Articles Posted in Civil Rights

On Friday, April 9, 2021, the United States Supreme Court voted 5-4 to grant an application for injunctive relief in Ritesh Tandon, et al v. Gavin Newson, Governor of California, et al. The lawsuit concerns California's restrictions on at-home religious gatherings during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals previously denied the request for an injunction. This marks the fifth time that the Supreme Court has rejected the Ninth Circuit's analysis of California's COVID-19 restrictions on religious exercise.

On Tuesday, February 23, 2021, Judge John A. Gibney, Jr., U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, ruled that travelers have a clearly established right to record TSA screeners. Judge Gibney further ruled that the TSA agents involved in the lawsuit are not protected by qualified immunity.

On November 19, 2020, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) proposed an expansion of facial recognition at the border to include photographs of every non-citizen coming in or out of the United States, regardless of their means of travel, entry and exit points, or even age.

On Thursday, November 12, 2020, a panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, ruled in favor of Harvard University in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. The panel ruled that Harvard's race-conscious undergraduate admissions process does not violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

On Friday, July 17, 2020, Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court, District of Oregon, against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Marshals Service, and the Federal Protective Service. The lawsuit is filed on behalf of Oregon citizens and alleges that defendants have violated the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights of Oregon citizens by seizing and detaining citizens without probable cause for protesting against police brutality.

Seven transgender women who are inmates in Colorado men's state prisons have filed a class action lawsuit against multiple government defendants, alleging that abuse occurring in those prisons violates state anti-discrimination law, and that state prison officials are discriminating against them on the basis of gender identity. The case was filed on behalf of an estimated 170 transgender women, and alleges that they are being held in unsafe conditions which have led to systemic violence, rape, and harassment.

Plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the organizers of a 2017 white power rally in Charlottesville, Virginia are seeking to invoke a Civil War-era statute in utilizing the defendants' online statements to prove that they engaged in an illegal conspiracy to commit racially motivated violence. Defendants insist that their actions are protected by the First Amendment, though the judge in this case has declined to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint on free speech grounds. The outcome of this case will likely be a strong indicator of whether and to what extent the statute at issue can be relied upon to curb online hate speech and its consequences.

Detroit police plan to use facial recognition technology to help investigate allegations of home invasions and certain violent crimes, despite concerns over accuracy and fairness.

On Friday, August 30, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit rejected lawyer Arnold Fleck's challenge to the State Bar Association of North Dakota's collection of mandatory bar association dues. Fleck v. Wetch, No. 16-4564 (8th Cir. 2019), was remanded to the Eighth Circuit from the United States Supreme Court in light of the Supreme Court's June 2018 ruling in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), holding that public-sector unions may not collect mandatory fees from nonmember employees unless the employees waive their First Amendment rights.

On Friday, August 16, 2019, Judge Brian C. Wimes of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri ruled that Mike Campbell was deprived of his constitutional right to free speech when Missouri Representative Cheri Toalson Reisch blocked Campbell from her Twitter page after Campbell retweeted a comment criticizing Reisch's political views. Judge Wimes granted Campbell's request for declaratory and injunctive relief against Reisch under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.