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

The case involves Shannon Blick, a former principal of an elementary school in the Ann Arbor Public School District. In 2019, Blick was placed on paid leave while the school district investigated her role in a custodian's over-billing scheme. The leave lasted two years, and the school district eventually terminated Blick's contract. Blick filed a lawsuit while still on leave, alleging that various officials violated her freedoms of speech and association under the First Amendment. She also brought race-discrimination, due-process, and conspiracy claims against these officials. The district court rejected Blick's First Amendment claims at the summary-judgment stage and dismissed the other claims on the pleadings.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that Blick failed to show a reversible error. She argued that the school district violated the First Amendment by imposing a prior restraint that barred her from speaking during her leave and by taking harmful actions against her in retaliation for her speech. However, the court found that Blick's lawyers did not provide sufficient information about what she wanted to say or what she did say. The court also found that Blick's opening brief did not preserve her challenges to much of the district court's motion-to-dismiss decision. As a result, the court affirmed the district court's decision. View "Blick v. Ann Arbor Public School District" on Justia Law

Brent Adkins, a crew member on one of Marathon Petroleum Company’s inland river barges, claimed that his service on the barge caused his lung function to deteriorate. He brought claims against Marathon under the Jones Act and general maritime law. Adkins worked on the barge from 2008 to 2012. During this time, he underwent several medical examinations which showed a decline in his Forced Vital Capacity (FVC), a measure of lung function. Despite this, Marathon cleared Adkins to work without restriction. In March 2012, Adkins fell ill and was diagnosed with an irregular heartbeat and heat intolerance. He never returned to work for Marathon and subsequently sued the company.The case was initially filed in Louisiana state court but was dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds. Adkins then sued Marathon in the Southern District of Ohio. He claimed that repeated exposure to hydrogen sulfide and other hydrocarbon fumes while working on the barge caused his pulmonary function to deteriorate. He also claimed that Marathon failed to pay maintenance and cure for the injuries and illnesses he sustained while working on the barge. Marathon moved for summary judgment on all of Adkins’s claims. The district court granted Marathon’s motion for summary judgment and denied Adkins’s.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the district court. The court held that Adkins needed expert medical proof to show causation on his Jones Act negligence claims. However, the court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Marathon on Adkins’s maintenance-and-cure claim, finding that Adkins presented evidence that created a genuine dispute of material fact about whether his lung problems manifested while he was in Marathon’s service. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Adkins v. Marathon Petroleum Co., LP" on Justia Law

The case involves Benjamin Stanley, who was employed by Western Michigan University (WMU) for about a month before his employment was terminated. Stanley, who has severe ADHD, claimed that WMU and certain supervisors discriminated and retaliated against him in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). He also brought a claim under Michigan’s Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA), as well as a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court dismissed Stanley’s federal claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on Eleventh Amendment immunity and dismissed his state-law claims for failure to comply with the Michigan Court of Claims Act’s notification statute.The district court's dismissal of Stanley's claims was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Stanley’s federal claims and the denial of Stanley’s motion for leave to amend his complaint. However, the court vacated the judgment in part and remanded to the district court to dismiss Stanley’s federal and state-law claims without prejudice. The court found that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Stanley’s ADA claims because the defendants were entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, and Stanley lacked standing to request injunctive relief from the individual defendants. The court also found that the district court lacked jurisdiction to decide Stanley’s state-law claims because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over any federal issues. View "Stanley v. Western Michigan University" on Justia Law

The case involves eight landowners who sued Midland and Gladwin Counties in Michigan, alleging a taking under the federal and state constitutions following the failure of the Edenville Dam, which resulted in flooding of several cities downstream. The dam, built in 1924, had a history of flood control issues. In 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission revoked the existing owner's license and transferred regulatory authority over the dam to the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy. In compliance with Michigan law, the counties assembled a task force to manage the lake above the dam and filed a petition in 2019 to maintain the lake levels. In May 2020, several days of historic rainfall raised the water level three feet above its previous maximum, triggering the dam's failure and causing extensive damage to properties downstream.The district court granted summary judgment to the counties, concluding that their efforts to maintain the water levels did not show that they intended to flood the downstream properties and "take" their land. The landowners appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the counties' petition to maintain the lake depth at the same level that had existed for roughly a century did not show that they intended to flood the downstream properties. The court also noted that the counties played no part in regulating or controlling the dam's infrastructure. Furthermore, the court pointed out that the dam's failure was caused by soil vulnerabilities, not inadequate spillways, as determined by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's independent forensic team. Therefore, the court concluded that no taking occurred as a matter of federal or state law. View "Bruneau v. Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy" on Justia Law

