Archives

Supreme Court to Define Contours of False Arrest Claims

Posted in Case Notes Commentary on February 13, 2017 By Lann McIntyre

What if a police officer arrests someone because the officer doesn’t believe the person is telling the truth and there is evidence the officer is right?

In District of Columbia v. Wesby the Supreme Court will decide whether, when the owner of a vacant house informs police he has not authorized entry, an officer assessing probable cause to arrest those inside for trespassing may discredit the suspects’ claims of an innocent mental state.

Facts similar to those in this case may not arise very often. But police officers must assess claims of innocence in numerous other instances (theft, assault, even homicide).

Police officers arrested a group of late-night partygoers for trespass. The party-goers gave police conflicting reasons for why they were at the house (birthday party v. bachelor party). Some said “Peaches” invited them to the house; others said they were invited by another guest. Police officers called Peaches who told them she gave the partygoers permission to use the house. But she admitted that she had no permission to use the house herself; she was in the process of renting it. The landlord confirmed by phone that Peaches hadn’t signed a lease. The partygoers were never charged with trespass.

The partygoers sued the police officers for violating their Fourth Amendment right to be free from false arrest. To be guilty of trespass the partygoers had to have entered the house knowing they were doing so “against the will of the lawful occupant or of the person lawfully in charge.” The partygoers claimed they did not know they lacked permission to be in the house.

Continue reading →

Monday Morning Review: Local Governments in the Federal Appellate Courts

Posted in Monday Morning Review on December 14, 2014 By Kira Klatchko

Catching up on recent published decisions involving local governments:

First Circuit

S. Kingstown Sch. Cmte v. Joanna S., No. 14-1177 (Dec. 9, 2014): The court ruled in Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (“IDEA”) case that settlement agreement relieved school committee of obligation to perform or fund evaluations, and remanded to determine whether Joanna S. is entitled to attorney’s fees.

Second Circuit

Hardison v. Bd. of Ed. of the Oneonta City Sch. Dist., No. 13-1594 (Dec. 3, 2014): The court ruled, in IDEA case, that district court should have shown greater deference to state review officer’s determination to deny reimbursement.

Fourth Circuit

E.L. v. Chapel Hill-Carrboro Bd. of Ed., No. 13-2330 (Dec. 3, 2014): The court found that student did not exhaust her administrative remedies and that school board did not violate the IDEA; student received therapy mandated by her IEP.
AGI Assoc., LLC v. City of Hickory, No. 13-2097 (Dec. 11, 2014): The court found that under North Carolina law, governmental immunity from equitable claims is waived when a county or municipality acts in a proprietary, not governmental, capacity.

Fifth Circuit Continue reading →

Supreme Court Accepts Obamacare Case

Posted in Case Notes Commentary on November 17, 2014 By Lisa Soronen, Executive Director, SLLC

Last Friday the Supreme Court’s docket went from boring to big with the grant of just one case: King v. Burwell. The issue in this case is whether tax credits for low and middle income health insurance purchasers are available under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) if insurance is purchased on a federal exchange rather than a state exchange. Only 16 states and the District of Columbia have established exchanges.

The ACA makes tax credits available to those who buy health insurance on exchanges “established by the State.” The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) interpreted that language to include insurance purchased on federal exchanges too.

The Fourth Circuit in King v. Burwell upheld IRS’s interpretation, concluding that “established by the State” is ambiguous, when read in combination with other sections of the ACA, and could include federal exchanges. The “board policy goals of the Act,” persuaded the court that the IRS’s interpretation was permissible.

The implications of the Supreme Court ruling that health insurance purchased on federal exchanges is not eligible for subsidies is huge. Many people who want to buy insurance on the exchange would no longer be able to afford it without the subsidy. And many who don’t want to buy insurance, depending on their income, would no longer be subject to the individual mandate that penalizes people for not buying insurance. Similarly, large employers that don’t offer health insurance to fulltime employees would no longer have to pay a penalty.

More significantly, the Fourth Circuit (and many others) predict the ACA would “crumble” if tax credits are unavailable on federal exchanges. The ACA bars insurers from denying coverage or charging higher premiums based on a person’s health. The tax credit combined with the individual mandate was intended to create “an influx of enrollees with below-average spending for health care,” which would counteract adverse selection, where individuals disproportionately likely to use health care drive up the cost. Such an influx is unlikely without the subsidy.

The Supreme Court generally hears cases when there is a circuit split, meaning two federal courts of appeals have decided the same issue differently. Many were surprised when the Court agreed to hear this case given there is currently no circuit split, especially considering that last month the Court refused to hear a series of cases challenging the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans. However, the Court also accepts cases involving “important question[s] of federal law,” which this case seems to raise.

On the same day in July a three-judge D.C. Circuit panel ruled opposite to the Fourth Circuit. The entire D.C. Circuit was going to rehear the case, but it has been asked to not rule in that case pending Supreme Court resolution of King v. Burwell.

Wondering how the Supreme Court may rule? SCOTUSblog offers an excellent symposium on this topic.

Image courtesy of Flickr from Kjetil Ree (creative-commons license, no changes made).

Monday Morning Review: Local Governments in the Federal Appellate Courts

Posted in Monday Morning Review on September 16, 2014 By Kira Klatchko

Here are last week’s published decisions involving local governments:

Ninth Circuit

Butler v. Nat. Comm. Renaissance of Cal., No. 11-55806 (Sept. 12, 2014): The court affirmed that 1983 action challenging warrantless search of apartment was untimely.

Eleventh Circuit

West v. Davis, No. 13-14805 (Sept. 8, 2014): The court found that district court improperly granted summary judgment for security guard in case in which West challenged the actions of a security guard at courthouse security checkpoint; district court should have applied standard for “seizures” under the Fourth Amendment.

