93 results for 'cat:"Civil Rights" AND cat:"First Amendment"'.
J. Traynor grants the Attorney General of North Dakota's motion for summary judgment in a matter in which a disgruntled man, who was frustrated he was not permitted to make every single point he wanted to the Valley City Commission, alleged the City violated his First Amendment rights to speak at City Commission meetings. The undisputed facts show the City and its employees acted "reasonably and gracefully" in the face of the man's repeated rudeness and unjustified requests of the City Commission.
Court: USDC North Dakota , Judge: Traynor, Filed On: September 15, 2023, Case #: 1:20cv231, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: civil Rights, Municipal Law, first Amendment
J. Meyer grants the sex offender's motion for summary judgment, ruling the Connecticut law requiring released sex offenders to disclose all email addresses and other forms of online communication to the state police violates the First Amendment and does not advance a compelling government interest. Although the state has an interest in deterring sex offenders from using the internet to commit additional crimes, requiring disclosure of all internet-based forms of communications prevents released offenders from speaking freely and anonymously on the internet, while the state failed to provide any evidence the law has been used to prevent or detect crimes in the 15 years since its passage; therefore, the state will be permanently enjoined from enforcing the law against him.
Court: USDC Connecticut, Judge: Meyer, Filed On: September 14, 2023, Case #: 3:19cv1240, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: civil Rights, Constitution, first Amendment
J. Gildea reverses the Court of Appeals' finding that the developer's First-Amendment retaliation claim against the city is based on acts which constitute a continuing violation. The developer alleges a series of discrete retaliatory acts, each of which would have been actionable at the time they were committed. They therefore do not toll the statute of limitations as a continuing violation. Reversed.
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court, Judge: Gildea, Filed On: September 13, 2023, Case #: A22-0374, Categories: civil Rights, first Amendment
J. Calabretta allows to proceed certain civil rights claims filed by the estate of defense attorney Frank Carson, who were arrested on murder-for-hire charges and held for 17 months, but was later acquitted. The estate has sufficiently pleaded a claim for retaliatory prosecution under the First Amendment and emotional distress, along with certain malicious prosecution claims.
Court: USDC Eastern District of California, Judge: Calabretta, Filed On: September 11, 2023, Case #: 1:20cv747, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: civil Rights, Emotional Distress, first Amendment
J. Coleman grants former Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot's motion to dismiss a civil rights complaint brought by a right-wing reporter who alleges violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The reporter clashed with Lightfoot on numerous occasions, and following a shouting match between the pair at a press conference in July 2022, the Chicago police revoked his press credentials. The case is moot, as Lightfoot is no longer in office, and the reporter has not applied for new press credentials under new Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson. Also, the reporter's aggressive behavior toward Lightfoot's security team, and not his "tough questions" to the former mayor, were the reason police revoked his credentials.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Coleman, Filed On: September 5, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv4533, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: civil Rights, first Amendment
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Duffin partially grants the city, the city's mayor and other city officials' motions to dismiss the former city administrator's lawsuit alleging they and others conspired to block him from official city business, put him under investigation and remove him from office because he refused to fund a diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging program. One of the administrator's First Amendment claims is dismissed for a lack of standing, and also dismissed entirely are his claims that a city false statements ordinance is unconstitutionally vague, that his occupational liberty interest was violated under the 14th Amendment, that the mayor defamed him, and that the mayor, an alderperson and a private attorney inflicted emotional distress upon him. The administrator's due process claim is dismissed as to the alderpersons, the mayor and the city attorney in their official capacities, in part on qualified immunity grounds.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge: Duffin, Filed On: September 5, 2023, Case #: 2:23cv149, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: civil Rights, Due Process, first Amendment
J. Ezra grants a preliminary injunction to a group of porn-industry insiders after they sued the interim Texas attorney general over a new state law that “restricts access to pornographic websites by requiring digital age verification methods and warnings about the alleged harms caused by pornography.” While the state “has a legitimate goal in protecting children from sexually explicit material online,” the law violates the First Amendment and Section 230 in a number of ways, including by requiring porn websites to publish speech that is “deeply controversial” and “unduly burdensome,” including “somewhat deceptive” claims about the alleged dangers of pornography.
Court: USDC Western District of Texas , Judge: Ezra, Filed On: August 31, 2023, Case #: 1:23cv917, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: civil Rights, Constitution, first Amendment
J. Pitman finds that a “blackout period” imposed by Austin on campaign fundraising by city-level candidates is unconstitutional under the First Amendment after a city council candidate and a person who wanted to donate to her campaign sued over the restrictions. While the candidate has shown her rights were infringed because “she could not communicate as robustly as she desired,” and while both citizens are entitled to damages, the requests for injunctive relief are moot because the former candidate is neither “presently a candidate for Austin elective office” nor currently trying to campaign and raise money.