The case involves the Michigan Attorney General's attempt to shut down Enbridge’s Line 5 Pipeline, which runs underwater across the Straits of Mackinac between Michigan’s Lower and Upper Peninsulas. The Attorney General filed the case in Michigan state court in 2019, alleging violations of three state laws. Enbridge responded by moving for summary disposition, arguing that the complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The state court held oral argument on those dispositive motions, focusing on preemption issues, including whether the Attorney General’s claims were preempted by either the Pipeline Safety Act or the federal Submerged Lands Act.In 2020, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer issued a notice of revocation of the 1953 easement, calling for Line 5 to be shut down by May 2021, and simultaneously filed a complaint in state court to enforce the notice. Enbridge timely removed the Governor’s case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The district court denied the Governor’s motion to remand, holding that it had federal-question jurisdiction. The Governor subsequently voluntarily dismissed her case.Enbridge removed the Attorney General’s case to federal court in December 2021, citing the district court’s order denying the motion to remand in the Governor’s case. The Attorney General moved to remand this case to state court on grounds of untimely removal and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The district court denied the motion on both grounds, excusing Enbridge’s untimely removal based on equitable principles and estopping the Attorney General from challenging subject-matter jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's decision, holding that Enbridge failed to timely remove the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), and there are no equitable exceptions to the statute’s deadlines for removal. The case was remanded to Michigan state court. View "Nessel v. Enbridge Energy, LP" on Justia Law

A group of twenty states sued the U.S. Department of Education and other federal entities, challenging the Department's interpretation of Title IX to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in education programs receiving federal financial assistance. The states argued that the Department's interpretation, issued without undergoing the notice-and-comment process required for legislative rules under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), was procedurally and substantively unlawful.The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee granted the states a preliminary injunction, halting the enforcement of the Department's interpretation. The Department appealed, arguing that the states lacked standing, the interpretation was unreviewable, and the district court abused its discretion in issuing the injunction.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the states had standing to sue, the Department's interpretation was reviewable, and the states were likely to succeed on their claim that the interpretation was a legislative rule that should have undergone the notice-and-comment process. The court also found that the states would likely suffer irreparable harm without the injunction, the balance of equities tipped in their favor, and the public interest favored the injunction. View "Tennessee v. Department of Education" on Justia Law

The case involves Dr. Peter Bolos, who was convicted of mail fraud, conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud, and felony misbranding as part of a complex scheme. Bolos purchased an interest in Florida-based pharmacy Synergy Pharmacy Services in 2013 and became the managing partner. Synergy signed an agreement with HealthRight, a telemarketing firm, to generate business. HealthRight used social media advertisements and large phone banks to generate potential clients for Synergy. The information collected from potential clients was forwarded to a licensed doctor in the patient’s home state for review. Most of these decisions were made without the doctor ever seeing or speaking to the patient. The doctors then sent the prescriptions to Synergy for filling.The District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee convicted Bolos on all counts after a four-week trial. Bolos appealed, arguing that his actions were not unlawful and that he was being unfairly held criminally culpable for contractual violations and others’ misconduct.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit disagreed with Bolos and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that Bolos and Synergy leadership knew of the deficiencies in their business practices and either actively facilitated and furthered them or turned a blind eye, all in an effort to induce Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) to pay Synergy. The court also held that the federal healthcare-fraud statute requires the government to prove that Bolos knowingly devised a scheme or artifice to defraud a health care benefit program in connection with the delivery of or payment for health care benefits, items, or services. The court found ample evidence in the record to support the jury’s finding that Bolos conspired to create a scheme with the intent to defraud the PBMs of their money. View "United States v. Bolos" on Justia Law

