Habeas for alleged gang members

5-4 Court holds, staying an injunction. A challenge to removal from the U.S. (and detention preceding removal) must be via habeas, as it necessarily implies the invalidity of their confinement and removal. And habeas must be brought in the district of confinement (which for most is in Texas and Louisiana).

Pullman and Certification

From the Fifth Circuit.

Plaintiff, a state-court judge, challenged a state judicial-ethics canon he believed prohibited him from declining to perform same-sex marriages. The trial court abstain because the same question would be resolved a pending state-court litigation; the Fifth Circuit rejected abstention out of doubts the current litigation would resolve the issue, but nevertheless certified the open question to the Texas Supreme Court.

The Pullman analysis is bizarre, although it is common in some lower-courts: Abstaining in A's federal lawsuit in deference to pending state litigation on the same state-law issue involving B; the theory is that the decision on the state issue in B's case will resolve the state issue and thus help the federal court decide A's case. Pullman is supposed to be about avoiding a federal decision altogether by requiring A to pursue his own state-court litigation and come back only if the federal issue remains alive. Nevertheless, the decision to certify puts us in the same basic position--a state court will decide the scope of state law, which may obviate the constitutional challenge.

For Tuesday

I know this is hard, especially switching in the middle of things. But the group is small enough that I think we can run our usual class. Thank you for your work at this.

We will finish discussing the Priester Puzzle--what is the defendant's counter to the argument about the bias exception? Then prep Puzzle # 7 (Pettway).

We then move to Rooker-Feldman, including the assigned puzzles.

We then will begin Remedies; prep § 9.01 and Part A, on damages.

    • Consider the different categories of remedies: Equitable/Legal; Specific/Substitutionary; Prospective/Retroactive. What is the breakdown of each? Consider how to define the remedies available for an allegedly violative search-and-seizure.

    • What are the limits on  available damages? How do those limits undermine the purposes of § 1983?

COVID and State Action

From the Fifth Circuit, beginning on p.10: Hospital does not act under color in imposing COVID vaccination requirement on its employees. Some qualified immunity thrown in.

For Monday

Tuesday audio. We will finish Younger (hopefully) on Monday and Rooker on Tuesday. Remedies panel should plan to be on late in class on Tuesday.

We continue with Younger; be ready to work through the Puzzles.

    • What else falls within "Our Federalism?"

    • What happens procedurally after the federal court abstains? Will the rights-holder ever get a federal forum on the constitutional validity of the enforced law?

    • Does Younger apply if a plaintiff seeks only a declaratory judgment? 

    • What are the 3 steps in the Younger analysis?

    • What is parity and how does it explain Younger?

For Tuesday

Monday audio. Procedure papers due tomorrow.

We continue with the remaining puzzles for statutory abstention, beginning with the plaintiff's argument as to the opioid stewardship payment in Accessible Medicine.

Then prep Pullman (Part 8.A) and Younger (Part 8.C)--we will do all of Pullman and should get pretty far into Younger.

    • What are the two circumstances in which a federal court might abstain under Pullman and the limits of each?

    • What is the connection between Pullman and certification? Given a choice, when should a court abstain under Pullman and when should it certify?

   • Be able to work through all three steps of the Younger analysis for each puzzle, using the major SCOTUS cases (the ones listed on the Syllabus). Be ready to discuss:

        • What the Court means by "Our Federalism."

        • How Younger interacts with § 2283 as interpreted in Mitchum one year after Younger.

        • Whether this is abdication or postponement and how a federal forum comes into play. Note the pre- and post-1988 versions of § 1257 and how that affects this question.

        • How parity explains Younger.

 

Habeas Exclusivity

This post by Lee Kovarsky (University of Texas and the author of the leading Habeas casebook) explains the habeas-exclusivity issue in play in the Venezuelan rendition cases and why habeas is not the exclusive remedy.

For Monday

Tuesday audio. Much better today; thank you. Procedure papers due next Tuesday.

One question for the Procedure panel at the start of class: Consider the procedural rules we encountered in Chapter 7--state judgments have preclusive effect on § 1983 actions; Heck (especially to the extent it applies even when the person is not in custody); Habeas limits, particularly that a person cannot bring a 4th Amendment claim. What is the common theme among them? How does Patsy depart from them?

We turn to Abstention. Prep Introduction, § 8.01 and Statutory Abstention, Part 8.B. What does the Anti-Injunction Act do and why does § 1983 qualify for the "expressly authorized" exception? Why limit injunctions barring collection of taxes in § 7421 and § 1341? What are the parameters of each statute?

For Tuesday

Prep the remainder of Chapter 7. Heck is really confusing stuff. Please do the reading carefully and take the time to prep and take notes on the problems so you are ready to talk about them.

Be ready to discuss the following specific issues:

    • What principles underlie and explain the limitations on Habeas?

    • Why is it necessary to separate § 2254 and § 1983 and leave room for each?

    • When does a § 1983 judgment "necessarily imply" the invalidity of the conviction or sentence? And what does it mean to say the conviction or sentence is invalid?

