Justia U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The federal government provides low-income housing tax credits that are distributed to developers by state agencies, including the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs. The Inclusive Communities Project (ICP), which assists low-income families in obtaining affordable housing, brought a disparate-impact claim under Fair Housing Act sections 804(a) and 805(a), alleging that allocation of too many credits to housing in predominantly black inner-city areas and too few in predominantly white suburban neighborhoods resulted in continued segregated housing patterns. Relying on statistical evidence, the district court ruled in favor of ICP. While appeal was pending, HUD issued a regulation interpreting the FHA to encompass disparate-impact liability and establishing a burden-shifting framework. The Fifth Circuit held that disparate-impact claims are cognizable under the FHA, but reversed, concluding that the court had improperly required proof of less discriminatory alternatives. The Supreme Court affirmed and remanded. Disparate-impact claims are cognizable under the FHA. The Court noted that the statute shifts emphasis from an actor’s intent to the consequences of his actions. Disparate-impact liability must be limited so that regulated entities can make practical business choices that sustain the free-enterprise system. Before rejecting a business justification—or a governmental entity’s public interest—a court must determine that a plaintiff has shown “an available alternative . . . that has less disparate impact and serves the [entity’s] legitimate needs.” A disparate-impact claim relying on a statistical disparity must fail if the plaintiff cannot point to a policy causing that disparity. Policies, governmental or private, are not contrary to the disparate-impact requirement unless they are “artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers.” When courts find disparate impact liability, their remedial orders must be consistent with the Constitution and should concentrate on eliminating the offending practice. Orders that impose racial targets or quotas might raise difficult constitutional questions. View "Texas Dep't of Hous, & Cmity Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc." on Justia Law

The city of Los Angeles requires hotel operators to record and keep specific information about their guests on the premises for a 90-day period, “available to any officer of the Los Angeles Police Department for inspection . . . at a time and in a manner that minimizes any interference with the operation of the business.” Violation is a criminal misdemeanor. In a facial challenge to the ordinance on Fourth Amendment grounds, the district court upheld the ordinance, finding that hotel operators lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in their records. The Ninth Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed. Fourth Amendment facial challenges to statutes are not categorically barred nor especially disfavored. When addressing a facial challenge to a statute authorizing warrantless searches, the proper focus is on searches that the law actually authorizes and not those that could proceed irrespective of the statute, e.g., where exigent circumstances, a warrant, or consent to search exist. To be constitutional, the subject of an administrative search must have an opportunity for precompliance review before a neutral decision-maker. Assuming the administrative search exception applies, the ordinance is facially invalid because it fails to afford hotel operators any opportunity for such review. This opportunity can be provided without imposing onerous burdens on law enforcement. The Court did not question the requirement that hotel operators keep records nor allowing police access to those records where a hotel operator consents, where the officer has a proper administrative warrant, or where some other exception to the warrant requirement applies. Nothing inherent in the operation of hotels poses a clear and significant risk to the public welfare to justify classifying the industry as closely regulated; even if hotels were closely regulated, the ordinance would fail to satisfy the additional criteria for searches of closely regulated industries. View "Los Angeles v. Patel" on Justia Law

While Kingsley was awaiting trial in county jail, officers forcibly removed him from his cell when he refused to comply with instructions. Kingsley filed a complaint claiming that two of the officers used excessive force. The court instructed the jury that Kingsley was required to prove that the officers “recklessly disregarded [Kingsley’s] safety” and “acted with reckless disregard of [his] rights.” The jury found in the officers’ favor. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, upholding a subjective inquiry into the officers’ state of mind, i.e., whether the officers actually intended to violate, or recklessly disregarded, Kingsley’s rights. The Supreme Court vacated. Under 42 U.S.C. 1983, a pretrial detainee need only show that the force purposely or knowingly used against him was objectively unreasonable to prevail on an excessive force claim. The determination must be made from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, including what the officer knew at the time, and must account for the “legitimate interests [stemming from the] need to manage the facility,” appropriately deferring to “policies and practices that in th[e] judgment” of jail officials “are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security.” An objective standard is workable. It is consistent with the pattern jury instructions used in several Circuits, and many facilities train officers to interact with detainees as if the officers’ conduct is subject to objective reasonableness. Use of an objective standard adequately protects an officer who acts in good faith, by acknowledging that judging the reasonableness of the force used from the perspective and with the knowledge of that officer is an appropriate part of the analysis. Applying the proper standard, the jury instruction was erroneous. View "Kingsley v. Hendrickson" on Justia Law

