Justia U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A White police officer employed by the Atlanta Police Department alleged that he was denied a promotion to Captain in December 2014 and was later removed from a flexible work schedule after he reported alleged misconduct by superiors. The officer had previously reported in 2008 that Black supervisors were allegedly treating White officers less favorably, which resulted in tension but was not shown to have been communicated to the ultimate decisionmaker for promotions. In 2015, after reporting possible ticket-fixing by his superiors to internal and federal authorities, the officer was required to work a fixed schedule, which impacted his ability to work a second job and fulfill childcare obligations.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed or granted summary judgment on most of the officer’s claims, including those under Title VII for racial discrimination and retaliation, and under the Georgia Whistleblower Act. The court found no evidence that the Police Chief, who was the sole decisionmaker for promotions, was aware of the officer’s 2008 discrimination complaint, and further held that the officer had not experienced an adverse employment action as required by the statutes. At trial, the jury found for the City on the Title VII discrimination claim, concluding the officer had not been denied a promotion.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed most of the district court’s rulings, including summary judgment for the City on the Title VII and Whistleblower Act claims and the jury verdict on the discrimination claim. However, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment for the Chief and another supervisor on the First Amendment retaliation claim, holding that revoking the officer’s flexible schedule constituted a material adverse action sufficient to support such a claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings on this First Amendment issue. View "Joyner v. City of Atlanta" on Justia Law

A California-based company that produces lab-grown chicken sought to distribute and sell its product in Florida. After the company received federal approval from the USDA and FDA to market its lab-grown chicken, Florida enacted SB 1084, a law banning the manufacture, sale, and distribution of all lab-grown meat within the state. The company had previously held tasting events and developed business relationships in Florida but had no plans to manufacture its product there.Following the enactment of SB 1084, the company filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida against state officials, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The company argued that the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) preempted Florida’s ban, claiming the state’s law imposed “additional or different” ingredient or facilities requirements in violation of the PPIA. The district court denied the company’s motion for a preliminary injunction, finding the company unlikely to succeed on its preemption claims because SB 1084 did not regulate the company’s ingredients, premises, facilities, or operations. The court also addressed standing and procedural questions, ultimately dismissing the preemption claims after the company amended its complaint.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether the filing of an amended complaint or the district court’s dismissal order rendered the appeal moot and whether the company could challenge the Florida law as preempted. The Eleventh Circuit held the appeal was not moot and that the company could bring a preemption action in equity. However, the court concluded the company was unlikely to succeed on the merits. The court held that Florida’s ban did not impose ingredient or facilities requirements preempted by the PPIA, as it simply banned the product’s sale and manufacture. Therefore, the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction was affirmed. View "Upside Foods Inc v. Commissioner, Florida Department of Agriculture" on Justia Law

Michael Nance, a Georgia prisoner sentenced to death, brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against state prison officials. He alleged that execution by lethal injection posed a substantial likelihood of severe pain due to his compromised veins, which he claimed would make it difficult or impossible for the execution team to establish intravenous access. Nance argued that extravasation of pentobarbital could cause intense, prolonged pain and asserted that execution by firing squad was a feasible, less painful alternative.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia held a bench trial. Prior to trial, the court permitted the prison officials’ medical expert to examine Nance’s veins and allowed members of the execution team to testify anonymously and remotely, consistent with Georgia’s Secrecy Act. The parties submitted medical records and declarations, which showed that Nance had successfully undergone several recent medical procedures requiring intravenous access without noted complications. After trial, the district court found that Nance failed to prove a substantial likelihood of severe pain from lethal injection, based largely on his medical records, and entered judgment for the defendants. Nance later moved to alter or amend the judgment, but the district court denied the motion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. The appellate court held that the district court did not err in its factual findings or evidentiary rulings, and concluded that Nance failed to prove the planned execution method posed a substantial risk of serious harm. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the judgment in favor of the prison officials. View "Nance v. Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