    • When does the § 1983 judgment necessarily imply invalidity? What sorts of claims? 

    • What do limitations on habeas, preclusion rules, and Heck have in common in terms of the need for a federal forum and trust of state courts? How does Patsy differ?

Suing states and courts and others

This one brings together a lot of things we have discussed or will discuss. Plaintiffs sued the head of the state judicial council (the body that trains state-court judges) seeking to alter how it trains judges on matters of parental rights (they argue that state courts are too quick to strip parents of their rights, in violation of due process, which is probably true).

Point One of the opinion shows the move among policymakers, Monell, and the 11th Amendment. The head of the council (sued in her official capacity) is a policymaker, but the council is an arm of the state, thus not a § 1983 person (it gets that right).

Point Two shows the limits of EpY, namely that it runs against the executive rather than the court. Thus an injunction altering judicial training is, in effect, an injunction requiring judges to decide cases a certain way, which exceeds the scope of the EpY cause of action. That last point is interesting and perhaps contestable--would plaintiffs gain meaningful relief from an injunction altering training even if it does not affect any state court action? Consider this when we turn to remedies and standing in Chapter 9.

State-Created Danger

The Sixth Circuit rejects state-created danger liability against school officials arising from the school shooting in Oxford, MI in 2021. This is the case in which the shooter's parents were convicted of manslaughter for providing the 15-year-old with the weapon as a Christmas present. It shows both how hard it is to show state action "worsened" the situation and that the officials' conduct "shocks the conscience."

Damages, Injunctions, and Constitutional Attacks

You should watch current events around the various Trump Administration's actions and the challenges to those actions with this class and what we have learned in mind. The lawyers pursuing these cases are putting into practice what we do here (and in Fed Courts). And one thing it shows is how remedial limitations affect constitutional litigation and courts' ability to address constitutional problems.

Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief. We will get deeper into remedies in the last chapter, but § 7.01[4] offers a brief overview of the process for seeking equitable relief in the trial court and we mentioned that any decision on the injunction is immediately appealable under § 1292(a)(1). But consider what happens while litigation is ongoing. Some enforcement takes place, even if it might prove invalid. The Administration's actions have a chilling effect on others, who do not engage in some conduct (e.g., coming to or remaining in the United States), not knowing how that litigation will turn out. And there is harm in waiting--consider federal employees seeking to avoid termination or to get their jobs back. And the Administration gains political points from being seen to take aggressive action, even if that action is ultimately declared unlawful--he can tell the public that it tried but squishy liberals such as John Roberts stopped him. In other words, the government has an incentive to continue arguably unlawful activity; the risk of litigation defeat and injunction may not stop it from engaging in in the moment and while it can get away with it, daring the court to stop it.

In theory, damages fill this gap, by imposing liability and a remedy for past misconduct. Government cannot act unlawfully until told to stop, because a person can recover damages for that past unlawful conduct. Thus consider why the (more-or-less) death of Bivens and other mechanisms for seeking damages from the federal government and federal officials. It is not damages-or-nothing for a Venezuelan non-gang-member, a person born in the US to parents on student Visas, or to federal employees. But injunctive relief leaves them more vulnerable than if they could pursue a more complete array of remedies. And we can say the same about expansive qualified immunity--even with Bivens, those damages might not be available.

For Monday

Audio for Monday and Tuesday. Entity Liability papers due Tuesday.

We continue with Procedure. How do 3-judge courts address criticisms of EpY? How do 3-judge courts operate? What was the other (delayed) response to EpY and how did it address those criticisms? Prep the § 7.05 Puzzles.

Then move to Part 7.B, on Habeas and Heck. Understand the basics of habeas corpus and how Heck strikes the balance between habeas and § 1983. Why insist on lines between habeas and § 1983? What role does SCOTUS review play in challenges to state convictions--how do you know when a case reaches SCOTUS on habeas or direct review?

For Tuesday

Unable to load audio at the moment; will do so when the site is working again. I think we can be outside one last time tomorrow.

We will hopefully finish Entity Liability.

    • How does the historic suits against the King's ministers explain EpY? What is an anti-suit injunction and how does it explain EpY?

    • Once you identify a policymaker who engages in wrongdoing, what is the next step in determining whether the entity can be sued and held liable?

    • Prep all the problems within Chapter 6. How does Humphrey affect injunctive relief in Noah C?

We move to Civil Rights Procedure late in the class, covering intro and Part A; many jurisdictional statutes to review, so be ready to discuss and explain the precise language of those provisions and how they operate. Note that the Title VII provisions (42 U.S.C. § 2000e) are in App. C.

    • Why is immunity, especially qualified immunity, immediately reviewable under the collateral order doctrine?

    • How do 3-judge courts and declaratory judgments respond to the concerns over EpY? Why have 3-judge courts for the three current classes of cases in the modern statute?

More qualified immunity

From the Seventh Circuit, in a fairly high profile lawsuit by a law school professor suspended because students objected to how he taught and dealt with some race-related issues. Two interesting bits related to QI.

