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

Five University of Kentucky football players attended a fraternity party where they were subjected to racial slurs and, in some cases, physical assault by attendees. After the incident, a fraternity member called the police and accused the players of assault and burglary, claiming they brandished weapons. Detective Cory Vinlove led the investigation and, despite evidence suggesting the players were victims, allegedly fabricated information to support criminal charges against them. The university cleared the players of wrongdoing, but Vinlove proceeded with charges, and a police press release publicized the allegations. Ultimately, a grand jury declined to indict the players, but the negative publicity had already damaged their reputations and careers.The players filed lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky against Vinlove, Sergeant Donnell Gordon, Police Chief Lawrence Weathers, and the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, asserting federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (including malicious prosecution and fabrication of evidence) and various state-law claims. The district court consolidated the cases and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims except a state-law malicious prosecution claim against Vinlove. The court found that the plaintiffs had not alleged a deprivation of liberty under the Fourth Amendment, as required for their federal claims, and that the state-law claims were inadequately pled. The court later dismissed the remaining state-law claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Sixth Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed to allege a deprivation of liberty under the Fourth Amendment, as they were not arrested, detained, or subject to pretrial restrictions. The court also held that the press release was absolutely privileged under Kentucky law, defeating the defamation claim, and that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege that Gordon or Weathers initiated or continued the prosecution, defeating the state-law malicious prosecution claim. View "Adams v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov't" on Justia Law

A company that supplies allergy testing materials and personnel to primary-care physicians in Tennessee alleged that several insurers and a dominant allergy-care medical group conspired to drive it and its contracting physicians out of the market. The company provided technicians and supplies to physicians, who then billed insurers for allergy services. The company claimed that the insurers and the medical group coordinated audits, denied claims, and set restrictive reimbursement policies, which led physicians to stop using its services and caused it financial harm.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee dismissed the company’s federal antitrust claims at the pleading stage, finding it lacked standing to sue under the antitrust laws, and later granted summary judgment to the defendants on the company’s state-law tort claims. The company appealed both the dismissal of its antitrust claims and the grant of summary judgment on its tort claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions. The Sixth Circuit clarified that, under federal antitrust law, a plaintiff must show both antitrust injury and proximate causation. The court held that the company’s injuries were only indirect, as they resulted from harms inflicted on the physicians, who were the direct victims of the alleged anticompetitive conduct. Applying the Supreme Court’s rule from Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, the court found that indirect sellers—those two or more steps removed in the distribution chain—may not sue for antitrust violations. The court also affirmed summary judgment on the state-law claims, concluding that the company failed to show either malice or causation as required for tortious interference, and that its civil conspiracy claim could not survive without an underlying tort. View "Academy of Allergy & Asthma in Primary Care v. Amerigroup Tennessee, Inc." on Justia Law

The petitioner, who was previously sentenced to death in Ohio, obtained a conditional writ of habeas corpus from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which required the State of Ohio to conduct a new penalty-phase proceeding within 180 days or have the death sentence vacated. The state failed to meet this deadline, even after receiving several extensions due to complications such as judicial recusals, defense preparations, and questions regarding the petitioner’s competency. As a result, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio converted the conditional writ into an unconditional writ, ordering the state to vacate the death sentence and release the petitioner within five business days. The state did not fully comply until nearly three months later, when the state court formally vacated the sentence.After the state’s delayed compliance, the petitioner moved for relief from the unconditional writ, seeking as a sanction an order barring the state from reprosecuting the death penalty. The district court denied this request, finding that although there were significant delays, many were attributable to the petitioner, and the state’s conduct did not rise to the level of bad faith or substantial inequitable conduct that would justify barring reprosecution.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to review both the unconditional writ and the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion for sanctions, even after the state’s eventual compliance. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the delays and procedural complications did not constitute extraordinary circumstances or substantial inequitable conduct warranting a bar on reprosecution of the death penalty. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of further relief under Rule 60(b). View "Allah-U-Akbar v. Bradshaw" on Justia Law

