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

In 1999, the plaintiffs sought to develop condominiums but needed rezoning approval from the Charter Township of Clinton. After a protracted dispute, the plaintiffs sued the Township in Michigan state court. That court entered a consent judgment that dictated the conditions for rezoning the property and completing the project. Years later, after experiencing several setbacks, the plaintiffs sought to amend the consent judgment, but the Township refused.The plaintiffs then filed suit in federal court, alleging several constitutional violations and a breach-of-contract claim. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit. The consent judgment contains a “retaining-jurisdiction” provision providing Macomb County Circuit Court jurisdiction over its interpretation and enforcement. A separate lawsuit filed in federal district court would constitute a collateral attack on the consent judgment, requiring the district court in some way to interpret or enforce it. All of plaintiffs’ alleged constitutional violations stem from the Township’s alleged refusal to “honor its obligations under the Consent Judgment to allow plaintiffs to develop the Subject Property.” View "Republic Building Co., Inc. v. Charter Township of Clinton, Michigan" on Justia Law

Freed fell behind approximately $1,100 on his property taxes. Thomas, Gratiot County’s treasurer, foreclosed on Freed’s property and sold it at a public auction for $42,000. The County retained the entire proceeds. Freed sued the County and Thomas under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and an unconstitutional excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment.Following a remand, the district court granted Freed summary judgment on his Fifth Amendment claim, rejecting Freed’s argument that he was entitled to the fair market value of his property, minus his debt, and holding that Freed was owed just compensation in the amount of the difference between the foreclosure sale and his debt, plus interest from the date of the foreclosure sale. Freed was owed about $40,900 plus interest, $56,800 less than he was seeking. The court also held that Freed’s claims against Thomas were barred by qualified immunity and denied Freed’s subsequent motion for attorney’s fees. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Following a public sale, a debtor is entitled to any surplus proceeds from the sale, which represent the value of the equitable title extinguished. Thomas did not violate a right that was clearly established at the time of her alleged misconduct. View "Freed v. Thomas" on Justia Law

Legacy, a small family-owned business, provides nonemergency ambulance services in several Ohio counties that border Kentucky. After receiving many inquiries from Kentucky hospitals and nursing homes, Legacy sought to expand into the Commonwealth. Kentucky required Legacy to apply for a “certificate of need” with the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services. Existing ambulance providers objected to Legacy’s request. The Cabinet denied Legacy’s application partly on the ground that these providers offered an adequate supply. Legacy sued, alleging that Kentucky’s certificate-of-need law violated the “dormant” or “negative” part of the Commerce Clause.The district court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed with respect to Legacy’s request to offer intrastate ambulance transportation in Kentucky. Under the modern approach to the dormant Commerce Clause, a law’s validity largely depends on whether it discriminates against out-of-state businesses in favor of in-state ones. Legacy’s evidence suggests that the state’s limits will harm Kentucky’s own “consumers.” It has not shown a “substantial harm” to interstate commerce. The court reversed with respect to Legacy’s request to offer interstate ambulance transportation between Kentucky and Ohio. States may not deny a common carrier a license to provide interstate transportation on the ground that the interstate market contains an “adequate” supply. The bright-line rule barring states from obstructing interstate “competition” does require a finding that a state has discriminated against out-of-state entities. View "Truesdell v. Friedlander" on Justia Law