Richard Whitman was convicted of murder and unlawful possession of a firearm in an Ohio state court. The case revolved around whether Whitman acted in self-defense when he shot and killed David Eadie during a physical altercation at his sister's home. Whitman requested a jury instruction on the "castle doctrine," which would have informed the jury that a person lawfully in their residence has no duty to retreat before using force in self-defense. The trial court denied this request, and Whitman was subsequently convicted and sentenced to 21 years to life in prison.Whitman appealed his conviction to the Ohio Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the castle doctrine. The appeals court upheld his conviction, ruling that any error did not affect Whitman's substantial rights. Whitman then sought to appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, arguing for the first time that the trial court's error violated his federal due process right to a complete defense. The Ohio Supreme Court denied discretionary review.Whitman then turned to federal court, petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus. He claimed that the state court's denial of the castle doctrine instruction violated his federal due process rights. The district court denied Whitman's petition, deeming the castle doctrine issue a state law question and not a due process violation. Whitman appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. The court found that Whitman had procedurally defaulted his claim because he did not properly argue the merits of his due process claim in state court and is now barred from further review there. The court also noted that Whitman did not argue that he could satisfy the cause and prejudice standard which might otherwise overcome the default. The court concluded that enforcing Whitman's procedural default was justified by the interests of preservation, judicial economy, and comity. View "Whitman v. Gray" on Justia Law

The case involves Dorian McMullen, who was found by police in a high-crime neighborhood, sitting in his car with his legs sticking out the open door. As police approached in an unmarked vehicle, they observed McMullen reaching for something on the car's floorboard, which they suspected to be a gun. McMullen exited his car and engaged in a brief conversation with the police, during which he allegedly admitted to having a gun and crack cocaine in his car. The police then searched the car, finding a loaded pistol and narcotics. McMullen was arrested and later charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm.McMullen moved to suppress the gun evidence, arguing that it was seized in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court denied the motion, finding that the police had reasonable suspicion to temporarily stop and question McMullen, based on factors such as the high-crime neighborhood, proximity to a gang member's car, and McMullen's reaching motion towards the car's floorboard. The court also found that the police lawfully frisked McMullen and searched his car due to officer-safety concerns. McMullen pleaded guilty and appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the police had a valid basis for initiating a Terry stop, considering the totality of the circumstances. The court also found that the police took reasonable protective measures during the stop, including searching McMullen's car, which did not violate his constitutional rights. The court rejected McMullen's argument that the gun in his car was not immediately accessible to him at the time of the search, stating that a weapon is not necessarily inaccessible just because it is temporarily behind a closed door. View "United States v. McMullen" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over a protective order issued by the district court, barring Visser and Associates, PLLC (“Visser”) from communicating with potential class members in a putative class action. The case originated from a claim by Wayside Church that Van Buren County had violated the federal Constitution’s Takings Clause by foreclosing on its property to satisfy a tax debt and then selling the property for a higher amount without refunding the difference. The case was revived in federal court following the Supreme Court's overruling of a previous decision that required such claims to be pursued in state court.The district court preliminarily approved a proposed class action settlement between the plaintiffs and defendant counties. Around the same time, Visser began sending solicitation letters to property owners who it thought might have takings claims against counties in the Western District of Michigan. The district court issued a show-cause order, finding that Visser’s solicitation letters did not cross the line from permissible solicitation to misleading, improper communication with potential class members. However, the court was not satisfied with Visser’s explanation for why it had sent solicitation letters to named plaintiffs who were already represented by class counsel.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's protective order. The court found that Visser had violated ethical rules by soliciting named plaintiffs and misleading the court. The court also found that Visser had continued to solicit potential class members after the district court had preliminarily approved the class settlement. The court concluded that Visser's conduct posed a serious threat to the fairness of the litigation process and the administration of justice generally. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the protective order. View "Wayside Church v. Van Buren County" on Justia Law