Category: Civil Suits

Bill on Nationwide Injunctions

by · Mar 31, 2025 10:04 am

The practice of individual federal judges issuing nationwide injunctions against particular government actions has long been the subject of complaints from both sides of the political aisle. At each point in time, of course, the side complaining is the side presently in power.

Senator Charles Grassley, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has this op-ed in the WSJ regarding a bill he is introducing today to limit this practice, titled the Judicial Relief Clarification Act. As of this writing, today’s bills have not yet appeared on congress.gov, so I do not yet have the details.

Sen. Grassley notes that Justice Kagan has previously denounced such injunctions. A 2022 article in Politico by Josh Gerstein reported her remarks at a Northwestern University event: Continue reading . . .

Supreme Court Takes Up Law Enforcement Related Cases

by · Oct 4, 2024 10:19 am

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a short orders list from Monday’s pre-term conference, adding 15 cases to the docket for the October 2024 Term. A much longer list of cases turned down will likely be issued next Monday at the formal opening of the term.

Continuing the high court’s frustrating lack of interest in criminal law, the list includes only one actual criminal case, Thompson v. United States, No. 23-1095. This case raises the question of whether the federal law against false statements to financial institutions and federal agencies extends to misleading half truths. An aspect of the case that increases its media profile is the fact that defendant Patrick Daley Thompson is the grandson of Chicago’s notoriously corrupt mayor Richard J. Daley and the nephew of later mayor Richard M. Daley.

There are also several law-enforcement-related civil cases, a category that gets more interest from SCOTUS:

Gutierrez v. Saenz, No. 23-7809, is a federal civil rights suit regarding a Texas capital case. It presents somewhat complex issues regarding DNA testing, standing, and distinctions between innocence claims and sentencing claims.

Barnes v. Felix, No. 23-1239, is a police use-of-force case involving the “moment of threat doctrine.” As described by the petitioner (i.e., the plaintiff suing the police officer), this approach “evaluates the reasonableness of an officer’s actions only in the narrow window when the officer’s safety was threatened, and not based on events that precede the moment of the threat.” In the Fifth Circuit, Judge Higginbotham wrote a concurrence to his own majority opinion asking the Supreme Court to resolve the circuit split on this issue. Continue reading . . .

Qualified Immunity and Armchair Quarterbacks

by · Apr 1, 2024 11:12 am

Four years ago, Daniel Hernandez died on the street in Los Angeles because of his own inexcusable act of coming at a police office with a raised knife* in his hand and continuing after repeated warnings. So, as is common these days, there were protests and a lawsuit claiming that the police violated his civil rights.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the federal civil rights actions on March 21 in Estate of Hernandez v. City of Los Angeles, though it held that state-law claims can go forward. Parsing the various shots fired by Officer Toni McBride, the court held that the first and second volleys were clearly justified but a third pair of shots presented a question of excessive force. Qualified immunity applies, though, because the law is not clearly established regarding the later shots. This holding raises the usual squeals that the qualified immunity standard is too restrictive, requiring a precedent that is a factual match. See, e.g., this article by Kevin Rector in the LA Times.

I agree with the Ninth Circuit’s legal analysis of the qualified immunity question. It correctly applies U.S. Supreme Court precedents on the subject. What I find troubling about the case, though, is the exercise of people in their comfortable offices carefully parsing video of an event on the street that happened in mere seconds. Continue reading . . .

SCOTUS Monday and Standing

by · Mar 6, 2023 10:13 am

This morning was an order list release day at the U.S. Supreme Court. No decisions were issued and no new criminal cases were taken. The court took up a case on admiralty law and choice-of-forum clauses in contracts.

The court turned down a case on standing in an Establishment Clause case. We are interested in standing here at CJLF because we sometimes represent victims of crime seeking to have the perpetrators punished according to the judgment, and such efforts are frequently challenged by saying the victims have no standing. Continue reading . . .

Go Ahead and Say “Never” on Bivens Extensions

by · Jun 10, 2022 11:32 am

Way back in Reconstruction, Congress created a civil cause of action against state and local officials who violate federal constitutional rights. Today, that statute is 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Congress did not, however, create a parallel right to sue federal agents. In 1971, the Supreme Court made one up anyway in the case of Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents.

The Court extended Bivens to a couple of new contexts in the early years afterward but soon came to realize it had overreached. In Wednesday’s decision in Egbert v. Boule, Justice Thomas notes in the opinion of the Court, “Over the past 42 years, however, we have declined 11 times to imply a similar cause of action for other alleged constitutional violations.” In Egbert, the Court declined to extend Bivens to a claim of allegedly excessive force allegedly used by a Border Patrol agent against an American citizen on U.S. soil. Continue reading . . .

California’s Prison Credit Mess, Explained

by · Apr 25, 2022 2:20 pm

Retired Deputy Director of California State Parole Douglas Eckenrod explains the present mess with excessive early release credits being handed out to prisoners in this interview with California Insider on Epoch TV.

The credits are presently being challenged in two lawsuits where CJLF is representing the plaintiffs and a third being conducted by the Sacramento District Attorney’s Office on behalf of dozens of California district attorneys.