Based on a tip from foreign law enforcement, Kentucky Detective Gatson and federal agents went to Lewis’s home. Lewis invited them inside and signed a form, consenting to “a complete search of the premises, property or vehicle” and electronic devices. A forensic examiner arrived and generated a preview of Lewis’s laptop, which revealed file names indicative of child pornography; on Lewis’s cell phone, he found thumbnail images of Lewis’s cousin’s children bathing naked. Lewis reportedly stated that he did not know that it was illegal to look at child pornography, then invoked his Miranda rights but did not say that he was revoking his consent to search. Gatson obtained a warrant. A forensic search of the seized devices revealed evidence of child pornography on Lewis’s laptop, cell phone, and USB thumb drive.The district court found that the search warrant failed to establish probable cause but that suppression was inappropriate because officers had relied on the warrant in good faith. Lewis conditionally pleaded guilty to producing child pornography, 18 U.S.C. 2251(a). The Sixth Circuit vacated. Lewis consented to the initial search of his laptop and cell phone and the officers’ account of that search and the preview generated were validly obtained and are admissible. All other evidence taken from Lewis’s electronic devices was obtained through searches and seizures that were not supported by a valid warrant. The warrant affidavit stated only Gatson’s conclusory belief that a suspect committed a crime and could not establish probable cause, which precludes the application of the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. View "United States v. Lewis" on Justia Law

In 2012, Lin arrived from China and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Lin testified that Lin’s girlfriend became pregnant in 2001. When Lin refused to share his girlfriend’s whereabouts, family planning officials hit and kicked him and started destroying possessions. Lin’s girlfriend gave birth in secret. Local officials eventually discovered their location, took his girlfriend to be forcibly inserted with an IUD, and imposed fines to obtain a household registration for their son, and for having a child out of wedlock. Ten years later, Lin began attending an “underground” Christian church and, during a gathering, was arrested locked in a small room, interrogated, and beaten for three days. After he left China, Lin’s parents told him that the village cadre continued to look for him. In 2017, Lin declined to attend his mother’s funeral based on warnings from his father.An IJ found Lin to be credible but concluded that Lin did not demonstrate that the harm he experienced, on account of either his religion or his opposition to China’s family planning policies, rose to the level of persecution nor a well-founded fear of future persecution. The BIA dismissed Lin’s appeal. The Sixth Circuit remanded. Findings that Lin failed to show a reasonable likelihood of individualized persecution in China and that it would be reasonable for Lin to internally relocate within China were not supported by substantial evidence. View "Lin v. Garland" on Justia Law

During a routine traffic stop of Moore and Saunders, the Ohio State Highway Patrol seized four vacuum-sealed packages, containing 431 grams of heroin. The couriers stated they had planned to deliver their load to Minter in West Virginia. The FBI Drug Task Force learned Minter had paid them in either cash or drugs, or both, to deliver money to Wright in Detroit and return with drugs for distribution by Minter. They had made similar journeys between Wright and Minter in the past. Moore explained that Wright was “in charge.” The FBI executed a search warrant for Minter’s residence and recovered traces of heroin, scales, and $18,000 in cash. A day later, the FBI executed a second warrant, based on information from a confidential informant, to search under the shared porch at Minter’s apartment building,.Officers recovered a charcoal bag containing 529 grams of heroin and 37 grams of crack cocaine. Underneath the steps, about eight feet away, officers recovered a stolen .357 Magnum.Minter pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute heroin; after remands, the district court applied a two-level enhancement for his role as a manager or supervisor and a two-level firearm-possession enhancement. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding the enhancements proper. View "United States v. Minter" on Justia Law

Three individuals filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that Wayne County has a policy or practice of seizing vehicles and their contents without probable cause, simply because of the vehicle’s location in an area generally associated with crime. Wayne County impounds the vehicles and their contents until the owner pays a redemption fee: $900 for the first seizure, $1,800 for the second, and $2,700 for the third, plus towing and storage fees. The owner's only alternatives are to abandon the vehicle or to wait for prosecutors to decide whether to initiate civil forfeiture proceedings. Before a forfeiture action is brought, there are multiple pretrial conferences involving the owner and prosecutors, without a judge; prosecutors attempt to persuade the owner to pay the fee by pointing out that storage fees accrue daily. Missing just one conference results in automatic forfeiture. It takes at least four months, beyond any previous delays to arrive before a neutral decisionmaker. The seizure proceedings are conducted under Michigan’s Nuisance Abatement statute, the Controlled Substances Act, and the Omnibus Forfeiture Act, which do not protect plaintiffs from the pre-hearing deprivation of their properties.The Sixth Circuit held that Wayne County violated the Constitution when it seized plaintiffs’ personal vehicles—which were vital to their transportation and livelihoods— with no timely process to contest the seizure. Wayne County was required to provide an interim hearing within two weeks to test the probable validity of the deprivation. View "Ingram v. Wayne County, Michigan" on Justia Law