A Tennessee resident insured by State Farm had her vehicle declared a total loss after an accident. State Farm calculated the payout for her claim using a valuation method provided by Audatex, which included a “Typical Negotiation Adjustment” (TNA) that reduced the value based on the assumption that used cars typically sell for less than their advertised price. The plaintiff argued that this adjustment did not reflect actual market practices and unfairly reduced the payout, constituting a breach of contract and a violation of Tennessee law. She filed a class action on behalf of similarly situated State Farm policyholders in Tennessee who received payouts calculated with the TNA.After the plaintiff filed suit in Tennessee state court, State Farm removed the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The district court denied State Farm’s initial summary judgment motion but enforced the policy’s appraisal provision, leading to an appraisal process in which the plaintiff ultimately received a higher payout. State Farm then argued that the plaintiff’s claims were moot or lacked standing because she had been paid the appraised value, but the district court rejected this argument, finding her claims for breach of contract and consequential damages survived. The district court certified a class of Tennessee policyholders who received payouts reduced by the TNA, finding the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 were met.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the class certification. The court held that the plaintiff had standing to pursue her claims and that the class satisfied the requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, superiority, and ascertainability. The court distinguished its approach from other circuits, emphasizing that common questions about the propriety of the TNA predominated over individualized damages issues. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order certifying the class and remanded for further proceedings. View "Clippinger v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The defendant pled guilty in 2016 to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances, receiving a sentence of 160 months based on his criminal history and offense level. In 2023, a retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines reduced his criminal history category, lowering his guideline range. The defendant, through appointed counsel, and the government stipulated to a new recommended sentence of 144 months, which the district court imposed.After resentencing, the defendant filed a pro se motion for reconsideration, asserting that his counsel had agreed to the stipulation without his knowledge or consent and that he wished to argue for a lower sentence. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied the motion, reasoning that because the defendant was represented by counsel, his pro se filing constituted improper hybrid representation. The court instructed that any motion for reconsideration should be filed through counsel.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that when a defendant raises a specific and serious allegation that counsel acted without his knowledge or against his wishes on a fundamental matter, the district court is obligated to inquire into the nature of the attorney-client relationship, regardless of whether the defendant used “magic words” or filed through counsel. The Sixth Circuit found that the district court erred by denying the motion solely on the basis of hybrid representation without conducting such an inquiry. The court vacated the district court’s judgment on the motion for reconsideration and remanded for further proceedings, instructing the district court to determine whether the defendant wishes to dismiss his counsel and whether he is entitled to do so, and then to address the merits of his motion. View "United States v. Riley" on Justia Law

A group of Black farmers and their association, along with several individual members, sought to file claims with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for financial assistance under a program created by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. They wished to submit applications on behalf of deceased relatives who had allegedly experienced discrimination in USDA farm lending programs. The USDA, however, had a policy that excluded applications reporting only discrimination against individuals who were deceased at the time of application, making such claims ineligible for the program.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, seeking an injunction to require the USDA to accept these “legacy claims.” The district court denied their motion for a preliminary injunction and granted the government’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), holding that the relevant statute only authorized financial assistance to living farmers. The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and also sought an emergency injunction pending appeal, which was denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The appellate court held that the statutory language of § 22007(e) of the Inflation Reduction Act required the USDA to provide “assistance” to farmers who experienced discrimination, and that “assistance” was forward-looking and could not be provided to deceased individuals. The court found that the statute did not authorize compensation for past harm to deceased farmers, distinguishing “assistance” from “compensation.” The court affirmed the district court’s judgment and denied the motion for an injunction pending appeal as moot, holding that the USDA was required to reject applications filed on behalf of deceased farmers. View "Black Farmers & Agriculturalists Ass'n v. Rollins" on Justia Law

A billboard company sought to erect a sign in a Michigan township, but its application was denied because the proposed billboard did not comply with local height and size restrictions. Instead of appealing the denial or seeking a variance, the company filed a federal lawsuit challenging the township’s sign ordinance on First Amendment grounds, including claims that the ordinance imposed content-based restrictions, constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint, and was unconstitutionally vague. The company did not challenge the height and size restrictions themselves. The township’s ordinance only allowed billboards in certain industrial zones adjacent to interstate freeways, but, according to the company, no such zones existed in the township.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment to the township, finding the company lacked standing because its alleged injuries were not caused by the challenged provisions and would not be redressed by a favorable decision. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the company failed to meet the requirements for standing on any of its claims.Subsequently, the company filed a new lawsuit in the same district court, again alleging that the ordinance was a prior restraint on speech. The district court dismissed the suit, holding that res judicata (claim preclusion) barred the action. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that issue preclusion, not claim preclusion, applied. The court concluded that issue preclusion barred the company from relitigating its prior-restraint claim based on its earlier application, but did not bar claims based on new facts—specifically, the company’s allegation that it was self-censoring and not applying for any billboards due to the ordinance’s discretionary variance process. The Sixth Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings on the new factual allegations. View "Outdoor One Communications LLC v. Charter Twp. of Canton, Mich." on Justia Law

