Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.
Showing posts with label First Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label First Amendment. Show all posts
Fifth Circuit: Thomas Howell v. Town of Ball, et al
FRCP, S1983, First Amendment, FCA
Appeals court does not have jurisdiction over cross-appeal relating to a non-dismissed claim when hearing an interlocutory appeal on the dismissed claims.
Local police officer's cooperation with federal anti-corruption probe was outside of normal duties, so the firing was potentially in response to protected conduct, but the right was not clearly established at the time.
Non-final decisionmakers not liable for retaliation claim under S1983, but municipal liability claim here presents a genuine issue of material fact.
Amendment to FCA removing "employee" language was to allow contractors to file claims, not non-employees generally.
Thomas Howell v. Town of Ball, et al
First Circuit: Sullivan v. Marchilli
Souter, Habeas, Crim
State court did not unreasonably apply federal law on the issue, as the allegedly vague prohibition is found in the federal caselaw as well.
Due Process argument that the court would not have determined the image to fall within the statute if the proper First Amendment limits had been followed is irrelevant, since the state appellate review did not unreasonably apply the governing law.
Sullivan v. Marchilli
State court did not unreasonably apply federal law on the issue, as the allegedly vague prohibition is found in the federal caselaw as well.
Due Process argument that the court would not have determined the image to fall within the statute if the proper First Amendment limits had been followed is irrelevant, since the state appellate review did not unreasonably apply the governing law.
Sullivan v. Marchilli
Fourth Circuit: Sutasinee Thana v. Board of License Commissioners
Jurisdiction, First Amendment, FRCP
Federal action challenging state liquor control agency restriction on First Amendment grounds is not an imprudent challenge to state court authority via the federal system, since (1) the prudential abstention doctrine technically only applies to holdings of the state's top court; (2) the challenge is to the agency action, not to the court; (3) administrative actions are categorically removed from prudential abstention; (4) the state proceding was a deferential review on merits, and the federal case is seeking damages from violations of the First Amendment; and (5) plaintiff is still actively pursuing the state appeal.
Sutasinee Thana v. Board of License Commissioners
Seventh Circuit: Kenneth Ogurek v. Jeffrey Gabor
Prisons
Claim of retaliation after letter to warden was a violation of First Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances.
Claim of innocence was sufficient showing to require production of videotape. Summary judgment in favor of the party who had earlier refused to produce the tape was error.
Kenneth Ogurek v. Jeffrey Gabor
Claim of retaliation after letter to warden was a violation of First Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances.
Claim of innocence was sufficient showing to require production of videotape. Summary judgment in favor of the party who had earlier refused to produce the tape was error.
Kenneth Ogurek v. Jeffrey Gabor
Seventh Circuit: Women's Health Link, Incorporated v. Fort Wayne Public Transportation
Free Speech, Posner.
Where the government creates a facility for communicative activity, it is inappropriate to look beyond the four corners of the speech itself in determining whether the speech can be barred.
Bus ads -- with image and Hamlet quote.
Women's Health Link, Incorporated v. Fort Wayne Public Transportation
Where the government creates a facility for communicative activity, it is inappropriate to look beyond the four corners of the speech itself in determining whether the speech can be barred.
Bus ads -- with image and Hamlet quote.
Women's Health Link, Incorporated v. Fort Wayne Public Transportation
Ninth Circuit: Madeline Cardenas v. Loretta E. Lynch
Immigration, Due Process, Precedent
Narrowest concurrence controls on a plurality.
Where an immigration officer denies a visa, the rights of third party U.S. citizens are not harmed where there are discrete factual predicates found that correspond to a valid statute. Burden is on the petitioner to establish bad faith.
Assertion of racial prejudice and mistaken tattoo identification insufficient showing for bad faith.
Madeline Cardenas v. Loretta E. Lynch
Fourth Circuit: Robert Sarvis v. James Alcorn
Election Law
Commonwealth's ballot ordering scheme does not impede access to ballot or association rights--no heightened scrutiny, despite potential "windfall vote" from order on the page.
Commonwealth's interest in preserving symmetry, reducing voter confusion properly pleaded. Little burden on petitioner.
Question for the political branches.
Robert Sarvis v. James Alcorn
Commonwealth's ballot ordering scheme does not impede access to ballot or association rights--no heightened scrutiny, despite potential "windfall vote" from order on the page.
Commonwealth's interest in preserving symmetry, reducing voter confusion properly pleaded. Little burden on petitioner.
Question for the political branches.
Robert Sarvis v. James Alcorn
Fourth Circuit: Central Radio Company Inc. v. City of Norfolk
First Amendment
Municipal sign ordinance was a content-based restriction on speech as it targeted commercial speech.
Aesthetics and traffic safety considerations don't satisfy strict scrutiny.
Insufficient bad intent for selective enforcement claim.