The petitioner, a citizen of Sierra Leone and lawful permanent resident, was convicted in the District of Columbia in 2014 of attempted first-degree sexual abuse and kidnapping. The factual basis for his conviction included both forceful digital penetration and forceful penile penetration. After serving his prison sentence, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, alleging that his conviction qualified as an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act, specifically as “rape” or “an attempt to commit an aggravated felony,” and also as a crime of violence.In removal proceedings before the Immigration Judge, the petitioner admitted the factual allegations but disputed that his conviction was an aggravated felony, arguing that the D.C. statute criminalized digital penetration, which he claimed was not covered by the generic federal definition of rape. The Immigration Judge ordered removal, finding the conviction constituted attempted rape. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, relying on its precedent that the generic definition of rape included digital penetration, and dismissed other removability grounds as unnecessary. The Board also denied the petitioner’s requests for a waiver of inadmissibility, but remanded for further consideration of his claim under the Convention Against Torture, directing the Immigration Judge to consider aggregate risks of torture. After additional hearings, the Immigration Judge again denied relief, and the Board affirmed, declining to revisit removability.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed only the Board’s removability determination. It held that the generic federal definition of “rape” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A) does not include digital penetration, joining other circuits. Consequently, the Board erred in concluding the petitioner’s conviction categorically matched the federal definition of rape. The court vacated the Board’s decision and remanded for further proceedings on other removability grounds. View "Barrie v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The case involves a man who was convicted of first-degree murder in Broward County, Florida, after a fatal shooting during a domestic dispute with his girlfriend. The key evidence during trial was a confession obtained by police after the man initially invoked his right to counsel but later agreed to speak with detectives. This confession was not admitted as direct evidence at his second trial but was used extensively to impeach his testimony when he took the stand in his own defense. The prosecution also presented substantial physical and eyewitness evidence, including the testimony of two individuals present at the scene and expert forensic analysis.After his conviction, the defendant challenged the use of his statement in postconviction proceedings. The Florida trial court denied his motion for a new trial, and the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed. The defendant later argued in a state postconviction proceeding that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the statement on the grounds that it was coerced, in violation of the Due Process Clause. The state postconviction court, adopting the State’s response, found that the defendant was not prejudiced by any alleged error of his counsel, as the other evidence against him was overwhelming. The Fourth DCA affirmed without opinion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the denial of federal habeas corpus relief. The court held that the state court had adjudicated the prejudice prong of the ineffective assistance claim on the merits, entitling its decision to deference under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. The Eleventh Circuit found that the state court’s determination—that the outcome would not have been different even if the statement had been excluded—was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of federal law. Accordingly, the denial of habeas relief was affirmed. View "Calder v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Myelicia Rodgers, a clerk at a United States post office in Crestview, Florida, was accused of tampering with and stealing mail while working alone during early morning shifts. After suspicions arose due to complaints about opened mail, the Office of Inspector General conducted an investigation. Rodgers was observed via video and in person engaging in suspicious activities, including taking greeting cards into restricted areas, opening packages, and removing mail. Test letters with cash and gift cards were used in the investigation, some of which went missing, and Rodgers was caught taking and hiding one such letter. Upon being confronted, Rodgers admitted to opening some letters but denied stealing their contents.A grand jury indicted Rodgers on counts of mail tampering and theft by a postal employee. She waived her right to a jury and opted for a bench trial in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. At trial, the government presented multiple witnesses and video evidence. Rodgers did not testify or call any witnesses in her defense. After the prosecution rested, Rodgers moved for a judgment of acquittal, which the district court denied. The district court explicitly informed Rodgers of her right not to testify and assured her that her silence would not be considered in determining guilt. Rodgers’s counsel argued that her silence should not be taken as evidence against her, and the court reiterated that it would base its decision solely on the evidence presented.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether the district court drew an adverse inference from Rodgers's decision not to testify. The court held that the district court did not consider Rodgers’s silence as evidence of guilt and properly respected her Fifth Amendment rights. Therefore, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed Rodgers’s conviction. View "USA v. Rodgers" on Justia Law

Several individuals who reside in DeKalb County, Georgia, outside the city limits of Atlanta, opposed the construction of a new public safety training facility on city-owned land and wished to collect signatures for a referendum petition to repeal the city ordinance authorizing the lease for the facility. Atlanta’s municipal code required that signature gatherers for such petitions be residents of the City of Atlanta. Because they did not meet this residency requirement, the plaintiffs filed suit against the City, arguing that the restriction violated their First Amendment rights. They sought a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the residency requirement, as well as other relief connected to the signature collection process.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted the preliminary injunction, enjoining Atlanta from enforcing the residency requirement for signature gatherers. The court also ordered the City to issue new petitions without the residency restriction and restarted the 60-day signature collection period, while counting previously collected signatures. The City appealed the injunction and obtained a stay from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm sufficient for injunctive relief. The court specified that, under Kemp v. City of Claxton, 496 S.E.2d 712 (Ga. 1998), Georgia law does not allow the use of a referendum petition to challenge or repeal a city ordinance unless it amends the city charter. Because the plaintiffs could not lawfully utilize the referendum process for their intended purpose, they lacked a right to the process and consequently could not show irreparable injury. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "Baker v. City of Atlanta" on Justia Law