First is on pp. 8-10. For a long time, public-employee speech was controlled by Connick/Pickering, which required a balancing of the government's interest against the employee's right to speak on public matters. Then Garcetti held that speech employees make as part of their job gets no protection at all. But Garcetti dropped a footnote (and Justice Souter a concurring opinion) suggesting that academic speech is different and that there may be a professor exception; it expressly left the issue unresolved. Some circuits have held as much--and the 7th Circuit does here. But the court says the university is not entitled to QI. Pre-Garcetti precedent protects what the prof did here, Garcetti did not resolve the issue, and no Seventh Circuit precedent applied Garcetti to a professor's classroom speech. Therefore existing precedent did place the issue beyond debate, because pre-Garcetti law told the university it could not punish this speech and no post-Garcetti precedent established differently. Implicit in this is that university officials were not free to apply Garcetti on their own or to anticipate Garcetti's application to classroom speech.

This seems to flip the presumption: Absent law telling the university the speech is unprotected, it should have understood that it was protected. It usually goes the other way (the officer can act absent clear precedent that he cannot act).

On the other hand, university officials enjoy QI as to his compelled-speech claim because no case law holds that the government as employer cannot compel its employees to speak. Barnette (which we discussed in the QI Puzzle about writing the pledge) is about students and no law addresses employees.

I expect this appear in the next edition of the book.

For Monday

Tuesday audio.

Prep the remainder of Chapter 6.

    • Which civil rights statutes validly abrogate and which do not and why?

    • Consider whether the following claims by a fired attorney can proceed under the Americans With Disabilities Act:

        • Attorney working at Greenberg Traurig

        • Attorney working for the Miami-Dade County Attorney

        • Attorney working for the Office of the Florida Attorney General

    • Can states be sued (by name) under § 1983?

    • How does the precise right being enforced matter? Consider the validity of ADA claims against a state entity in the following cases:

        • Prisoner with disability challenging prison conditions

        • Bar applicant with disability challenging conditions for taking bar exam

    • What is the doctrine of Ex parte Young? What are its terms and elements? How does it relate to § 1983?

    • What are the legal fiction(s) on which it rests? What is the argument it is not a legal fiction at all?

    • Prep all remaining Puzzles for the chapter.

I expect to finish this on Tuesday, so the next panel should be ready to go Tuesday.

 

For Tuesday

Monday audio. Immunity Papers due in class tomorrow.

We continue with the Monell Puzzles--## 3, 4, and 5. What is the defense counter to the fact that DOJ found (and continues to find) inadequacies in city hiring, discipline, and retention)? What is the easy defense argument in # 3 and the more complicate plaintiff argument (go back to review different ways of establishing constitutional liability from Chapter 3).

We then move to State Sovereign Immunity, Section 6.B.

  • What is sovereignty and what is sovereign immunity? Who is and is not sovereign?

    • What are the three competing theories of the meaning of the 11th Amendment? How would each theory handle the following claims:

        • South Carolina Citizen v. Georgia on a federal claim

        • South Carolina Citizen v. Georgia on a state claim

        • Louisiana Citizen v. Louisiana on a federal claim

        • Louisiana Citizen v. Louisiana on a state claim

    • What is abrogation and when is it permitted or not permitted and under what constitutional powers and why? How does abrogation different from "waiver by plan of the convention?

    • Consider whether the following claims can proceed under the Americans With Disabilities Act:

        • Attorney working at Greenberg Traurig

        • Attorney working for the Miami-Dade County Attorney

        • Attorney working for the Office of the Florida Attorney General

    • Can states be sued (by name) under § 1983?

    • Consider the validity of ADA claims against a state entity in the following cases:

        • Prisoner with disability challenging prison conditions

        • Bar applicant challenge conditions for taking bar exam

New limits on Bivens

From Prof. Vladeck, on an DOJ amicus brief urging further restrictions on Bivens. This includes a nice discussion of the intersection between cause of action and immunity.

Taste of Qualified Immunity

From the Fifth Circuit, affirming denial of QI in a suit against a detective to created the false evidence that produced a wrongful conviction. The opinion author, Judge Don Willett, is a Trump appointee and one of the leading lower-court critics of qualified immunity. Some of that leaks into this opinion, where he offers the position of "this is all wrong, but we can't change it, only SCOTUS can."

For Monday

Tuesday audio. Immunity Reax papers due next Tuesday.

Review and prep the Puzzles for Part 6.A; don't move to 6.B until Tuesday.

    • What are the four situations that can establish municipal liablity?

    • What is "failure to [blank]" and what is the theory behind it as a basis for Monell liability? What are the elements?

    • Given the gap between municipal and individual liability, how will the municipality defend itself in a typical Monell action?

    • What is the difference between the "legalist' and "governmentalist" theories of § 1983 liability?

    • Work the Puzzles; go through all different theories of municipal liability and why they do or do not work.

    • Pay close attention to Puzzle # 3. There is an obvious reason why the Monell claim fails.  But how can the plaintiff get creative--going through everything we have covered in the class--to try to establish liablity despite the limitations on Monell.