A 911 call, reported that “the people that live behind me” were “yelling and what sounds like him hitting something.” Officers Curtis and Gray responded to the address, wearing activated body cameras. Not seeing or hearing anything amiss outside, they knocked. Reed answered the door. Gray asked, “Do you mind stepping out here and talking to me for a second?” Reed asked, “you got a warrant?” Gray replied, “nope,” explaining that “somebody called and said that somebody was fighting.” Reed said, “Wasn’t here.” After additional discussion, Gray stated they needed to talk to other adults in the house; “if not, then we can come in … exigent circumstances.” Reed closed his door. The officers kicked the door down. Curtis stepped inside, drew his firearm, pointed it at Reed’s head. then put the gun away, and pulled Reed outside. Gray pushed Reed against the car and patted him down. Other officers arrived and spoke with Reed’s family. Satisfied that everyone in Reed’s house was safe, the officers documented the damage to Reed’s door and left.The district court dismissed 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims against Campbell County and against the officers in their official capacities; dismissed a Terry claim as “duplicative” of a false arrest claim; dismissed claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress; and declined to award the officers qualified immunity on the individual capacity unlawful-entry, excessive-force, and false-arrest claims. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. A reasonable jury could find that the officers violated clearly established constitutional rights. View "Reed v. Campbell County, Kentucky" on Justia Law

Jones, who was on supervised release, was arrested after he fired shots outside his house and fled inside. He pled guilty to possessing a stolen firearm. The district court imposed the agreed-upon 10-year sentence, which was above the 77-96 month Guidelines range but below the 15-year mandatory minimum that would have applied if he had been classified as an armed career criminal. The court rejected arguments that he should not receive a sentence enhancement for reckless endangerment during flight and challenging the use of his prior controlled substance offense under Michigan state law to increase his base offense level–claiming Michigan’s controlled-substance statute is broader than the federal definition of the relevant substances. Separately, Jones faced resentencing on his supervised release; the firearm offense violated his supervised release conditions. A different district court imposed a 24-month sentence—half to run concurrently with his firearm conviction and half to run consecutively.The Third Circuit affirmed. The district courts properly calculated Jones’s Guidelines range for the firearm offense and imposed a reasonable sentence for the supervised-release violation. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

From 2009-2015, Hofstetter managed pain clinics in Florida and Tennessee. Hofstetter also co-owned and managed an additional clinic in Tennessee. Clemons, Newman, and Womack were employed as nurse practitioners at these clinics. All four defendants were convicted of maintaining drug-involved premises. Hofstetter was also convicted of conspiring to distribute controlled substances, distributing controlled substances, and money laundering. Hofstetter was sentenced to 400 months in prison, Clemons to 42 months, Newman to 40 months, and Womack to 30 months. After the Sixth Circuit affirmed the convictions, the Supreme Court decided “Ruan” (2022), clarifying the applicable mens rea for an unlawful distribution charge, and remanded.The Sixth Circuit again affirmed. Under Ruan, it is insufficient for the government to prove that a prescription was “in fact” not authorized; the government must prove the defendant subjectively knew or intended that the prescription was unauthorized. The district court’s instructions were not plainly erroneous regarding the drug-involved-premises and conspiracy-to-distribute-and-dispense charges. Taken as a whole, the jury instructions made clear that the jury had to find that the defendants knowingly opened the clinics for the purpose of illegally distributing Schedule II controlled substances. View "United States v. Hofstetter" on Justia Law