Court: USDC Western District of Texas , Judge: Pitman, Filed On: August 30, 2023, Case #: 1:21cv271, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: civil Rights, Elections, first Amendment
[Consolidated.] J. Boulee grants the renewed motions for preliminary injunction by the organizations and bars the officials from enforcing a provision of Georgia's voting law, S.B. 202, as it relates to initiating criminal prosecutions or imposing criminal penalties for passing out food and drinks to voters waiting in line at polling places. The organizations are likely to show that the practice known as "line relief" is expressive conduct under the First Amendment and that the ban on the practice is a content-based regulation of speech. There is evidence showing that reasonable people would interpret line relief efforts as conveying messages about community support. Long lines are likely to continue in the 2024 elections such that the groups will suffer irreparable injury without an injunction.
Court: USDC Southern District of Georgia, Judge: Boulee, Filed On: August 18, 2023, Case #: 1:21mi55555, NOS: Voting - Civil Rights, Categories: civil Rights, Elections, first Amendment
J. Bolden denies, in part, the city and its police chief's motions for summary judgment, ruling the fired officers' attendance at a rally in support of their efforts to reopen the station during the Covid-19 pandemic constitutes First Amendment protected activity and is sufficient to state a plausible retaliation claim, given the proximity between the rally and their terminations. Furthermore, their defamation claims will proceed. Although the termination letters of the officers were public records and, therefore, could be disclosed to the media, the statements made by the chief during press conferences - specifically, that they were fired for "not doing their jobs" and for misconduct - are statements of fact that could be proved objectively false by the officers.
Court: USDC Connecticut, Judge: Bolden, Filed On: August 18, 2023, Case #: 3:21cv787, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: civil Rights, Employment Retaliation, first Amendment
J. Rao reverses the district court's dismissal of two pro-lifer groups’ First Amendment action related to the arrest of two students for chalking “Black Pre-Born Lives Matter” on a public sidewalk after the district had refused to arrest the thousands of Black Lives Matter protesters who covered storefronts and streets with their message. The groups have plausibly alleged the district discriminated on the basis of viewpoint. Reversed in part.
Court: DC Circuit, Judge: Rao, Filed On: August 15, 2023, Case #: 21-7108 , Categories: civil Rights, first Amendment
J. Brennan grants, in part, the city's motion to dismiss, ruling that despite a history of allowing the van owner to use his vehicle as a loudspeaker during election season, the owner's First Amendment claims fail as a matter of law. The citations and parking tickets were issued in accordance with zoning and parking laws, while he also never had a permit to use a loudspeaker on top of the van.
Court: USDC Northern District of Ohio, Judge: Brennan, Filed On: August 14, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv992, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: civil Rights, first Amendment
J. Rosenbaum finds that the district court improperly dismissed the individual's civil rights action against the county and two jail employees after the jail required him to open his legal mail in the employees' presence when he was a pre-trial detainee and scan it into a computer that contained a memory chip. The district court incorrectly found that the individual failed to state a claim under the First Amendment against the jail employees alleging that the mail-scanning policy infringed on his free speech rights. However, the district court correctly dismissed the individual's claim for violation of his due process rights arising from an employee's refusal to allow the individual access to outdoor recreation for two years. The individual failed to sufficiently allege that the employee intended to punish him or that the two employees retaliated against him for filing grievances. Reversed.
Court: 11th Circuit, Judge: Rosenbaum, Filed On: August 8, 2023, Case #: 21-14230, Categories: civil Rights, first Amendment, Prisoners' Rights
J. Kirsch finds that the lower court properly denied the nonprofit's request for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Indiana's law limiting the persons for whom the organization can pay cash bail. The payment of cash bail is not protected by the First Amendment, as the conduct itself does not communicate any message without additional explanatory speech. Further, the law is rationally related to the state's legitimate interest in regulating pretrial detention of criminal defendants. Affirmed.
Court: 7th Circuit, Judge: Kirsch, Filed On: August 3, 2023, Case #: 22-2183, Categories: civil Rights, Restraining Order, first Amendment
J. Hamilton partially grants the police officers and city officials' motion for summary judgment in the protestors' suit alleging civil rights violations and injuries at protests of the death of George Floyd. Police officers' decision to shoot less-lethal munitions into a crowd could create unlawful-seizure claims for those struck, since firing their weapons toward the protesters was a "knowing and willful act that terminated [their] freedom of movement," regardless of the officers' intent to encourage protestors to disperse. Several protestors' claims are dismissed for reasons including inability to identify or incorrect identification of the officers who injured them and the officers' reasonable beliefs that the use of force was necessary to apprehend them. Five protestors have surviving claims.