Federal authorities investigated a man in Michigan after receiving a tip that he was distributing methamphetamine sourced from Las Vegas. Over several months, law enforcement gathered evidence, including intercepting a package containing nearly seven pounds of methamphetamine sent to his uncle’s home. Upon executing search warrants, officers seized drugs, cash, and firearms from both the uncle’s residence and the defendant’s home. The defendant admitted his involvement during a post-arrest interview. After serving a short state sentence for probation violations, he moved to Atlanta, where he was employed and had no further criminal incidents for about a year. In 2023, a federal grand jury indicted him for drug and firearm offenses. He was arrested in Michigan several months later, and while out on bond, he violated conditions and was re-arrested. While in jail, he attempted to smuggle synthetic drugs and was caught with contraband.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan denied the defendant a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, citing his continued drug-related conduct and false denials during the presentence investigation. The court also denied his request for a downward variance based on his period of lawful behavior in Atlanta, but did grant a downward variance due to his lack of youthful guidance, sentencing him to 300 months, below the guideline range. Defense counsel did not object to the court’s handling of non-frivolous arguments at sentencing.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction for clear error and affirmed, holding that post-offense drug activity and false denials were relevant to assessing acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). The appellate court also declined to review the procedural reasonableness of the sentence, finding that the defendant had either waived or invited any error by affirming that all arguments had been addressed. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Jett" on Justia Law

Diego Pavia, a college football player, sought to play for Vanderbilt University during the 2025 season. After a successful 2024 season, Pavia faced ineligibility under National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) rules, which limit athletes to four seasons of intercollegiate competition, including seasons played at junior colleges. Pavia’s path included time at a junior college, New Mexico State University, and Vanderbilt. The NCAA counted his 2021 junior college season toward his eligibility, effectively barring him from playing in 2025. Pavia argued that this rule violated the Sherman Act and sought injunctive relief to allow him to play in the 2025 and 2026 seasons.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted Pavia a preliminary injunction, preventing the NCAA from enforcing the rule against him for the 2025 season and from applying its restitution rule to Vanderbilt or Pavia based on his participation. The NCAA appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.While the appeal was pending, the NCAA issued a waiver allowing all similarly situated athletes, including Pavia, to play in the 2025 season. The NCAA confirmed that this waiver would remain in effect regardless of the outcome of the appeal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit determined that, because Pavia had already received the relief he sought at the preliminary injunction stage, the appeal was moot. The court held that it could not grant any further effectual relief and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court also declined to vacate the preliminary injunction, finding that the NCAA’s own actions had caused the case to become moot. View "Pavia v. NCAA" on Justia Law

Daniel Jackson was stopped by sheriff’s deputies in Kentucky after they observed his truck with an obscured license plate and learned he was driving without a valid license or registration. After arresting Jackson, deputies searched his truck and found methamphetamine, marijuana, syringes, and digital scales. A subsequent search of the police cruiser’s back seat, where Jackson had been placed, revealed a bag containing fentanyl. Jackson was charged with possession of fentanyl and methamphetamine with intent to distribute.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky presided over Jackson’s trial. At trial, Jackson testified that he had been framed by a deputy who allegedly planted the drugs in both his truck and the police cruiser. The jury rejected Jackson’s account and convicted him. At sentencing, the district court found that Jackson’s testimony constituted perjury and applied a two-level obstruction-of-justice enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines. The court also imposed a five-year term of supervised release, including a condition permitting searches of Jackson’s electronic devices by the probation office. Jackson did not object to this condition at sentencing.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed Jackson’s challenges to both the obstruction-of-justice enhancement and the supervised-release search condition. The court held that the district court’s findings of perjury—falsity, willfulness, and materiality—were not clearly erroneous and that the enhancement was mandatory under the Guidelines. The appellate court also found no plain error in the imposition or explanation of the electronic-device search condition, given the district court’s stated concerns about officer safety and recidivism. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law