Category: Civil Suits

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.

Clergy in the Chamber

by · Mar 24, 2022 8:11 am

In 2004, Pablo Castro, working the night shift at a convenience store in Corpus Christi, was brutally stabbed to death by a robber seeking drug money. John Ramirez stabbed Mr. Castro 29 times. He and his cohorts netted $1.25 from Mr. Castro’s pockets as he lay bleeding to death in the store parking lot.

The U.S. Supreme Court today decided that the murderer can further delay his well deserved and long overdue execution by litigating a dubious claim regarding the state’s refusal to allow his pastor to touch him and audibly pray over his while he is being executed.

There is a sign of hope in that the decision depends a lot on the specifics of the procedure in this case. States may have the capacity to avoid stays of execution in the future. Continue reading . . .

Defending a State’s Laws in Court When State Officials Disagree

by · Mar 3, 2022 4:26 pm

For some time now, I have been concerned about a threat to the separation of powers in state governments. A governor or other executive officer cannot, of course, repeal a statute. But executive officers can sometimes decline to appeal a court decision holding a statute unconstitutional, which in practice has the same effect. In that way, the executive branch could override the decision of the legislature or, in states with the initiative, the people themselves.

The U.S. Supreme Court made this subterfuge more difficult today in Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, No. 20-601. The statute at issue relates to abortion, a matter that CJLF takes no position on. What is important for our work is that Supreme Court allowed the Attorney General of the state to intervene to defend a statute after the state department head—no doubt on orders from the Governor—declined to seek further review of a decision holding a statute unconstitutional. Continue reading . . .