D.C. Circuit Continue reading →

Monday Morning Review: Local Governments in the Federal Appellate Courts

Posted in Monday Morning Review on September 7, 2014 By Kira Klatchko

Here are last week’s published decisions involving local governments:

Sixth Circuit

Scheick v. Tecumseh Pub. Sch., No. 13-1558 (Sept. 2, 2014): In case in which Scheick contends that the school district did not renew his contract in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the court reversed summary judgment for the school district . The evidence was sufficient to create a genuine issue of fact.
Krause v. Jones, No. 13-2498 (Sept. 3, 2014): The court affirmed finding of qualified immunity for officers in excessive-force case.
F.H. v. Memphis City Schools, No. 13-6323 (Sept. 4, 2014): The court reversed dismissal of student’s 1983 and contractual claims arising out of alleged neglect and abuse; neither settlement agreement nor IDEA barred claims.

Eighth Circuit Continue reading →

Monday Morning Review: Local Governments in the Federal Appellate Courts

Posted in Monday Morning Review on September 3, 2014 By Kira Klatchko

Here are last week’s published decisions involving local governments:

First Circuit

Town of Johnston v. Fed. Housing Finance Agency, No. 13-2034 (Aug. 27, 2014): The court affirmed the dismissal of the municipalities’ claim that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac failed to pay taxes on property transfers; the court found that statutory exemptions from taxation applied. As the court put it: “Six other circuits have recently considered this attempt to shoe-horn a transfer tax into a real property tax, and they have unanimously rejected the argument.”

Second Circuit

Holt v. Town of Stonington, No. 12-4878 (Aug. 29, 2014): The court found that plaintiff who challenged Town’s restrictions on her ability to build on her property failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by Connecticut law.

Third Circuit Continue reading →

Monday Morning Review: Local Governments in the Federal Appellate Courts

Posted in Monday Morning Review on July 21, 2014 By Kira Klatchko

Here are last week’s published decisions involving local governments:

First Circuit

Merit Construction Alliance v. City of Quincy, No. 13-2189 (July 16, 2014): The court concluded that the district court: (1) properly determined that ERISA preempts a City ordinance mandating a specific apprentice-training program; and (2) erred by awarding attorney’s fees under ERISA’s fee-shifting statute.

Third Circuit

Batchelor v. Rose Tree Media Sch. Dist., No. 13-2192 (July 17, 2014): The court found that retaliation claims related to enforcement under the Indviduals with Disabilities in Education Act must be exhausted before a court may assert subject-matter jurisdiction. Continue reading →

Monday Morning Review: Local Governments in the Federal Appellate Courts

Posted in Monday Morning Review on June 30, 2014 By Kira Klatchko

Here are last week’s published decisions involving local governments:

First Circuit

Snyder v. Gaudet, No. 12-1422 (June 25, 2014) (In 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging violation of equal protection because city applied zoning restriction differently to Snyder than to prior owner, granting qualified immunity to defendants because right was not clearly established): Continue reading →

Monday Morning Review: Local Governments in the Federal Appellate Courts

Posted in Monday Morning Review on June 16, 2014 By Kira Klatchko

Here are last week’s published decisions involving local governments:

Third Circuit

Rosano v. Township of Teaneck, No. 13-1263 (June 10, 2014) (in action by current and former police officers against Township alleging violation of Fair Labor Standards Act because it did not pay proper overtime and provide compensation for attending daily roll calls and putting on and taking off uniforms, affirming grant of summary judgment for Township).

Seventh Circuit

Garofalo v. Village of Hazel Crest, No. 12-668 (June 12, 2014) (in action by former police sergeants, both white, alleging that the Village discriminated against them based on race by promoting a black officer to police chief, affirming summary judgment for Village).

Continue reading →

Monday Morning Review: Local Governments in the Federal Appellate Courts

Posted in Monday Morning Review on January 27, 2014 By Kira Klatchko

Here are last week’s published decisions involving local governments:

Second Circuit

McColley v. County of Rensselaer, No. 12-2220 (Jan. 21, 2014) (affirming that whether officer and County were entitled to qualified immunity for alleged Fourth-Amendment violation arising out of search-warrant-application omissions turned on genuine issues of material fact, and concluding therefore that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction).

Fourth Circuit

Corr v. Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, No. 13-1076 (Jan. 21, 2014) (finding that tolls paid by drivers on the Dulles Toll Road are user fees not taxes, and that their collection by airport authority does not violate Virginia Constitution and motorists’ due-process rights).

Seventh Circuit Continue reading →

Monday Morning Review: Local Governments in the Federal Appellate Courts

Posted in Monday Morning Review on November 18, 2013 By Kira Klatchko

Here are published decisions involving local governments from the federal appellate courts from November 11, 2013 through November 15, 2013:

First Circuit

Winslow v. Aroostook County, No. 13-1319 (Nov. 15, 2013) (finding Winslow is not a whistleblower under Maine Whistleblowers’ Protection Act).

Second Circuit

Lynch v. City of New York, No. 12-3089 (Nov. 15, 2013) (affirming summary judgment for NYPD in Fourth-Amendment challenge to City policy requiring breathalyzer test for any officer whose firearm discharge results in death or injury; testing under the policy is a reasonable “special needs” search).

Seventh Circuit

Union County v. MERSCORP, Inc., No. 13-1443 (Nov. 14, 2013) (in class action initiated by counties, determining that mortgages need not be recorded under Illinois statute).

D.C. Circuit

Johnson v. Muhammed, No. 11-5115 (Nov. 15, 2013) (affirming grant of summary judgment to D.C. government because it had no authority to prevent strip searches where officer was a federal official acting under color of federal law).