Decided - The FindLaw Noteworthy Decisions and Settlements Blog

Recently in Civil Rights Law Category

In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, federal law enforcement officials ordered hundreds of mostly Muslim, Arab, or South Asian illegal aliens to be taken into custody and detained. These detentions happened before officials demonstrated any particularized suspicion or knowledge that the detainees had any connection to terrorism, and many were held for months under "harsh conditions" that included repeated and random strip searches, 24-hour-lighted cells, and physical and psychological abuse.

Six of those detained filed a lawsuit against a group of federal officials including former Attorney General John Ashcroft, former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Robert Mueller, and former Immigration and Naturalization Service Commissioner James Ziglar. But the Supreme Court dismissed those claims, ruling that federal officials are immune from such lawsuits.

Convicted sex offenders are subject to a variety of conditions on their probation or parole. Every state has a mandatory sex offender registry requirement, although time on the registry may vary. And courts have even allowed lifetime GPS monitoring of sex offenders. All of which is to say that the government and law enforcement have a lot of leeway when deciding how to punish and monitor sex offenders.

But North Carolina took that a step too far, apparently. The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a state law banning registered sex offenders from social media sites like Facebook was unconstitutional.

The New Jersey town of Bernards Township has agreed to settle the two cases against it stemming from a dispute over whether a mosque could be built on a vacant lot. While the town claims that there was never any discriminatory intent, the lawsuit alleges a bewildering series of hurdles seemingly intended to prevent the mosque from ever being built.

After the group seeking to build the mosque filed their case, which did not allege discrimination, the Department of Justice joined the suit, adding claims of religious discrimination directed at the Muslim group. The group, the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge, and the Department of Justice, agreed to a $3.25 million settlement with the township. Of the settlement, $1.5 million will go to the organization for damages, while the remaining $1.75 million will go to attorney fees and case costs.

A Seventh Circuit decision, issued on Tuesday, upheld the lower federal court's preliminary order to allow a transgender teen to use the bathroom that corresponds with his gender identity. The Wisconsin federal court ruled last year that Ashton "Ash" Whitaker could use the boys' restroom, and the school could not prevent or discipline him in any way for doing so.

On appeal, the court sided with Ash on nearly every single point, and even ruled that the case looked like a winner for Ash. The preliminary order allowing Ash to use the bathroom is known as a preliminary injunction. Courts do not grant these unless the party seeking it can immediately prove that they are going to win their case, and if the court doesn't issue the order, irreparable harm/damage will occur.

Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a challenge to San Francisco's controversial law banning public nudity. The two plaintiffs seeking to overturn the law, Oxane "Gypsy" Taub, and George Davis, both faced prosecution under the law after donning nothing at all at the city's eccentric Bay to Breakers cross-city marathon, and at a local street fair in the city's foregone hippy epicenter, the Haight-Ashbury neighborhood.

Among San Francisco's many claims to fame, the casual attitude toward nudity is one that has fallen out of fashion, at least legally. In 2012, the city passed an ordinance requiring any person engaging in a public display of nudity to have obtained a parade permit first. In what is sure to be an upset to nudists everywhere, the ban has been ruled constitutional, and as such, isn't going anywhere, for the time being.

Back in March of 2015, Wikimedia, with help from the ACLU, sued the National Security Agency and the U.S. Department of Justice regarding the entities' surveillance on online communications. This week, the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the lawsuit after it had been dismissed by a lower court.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of other plaintiffs in the case, but ruled that Wikimedia had standing to bring the suit because its allegations were enough to "make the plausible conclusion" that it had been specifically targeted by the NSA. Here's a look at Wikimedia's claims and the court's decision.

Today, the US Supreme Court rejected hearing an appeal to the Fourth Circuit's ruling striking down several key components of North Carolina's controversial voter ID law, passed last year. Last summer, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that 5 key components, including the voter ID provisions, were unconstitutional and could not be enforced. Since SCOTUS refused to hear the appeal, the Fourth Circuit's ruling stands.

Although the voter ID law was upheld by the lower District Court, on appeal, the court found that lawmakers targeted African American voters ' with almost surgical precision.' Additionally, the appeals court found that the voter ID law was an attempt to 'impose cures for problems that did not exist.'

The United States Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to California's ban on controversial "conversion therapy" for gay children. That means the statute is legal which prohibits licensed therapists from working with gay minors to change their sexual orientation to straight.

It's the second time the Court has passed on an appeal regarding the law, and while not an endorsement of the statute, declining to hear further challenges to the ban effectively leaves Ninth Circuit rulings in the state's favor in effect. Here's a closer look at the case.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a National Labor Relations Board decision in favor of a wrongfully discharged employee. The story is making headlines due to the fact that the fired employee used a few choice phrases to describe his supervisor in a public Facebook post. Those choice phrases are of the type that most office workers would expect to result in immediate termination.

However, thanks to the laws prohibiting retaliation against employees engaged in pro-union activities, and the common sense of the NLRB and the court, the opprobrious comment qualified as protected pro-union speech. Though most of the Facebook post exclaimed profanities about this supervisor, there was a legitimate criticism and a call to action for people to vote to unionize. Thank goodness for this prolific employee that Facebook doesn't have a 140 character limit.

Texas Senate Bill 14, which Governor Rick Perry signed into Texas law in 2011, was struck down by the courts, again. The ruling specifically explained that the voter ID initiative violated the Voting Rights Act due to the discriminatory purpose of the law. While the Fifth Circuit essentially made the same finding last July, it remanded the case to District Court to reconsider in light of some evidentiary rulings.

The court found that "a discriminatory purpose was at least one of the substantial or motivating factors behind the passage of SB 14." The court pointed out that one of the state's alleged stated purposes for the law, to prevent voter fraud, was clearly a pretext as only two convictions of voter fraud were made over the past decade with over 20 million votes cast in Texas. The court found the state's other defenses of non-discriminatory purpose similarly unconvincing.