Congress enacted a law requiring certain business entities to report information about their beneficial owners to the Department of the Treasury, aiming to address financial crimes facilitated by anonymous corporate ownership. The law applies to corporations, LLCs, and similar entities, excluding certain organizations like banks, nonprofits, and large businesses. Reporting companies must disclose identifying information about their owners and applicants. The law contains several exemptions for inactive or specific types of entities and allows for regulatory exemptions. The plaintiffs, a business association and a small business owner, challenged the law, arguing it exceeded Congress’s powers and violated constitutional rights.In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, asserting that the law was not justified under the Commerce Clause, Taxing Clause, Necessary and Proper Clause, or Congress’s national security and foreign affairs powers. The district court agreed, finding that the law regulated the act of incorporation—a noncommercial activity—and that the connection to interstate commerce was too remote. As a result, the court held the law exceeded Congress’s enumerated powers and did not address the constitutional rights claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo and reversed the district court’s decision. The Eleventh Circuit held that the law facially regulates economic activity by targeting the ownership and operation of business entities, which are inherently commercial. The court found that Congress had a rational basis for concluding that anonymous business dealings have a substantial aggregate effect on interstate commerce. Additionally, the court held that the law’s uniform reporting requirements do not facially violate the Fourth Amendment, as they are reasonable, limited, and accompanied by privacy protections. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "National Small Business United v. U.S. Department of the Treasury" on Justia Law

On November 14, 2020, Officer David Collier and his partner arrived at a residence in Escambia County, Florida, to serve arrest warrants on Jacob Settle and his wife. Settle was in his truck parked closely alongside the house in a dark, debris-filled backyard. When the officers approached and identified themselves, Settle refused to exit the vehicle. After Collier threatened to break the truck’s windows, Settle started the engine and shifted the transmission into gear. Collier, believing he and his partner were in imminent danger due to his proximity to the truck, fired his gun into the vehicle, fatally wounding Settle. Settle’s estate sued Collier for excessive force under the Fourth Amendment and for battery under Florida law.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida considered Collier's motion for summary judgment, in which he asserted qualified immunity and state law immunity. The district court denied the motion, finding that a reasonable jury could conclude Collier violated Settle’s constitutional rights by using deadly force on a non-moving vehicle that did not pose a risk to the officers. The district court also denied state immunity for the battery claim, reasoning that a jury could find Collier acted with wanton disregard for Settle’s safety.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The appellate court held that Collier was entitled to qualified immunity, concluding that his use of deadly force was objectively reasonable because Settle’s actions—starting the engine and shifting the truck into gear while resisting arrest—could reasonably be perceived as an immediate threat. The court further held that Collier was entitled to state statutory immunity from the battery claim, as his conduct met the standards for justified use of force under Florida law. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Collier. View "Settle v. Collier" on Justia Law

A city in Florida established a "vehicular safety zone" outside a medical clinic that performs abortions, which prohibited most pedestrians, including sidewalk counselors, from entering a 38-foot section of public sidewalk that included the clinic's driveway during business hours. The city justified this restriction by citing repeated incidents involving protestors allegedly impeding vehicles and intimidating occupants, and asserted that existing measures like targeted trespass warnings or arrests were insufficient due to the location being public property and violations being misdemeanors not committed in officers’ presence. Four individuals who regularly engaged in sidewalk counseling—offering literature and conversation to those entering the clinic—along with a nonprofit organization, challenged the ordinance, arguing it violated their First Amendment rights by significantly restricting their ability to communicate with clinic patients, particularly by preventing them from handing leaflets to occupants of vehicles entering or exiting the clinic.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that they were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim. The court concluded that the ordinance was narrowly tailored to serve the city's significant interest in vehicular safety and that it left open alternative channels for communication.Upon review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their facial First Amendment challenge. Applying the standard from McCullen v. Coakley, the appellate court found that the ordinance was not narrowly tailored because the city had not seriously considered less restrictive alternatives that would further vehicular safety without burdening substantially more speech than necessary. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded with instructions to grant the preliminary injunction, finding also that the remaining factors for injunctive relief favored the plaintiffs. View "Florida Preborn Rescue, Inc. v. City of Clearwater" on Justia Law