Clark sent his girlfriend to engage in prostitution while he cared for her 3-year-old son L.P. and 18-month-old daughter A.T. When L.P.’s preschool teachers noticed marks on his body, he identified Clark as his abuser. At Clark’s trial, the state introduced L.P.’s statements to his teachers as evidence of Clark’s guilt, but L.P. did not testify. The trial court denied Clark’s motion to exclude the statements under the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed reversal of his conviction on Confrontation Clause grounds. The Supreme Court reversed. The Confrontation Clause generally prohibits the introduction of “testimonial” statements by a nontestifying witness, unless the witness is “unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.” A statement qualifies as testimonial if the “primary purpose” of the conversation was to “creat[e] an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony. Considering all relevant circumstances, L.P.’s statements were not testimonial; they were not made with the primary purpose of creating evidence for Clark’s prosecution. They occurred in the context of an ongoing emergency involving suspected child abuse. L.P.’s teachers asked questions aimed at identifying and ending a threat. L.P. never hinted that he intended his statements to be used by the police or prosecutors; the conversation was informal and spontaneous. Statements by very young children rarely, if ever, implicate the Confrontation Clause. Mandatory reporting obligations do not convert a conversation between a concerned teacher and her student into a law enforcement mission aimed at gathering evidence for prosecution. Whether a statement is testimonial is not determined by examining whether a jury would view the statement as the equivalent of in-court testimony, but by whether a statement was given with the “primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony.” View "Ohio v. Clark" on Justia Law

During jury selection in Ayala’s murder trial, Ayala, who is Hispanic, objected that seven of the prosecution’s peremptory challenges were impermissibly race-based under Batson v. Kentucky. The judge permitted the prosecution to disclose its reasons for the strikes outside the presence of the defense and concluded that there were valid, race-neutral reasons for the strikes. Ayala was convicted and sentenced to death. The California Supreme Court concluded that it was harmless error, under state law, to exclude Ayala from the hearings, and that, if a federal error occurred, it too was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. A divided Ninth Circuit panel granted Ayala habeas relief, 28 U.S.C. 2254(d). The Supreme Court reversed. Any federal constitutional error that may have occurred by excluding Ayala’s attorney from part of the Batson hearing was harmless. The California Supreme Court’s decision was an “adjudication on the merits” of Ayala’s claim; a federal court cannot grant Ayala relief unless the state court’s rejection of his claim was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court, or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. Any federal constitutional error was harmless with respect to all seven prospective jurors. Each of the reasons for using a challenge was amply supported by the record and there is no basis for finding that the absence of defense counsel affected the trial judge’s evaluation of the strikes. The trial judge heard counsel’s arguments and concluded that the record supplied a legitimate basis for the prosecution’s concern. That defense counsel did not have the opportunity to repeat that argument does not create grave doubt about whether the trial court would have decided the issue differently. View "Davis v. Ayala" on Justia Law

Brumfield was convicted of murder in a Louisiana court and sentenced to death before the Supreme Court held, in Atkins v. Virginia, that the Eighth Amendment prohibits execution of the intellectually disabled. The Louisiana Supreme Court subsequent determined that an evidentiary hearing is required when a defendant provides objective factors sufficient to raise a “a reasonable ground’” to believe that he has an intellectual disability, defined as “(1) subaverage intelligence, as measured by objective standardized IQ tests; (2) significant impairment in several areas of adaptive skills; and (3) manifestations of this neuro-psychological disorder in the developmental stage.” Brumfield amended his pending state post-conviction petition to raise an Atkins claim. Seeking an evidentiary hearing, he pointed to evidence introduced at sentencing that he had an IQ of 75, had a fourth-grade reading level, had been prescribed numerous medications and treated at psychiatric hospitals as a child, had been identified as having a learning disability, and had been placed in special education classes. The trial court dismissed without holding a hearing or granting funds to conduct additional investigation. Brumfield sought federal habeas relief. The district court granted relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1), (2). The Fifth Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded. The factual determinations underlying the state trial court’s decision—that Brumfield’s IQ score was inconsistent with a diagnosis of intellectual disability and that he presented no evidence of adaptive impairment—were unreasonable under section 2254(d)(2). The fact that the record contains some contrary evidence cannot be said to foreclose all reasonable doubt as to his intellectual disability. The trial court should have taken into account that the evidence was introduced before Brumfield’s intellectual disability was at issue. View "Brumfield v. Cain" on Justia Law