(Appendix: Sign was a protest against pending eminent domain action.)
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/131996A.P.pdf
Municipal sign ordinance was a content-based restriction on speech as it targeted commercial speech.
Aesthetics and traffic safety considerations don't satisfy strict scrutiny.
Insufficient bad intent for selective enforcement claim.
(Appendix: Sign was a protest against pending eminent domain action.)
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/131996A.P.pdf
Second Circuit: Lynch v. Ackley
First Amendment, S 1983
Qualified immunity for deft in police labor dispute, as:
Telling reporters to investigate the officer's civil rights complaints was an exercise of speech rights.
Unclear as to whether filing union grievance is a matter of public concern.
No showing of sufficient nexus on free association retaliation.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8d2937c2-ab0e-4998-8a3a-4d871f79f592/1/doc/14-3751_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8d2937c2-ab0e-4998-8a3a-4d871f79f592/1/hilite/
Qualified immunity for deft in police labor dispute, as:
Telling reporters to investigate the officer's civil rights complaints was an exercise of speech rights.
Unclear as to whether filing union grievance is a matter of public concern.
No showing of sufficient nexus on free association retaliation.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8d2937c2-ab0e-4998-8a3a-4d871f79f592/1/doc/14-3751_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8d2937c2-ab0e-4998-8a3a-4d871f79f592/1/hilite/
Ninth Circuit: Randolph Wolfson v. Colleen Concannon
Elections, First Amendment, En banc
Strict scrutiny for judicial speech restrictions.
Compelling state interest in personal solicitations regulations for judges.
Recusal doesn't solve perception problems.
Everything upheld under strict scrutiny.
Concurrence - justifiable distinctions between sitting and nonsitting judges.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/27/11-17634.pdf
Strict scrutiny for judicial speech restrictions.
Compelling state interest in personal solicitations regulations for judges.
Recusal doesn't solve perception problems.
Everything upheld under strict scrutiny.
Concurrence - justifiable distinctions between sitting and nonsitting judges.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/27/11-17634.pdf
Ninth Circuit: USA v. Elven Swisher
First Amendment, En Banc
The Supreme Court's holding that false statements of military valor are protected under the First Amendment was a change in the substantive law, and is retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.
The wearing of a military medal that was not granted by the armed services is an act of expressive speech, and no compelling government interest justified its criminalization.
Dissent: Wearing a medal is substantially different from saying that a medal was won. Gvt may legitimately ban.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/01/11/11-35796.pdf
The Supreme Court's holding that false statements of military valor are protected under the First Amendment was a change in the substantive law, and is retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.
The wearing of a military medal that was not granted by the armed services is an act of expressive speech, and no compelling government interest justified its criminalization.
Dissent: Wearing a medal is substantially different from saying that a medal was won. Gvt may legitimately ban.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/01/11/11-35796.pdf
Seventh Circuit: Laura Kubiak v. City of Chicago
First Amendment
As police officer reporting assault by another officer was neither acting as a private citizen nor speaking on a matter of public concern, her subsequent demotion doesn't violate the First Amendment.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-11/C:14-3074:J:Flaum:aut:T:fnOp:N:1685011:S:0
As police officer reporting assault by another officer was neither acting as a private citizen nor speaking on a matter of public concern, her subsequent demotion doesn't violate the First Amendment.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-11/C:14-3074:J:Flaum:aut:T:fnOp:N:1685011:S:0
Ninth Circuit: Retail Digital Network v. Jacob Appelsmith
First Amendment
Marketing agency has standing to challenge content-based restrictions on commercial speech, even if the speaker is determined to be the company selling the goods or the institution serving the goods.
Content-based restrictions on speech must withstand heightened scrutiny.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/07/13-56069.pdf
Marketing agency has standing to challenge content-based restrictions on commercial speech, even if the speaker is determined to be the company selling the goods or the institution serving the goods.
Content-based restrictions on speech must withstand heightened scrutiny.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/07/13-56069.pdf
Seventh Circuit: Michael Thompson v. William Holm
S1983 - prison food/religion.
Denial of substitute meals during periods of fast substantially burdens Free Exercise of Religion.
No qualified immunity for denial of food.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-04/C:15-1928:J:Rovner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1681174:S:0
Denial of substitute meals during periods of fast substantially burdens Free Exercise of Religion.
No qualified immunity for denial of food.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-04/C:15-1928:J:Rovner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1681174:S:0
Fifth Circuit: USA v. James Caravayo
Sentencing, Free Association
Where a deft objects to a condition of sentence but does not phrase the objections in terms of the sentencing statute, the review is for plain error.
As claimed error does not harm the judicial process, no plain error in the lack of relation to the sentencing statute.
