criminal history score was calculated correctly. Merritt was sentenced to a within-Guidelines sentence of 120 months in prison.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court found that the district court did not err in denying the two-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility, given Merritt's history of evading authorities. The court also upheld the district court's calculation of Merritt's criminal history score, ruling that the Guidelines required the addition of three points for Merritt's past state offense. View "United States v. Merritt" on Justia Law

The case involves Douglas Milczak, a long-term employee of General Motors (GM), who alleged that he was subjected to age-based harassment by his managers and subordinates, with the aim of pushing him into early retirement. Milczak claimed that this harassment violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. After enduring several years of alleged degradation, he filed an action against GM. GM moved for summary judgment, arguing that the record did not support any of his claims. The district court granted the motion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that Milczak failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination. While the court acknowledged that Milczak had experienced offensive comments from his manager, it found that these comments did not constitute age-based harassment that was severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment. The court also found that Milczak failed to show that GM's personnel actions were based on his age or that similarly situated younger employees were treated more favorably. Finally, the court found that Milczak failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, as he could not demonstrate a causal connection between his protected activities and the adverse actions taken by GM. View "Milczak v. General Motors, LLC" on Justia Law

Keita Jerrod Hayden was convicted for violating the terms of his supervised release for the second time. The district court imposed a seven-month term of incarceration followed by an eight-year term of supervised release. Hayden challenged his supervised-release term on two grounds: first, that it is longer than his statute of conviction allows, and second, that the district court violated his right to be present at sentencing by imposing the mandatory and standard conditions by reference.The district court had previously sentenced Hayden to a ten-year prison term and eight years of supervised release for knowingly and intentionally possessing with the intent to distribute a mixture containing cocaine base. Hayden violated the terms of his supervised release twice, first by driving under the influence of alcohol, and second by being intoxicated in a public place. Each time, the district court sentenced him to imprisonment followed by an eight-year supervised-release term.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. The court found that the district court did not exceed the statutory-maximum term of supervised release and provided Hayden with sufficient notice of the conditions to satisfy due process. The court also determined that the district court did not violate Hayden's due-process right by incorporating the standard supervised-release conditions by reference. The court concluded that the district court had followed an appropriate procedure in imposing four special discretionary conditions upon Hayden during his supervised release. View "United States v. Hayden" on Justia Law

The case involves the Mackinac Center for Public Policy and the Cato Institute (Plaintiffs) who sued the U.S. Department of Education and its officials (Defendants) over a one-time account adjustment announced by the Department. The adjustment was intended to count months or years that student-loan borrowers spent in excessive forbearance status towards debt forgiveness. The Plaintiffs, being nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations and qualified public service employers under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program, argued that this adjustment would harm their ability to recruit and retain employees.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, where the court dismissed the Plaintiffs' complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding that the Plaintiffs lacked standing. The Plaintiffs appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they suffered an injury in fact, a requirement for establishing standing. The court rejected the Plaintiffs' arguments that they had competitor standing and that they were deprived of a procedural right. The court found that the Plaintiffs' claims were speculative and unsupported by specific facts. Consequently, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Plaintiffs' complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Mackinac Center for Public Policy v. Cardona" on Justia Law

Eight men convicted of sexual offenses between 1982 and 1994 challenged the constitutionality of the 2004 Tennessee Sexual Offender and Violent Sexual Offender Registration, Verification, and Tracking Act (“the Act”) and its subsequent amendments. The Act required them to comply with various reporting requirements and geographical restrictions imposed on all sex offenders. The plaintiffs argued that the laws violated the Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee agreed with the plaintiffs and issued an injunction prohibiting Governor Lee and Director Rausch from enforcing the entire Tennessee code against the plaintiffs. The court also issued a declaratory judgment against unnamed parties who might also enforce the Act.The case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The appellate court disagreed with the district court's decision. The court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue Governor Lee and ordered the lower court to dismiss him from the suit. The court also found that the district court's injunction was overly broad and unjustified. The appellate court reversed in part the district court’s judgment that the Act violates the Ex Post Facto Clause and remanded the case with orders to vacate the declaratory judgment, dissolve the injunction against Governor Lee, dismiss Governor Lee from the suit based on a lack of standing, and to modify the injunction against Director Rausch consistent with its opinion. View "John Doe #1 v. Lee" on Justia Law

The case involves Lance Tobias, who ran an operation shipping and receiving drugs and cash for dealers and their customers. He pleaded guilty to crimes involving the possession and distribution of fentanyl. The district court denied Tobias “safety-valve” relief, an offense-level reduction for defendants who make full disclosures to the government, citing Tobias’s failure to disclose any information regarding his customers. As a result, Tobias qualified for a ten-year mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). The court imposed the mandatory minimum and a $100,000 fine without calculating Tobias’s sentencing range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Tobias appealed the district court’s denial of safety-valve relief and his sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court found that the district court’s denial of safety-valve relief was supported by the record. The court also found that any sentencing error survives plain-error review. The court held that Tobias failed to provide the government with enough information to warrant safety-valve relief. The court also found that the district court’s failure to calculate Tobias’s Guidelines range before imposing the statutorily mandated minimum term of imprisonment and a $100,000 fine did not affect Tobias’s substantial rights. View "United States v. Tobias" on Justia Law