Abercrombie refused to hire Elauf, a practicing Muslim, because the headscarf that she wore pursuant to her religious obligations conflicted with Abercrombie’s employee dress policy. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit, alleging violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits a prospective employer from refusing to hire an applicant because of the applicant’s religious practice when the practice could be accommodated without undue hardship. The EEOC prevailed in the district court. The Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that failure-to-accommodate liability attaches only when the applicant provides the employer with actual knowledge of his need for an accommodation. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded. Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision requires Elauf to show that Abercrombie “fail[ed] . . . to hire” her “because of ” “[her] religion” (including a religious practice), 42 U.S.C. 2000e–2(a)(1). Rather than imposing a knowledge standard, the statute prohibits certain motives, regardless of the state of the actor’s knowledge. An employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions. Title VII allows failure-to-accommodate challenges to be brought as disparate-treatment claims and gives favored treatment to religious practices, rather than demanding that religious practices be treated no worse than other practices. View "Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

Barkes was arrested in 2004, for violating probation, and taken to a Wilmington Delaware Correctional Institution. During intake, a nurse who worked for the contractor providing healthcare at the Institution conducted a suicide screening, based on a model form developed by the National Commission on Correctional Health Care in 1997. Barkes disclosed that he had a history of psychiatric treatment and was on medication and that he had attempted suicide in 2003, but stated that he was not currently thinking about killing himself. Because only two risk factors were apparent, the nurse gave Barkes a “routine” referral to mental health services and did not initiate special suicide prevention measures. Barkes was placed in a cell by himself. He called his wife and told her that he was going to kill himself; she did not inform the Institution of this call. The next morning, correctional officers observed Barkes behaving normally at 10:45, 10:50, and 11:00 a.m. At 11:35 a.m., an officer discovered that Barkes had hanged himself with a sheet. His wife sued officials, alleging violation of Barkes’s constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, by failing to supervise and monitor the private contractor. The Third Circuit held that it was clearly established that an incarcerated individual had an Eighth Amendment “right to the proper implementation of adequate suicide prevention protocols” and that there were material factual disputes. There was evidence that the screening process did not comply with NCCHC’s latest standards, as required by contract. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed, finding that the officials were entitled to qualified immunity. No Supreme Court precedent establishes a right to proper implementation of adequate suicide prevention protocols; appellate authority in 2004 suggested that such a right did not exist. Even if the Institution’s suicide screening and prevention measures had the alleged shortcomings, no precedent would have made clear to the officials that they were overseeing a system that violated the Constitution. View "Taylor v. Barkes" on Justia Law

A federal litigant who is too poor to pay court fees may proceed in forma pauperis and commence a civil action without prepaying fees or paying certain expenses, 28 U.S.C. 1915(a), but a “three strikes” provision prevents a court from granting in forma pauperis status to a prisoner who “has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated . . . , brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” A state prisoner filed three federal lawsuits that were dismissed on grounds enumerated in section 1915(g). While the third dismissal was pending on appeal, he filed four additional federal lawsuits, moving to proceed in forma pauperis in each. The district court denied the motion. The Sixth Circuit and a unanimous Supreme Court affirmed. A prior dismissal on statutorily enumerated grounds is a strike, even if the dismissal is the subject of an ongoing appeal. Section 1915 describes dismissal as an action by a single court, not as a sequence of events involving multiple courts. The Court noted that a judgment normally takes effect, and its preclusive effect is immediate, despite a pending appeall. The “three strikes” provision was “designed to filter out the bad claims and facilitate consideration of the good.” To refuse to count a prior dismissal because of a pending appeal would produce a leaky filter. View "Coleman v. Tollefson" on Justia Law

Sheehan lived in a group home for individuals with mental illness. After Sheehan threatened to kill her social worker, San Francisco dispatched officers to escort Sheehan to a facility for evaluation and treatment. When the officers entered Sheehan’s room, she grabbed a knife and threatened them. They retreated and closed the door. Concerned about what Sheehan might do, and without considering whether they could accommodate her disability, the officers reentered. Sheehan, knife in hand, again confronted them. After pepper spray proved ineffective, the officers shot Sheehan multiple times. Sheehan sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12132 and 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Ninth Circuit held that the ADA applied and that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. The Supreme Court dismissed certiorari as to whether the ADA “requires law enforcement officers to provide accommodations to an armed, violent, and mentally ill suspect in the course of bringing the suspect into custody,” because, instead of arguing that the ADA does not apply when an officer faces an armed and dangerous individual, San Francisco argued only that Sheehan was not “qualified” for an accommodation, because she “pose[d] a direct threat to the health or safety of others,” which could not “be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services.” The lower courts did not address that question. The officers are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for injuries suffered by Sheehan. Their use of force was also reasonable. Any Fourth Amendment right involving accommodation of a disability, even assuming it exists, was not clearly established. View "City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. Sheehan" on Justia Law