Court: USDC Northern District of California, Judge: Hamilton, Filed On: August 3, 2023, Case #: 4:21cv1705, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: civil Rights, first Amendment, Police Misconduct
J. Marbley denies the nonprofit education group's motion for a preliminary injunction, ruling it is unlikely to prevail on its First Amendment claims against the school district and its anti-bullying policies because the "misgendering" policy that punishes students who refuse to call transgender classmates by preferred pronouns fits into a First Amendment exception used to prevent speech that gives rise to physical or psychological harm. Although students do not lose all First Amendment protections while at school, the policies in question are specifically designed to lessen harassment of transgender students who face four times the amount of bullying as their classmates and foster an environment in which all students can learn without interruption or harassment.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Marbley, Filed On: July 28, 2023, Case #: 2:23cv1595, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: civil Rights, Education, first Amendment
J. Grasz finds a lower court properly dismissed three protesters' First Amendment retaliation claims against a City. The protesters argued that police officers violated their rights by spraying them in the face with pepper spray. However, the protestors failed to sufficiently show in court that there was a casual connection between the officers' use of pepper spray and their constitutional rights for freedom of expression. Affirmed.
Court: 8th Circuit, Judge: Grasz, Filed On: July 28, 2023, Case #: 22-1735, Categories: civil Rights, Constitution, first Amendment
J. Morris grants a temporary restraining order against a Montana law that criminalizes, among several other things, “drag story hours” in schools and libraries and prohibits minors from attending “sexually oriented shows.” The law is overly broad and vague, with the language of the bill failing to properly define most of the “lewd” content it tries to curtail. Given that Montana’s annual pride event was slated to start in less than two days from the issuance of the ruling, the law is enjoined until a decision on a larger preliminary injunction is made.
Court: USDC Montana, Judge: Morris, Filed On: July 28, 2023, Case #: 2:23cv50, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: civil Rights, Lgbtq, first Amendment
J. McShane finds in favor of Oregon State Senator Brian Boquist for his complaint alleging that the Senate leadership retaliated against his exercise of free speech rights. After stating during a June 2019 speech on the Senate floor that, if the Senate leader is going to send the police for him, “Hell’s coming to visit you personally,” Boquist was told he would have to provide 12-hour advance notice in writing when he planned to go to the capitol building. Boquist’s comments were hyperbolic and said in “a highly charged political environment.” The statements did not constitute a true threat and the imposition of the 12-hour rule infringed on his rights.
Court: USDC Oregon, Judge: McShane, Filed On: July 17, 2023, Case #: 6:19cv1163, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: civil Rights, Government, first Amendment
J. Pillard upholds the district court's dismissal of seven individuals' First Amendment claims arising from their arrest for breaking the mayor's curfew, which was instituted in response to riots, vandalism and looting following the death of George Floyd. The curfew order was a valid time, place and manner restriction. Affirmed.
Court: DC Circuit, Judge: Pillard, Filed On: July 7, 2023, Case #: 22-7047 , Categories: civil Rights, first Amendment
J. Griffin finds the district court erroneously ruled a prison was entitled to deny recognition to the Christian Identity religion out of concern over its racist ideologies. The prison failed to conduct a meaningful analysis regarding whether non-recognition was the least restrictive means to ensure the security of its facility. Mere recognition of the religion does not require the prison to allow unfettered worship by the group, and testimony from the inmates indicates they are nonviolent and do not tolerate participants who became aggressive or violent at their services. Reversed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Griffin, Filed On: June 26, 2023, Case #: 21-1694, Categories: civil Rights, first Amendment, Prisoners' Rights
J. Rothstein denies the protester's motion for a preliminary injunction to bar the city from enforcing the city ordinance under which he was arrested during the annual Seattle PrideFest at the Seattle Center, where he read aloud from a Bible for at least two hours and refused to leave to a safer distance. Freedom of speech is not a "right without responsibility," and while the protester's speech is protected and the city's streets and parks are public forums, the city's police removed the protester because of the increased likelihood of violence or physical altercations between the protester and PrideFest attendees.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Rothstein, Filed On: June 22, 2023, Case #: 2:23cv352, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: civil Rights, Lgbtq, first Amendment
J. Pechman grants the protesters' motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of a property destruction ordinance for the duration of the protesters' lawsuit, which alleges that the city's officers arrested them for writing protest messages in sidewalk chalk and charcoal on the city's temporarily erected walls outside of the Seattle Police Department's East Precinct. The protesters sufficiently allege that the ordinance was selectively enforced against them for their views as their arrests are evidence of a concrete and particularized injury to their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and the arrests had a chilling effect to their intent to do so again.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Pechman, Filed On: June 13, 2023, Case #: 2:23cv17, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: civil Rights, first Amendment, Injunction