As sentencing condition was not reasonably related to the aim of the sentencing statute, the Free Association challenge prevails,
Dissent: As there was no objection to the sentencing condition on the basis of the statute, the argument is not preserved.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-50773-CR0.pdf
Where a deft objects to a condition of sentence but does not phrase the objections in terms of the sentencing statute, the review is for plain error.
As claimed error does not harm the judicial process, no plain error in the lack of relation to the sentencing statute.
As sentencing condition was not reasonably related to the aim of the sentencing statute, the Free Association challenge prevails,
Dissent: As there was no objection to the sentencing condition on the basis of the statute, the argument is not preserved.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-50773-CR0.pdf
Eleventh Circuit: Brad Buehrle v. City of Key West
First Amendment - Tattoos
Where the designs are not rote application of standardized designs, making tattoos is a form of expression protected by the First Amendment.
No proof in record that allowing tattoo shops would injure neighborhood's character or harm tourism.
Quoting Jimmy Buffett does not suffice.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201415354.pdf
Where the designs are not rote application of standardized designs, making tattoos is a form of expression protected by the First Amendment.
No proof in record that allowing tattoo shops would injure neighborhood's character or harm tourism.
Quoting Jimmy Buffett does not suffice.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201415354.pdf
Ninth Circuit: Mark Oyama v. University of Hawaii
Where a university's imprimatur is a prerequisite for a specific professional certification, the university is allowed deference in matters of regulation of speech by the candidate.
A candidate in a university professional certification program is not necessarily protected under the public employee speech doctrine.
A student teacher may be removed for conduct that, in the reasonable professional judgment of the university, violates defined and established professional standards which are narrowly tailored to serve the foundational mission of the program.
Programs can look to speech as an indication of likely future conduct.
Academic dismissals do not trigger due process interests so long as they are careful and deliberate.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2015/12/29/13-16524.pdf
A candidate in a university professional certification program is not necessarily protected under the public employee speech doctrine.
A student teacher may be removed for conduct that, in the reasonable professional judgment of the university, violates defined and established professional standards which are narrowly tailored to serve the foundational mission of the program.
Programs can look to speech as an indication of likely future conduct.
Academic dismissals do not trigger due process interests so long as they are careful and deliberate.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2015/12/29/13-16524.pdf
Ninth Circuit: Americans for Prosperity Found v. Kamala Harris
First Amendment - political contributions
Collection of donor information by state Attorney General does not risk chilling of speech, or harassment by the state or the public.
Temporary injunction barring the public disclosure of the information sustained, given the possibility that the information might be subject to mandatory statutory disclosure.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2015/12/29/15-55446.pdf
Collection of donor information by state Attorney General does not risk chilling of speech, or harassment by the state or the public.
Temporary injunction barring the public disclosure of the information sustained, given the possibility that the information might be subject to mandatory statutory disclosure.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2015/12/29/15-55446.pdf
Fifth Circuit: Machete Productions, L.L.C. v. Heather Page, et al
S1983 - State film incentives program / First Amendment
Although removal from state to federal forum operated as a voluntary waiver of sovereign immunity, monetary damages against a state don't lie under S1983, and as the film franchise has no plans for another project, there is no basis for injunctive relief.
Qualified immunity - by requiring films to depict the state in a positive manner in order to qualify for funding, the state violated no clearly established constitutional law.
No due process violation, as the filmmaker did not have a right to the discretionary grants.
No prior restraint of speech under the Texas Constitution.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-50120-CV0.pdf
Although removal from state to federal forum operated as a voluntary waiver of sovereign immunity, monetary damages against a state don't lie under S1983, and as the film franchise has no plans for another project, there is no basis for injunctive relief.
Qualified immunity - by requiring films to depict the state in a positive manner in order to qualify for funding, the state violated no clearly established constitutional law.
No due process violation, as the filmmaker did not have a right to the discretionary grants.
No prior restraint of speech under the Texas Constitution.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-50120-CV0.pdf
Federal Circuit: Personalized Media v. Rovi Guides
Trademarks - Must Read.
En Banc.
Lanham Act provision barring registration of disparaging marks TKO'd by First Amendment under both strict and intermediate scrutiny.
Concurrence: Also void for vagueness.
C/D: Constitutional as to commercial speech, unconstitutional as to political speech. [NB case at bar is an Asian-American band wanting to trademark the name "The Slants".]
Dissent: Nope
Other Dissent: Nope.
110 Pages.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-1203.Opinion.12-18-2015.1.PDF
En Banc.
Lanham Act provision barring registration of disparaging marks TKO'd by First Amendment under both strict and intermediate scrutiny.
Concurrence: Also void for vagueness.
C/D: Constitutional as to commercial speech, unconstitutional as to political speech. [NB case at bar is an Asian-American band wanting to trademark the name "The Slants".]
Dissent: Nope
Other Dissent: Nope.
110 Pages.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-1203.Opinion.12-18-2015.1.PDF
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)