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

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

A police officer responded to a complaint of littering at a McDonald’s parking lot in DeFuniak Springs, Florida, where he encountered John Thomas in a gray Acura matching the reported description. Thomas admitted to littering, exited his vehicle to pick up the trash, and then returned to the driver’s seat. When asked for identification, Thomas produced a Louisiana driver’s license that appeared false, given the age discrepancy. After confirming with the dispatcher that the license information did not match, the officer attempted to arrest Thomas, who resisted, pepper-sprayed the officer, and fled. Thomas abandoned his car nearby and was later apprehended. Police obtained a search warrant for the car, discovering methamphetamine, counterfeit bills, and numerous fraudulent identification documents.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida denied Thomas’s motion to suppress the evidence recovered from his car. Thomas argued the warrant was based on information obtained during an illegal stop, asserting that Florida law does not permit officers to detain someone for a noncriminal violation such as littering. The district court found the initial stop lawful, reasoning that the officer had authority to detain Thomas based on the littering complaint and to request identification. It further held that the subsequent arrest for providing false identification was supported by probable cause, validating the search warrant and denying suppression.Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the initial encounter was consensual and did not implicate the Fourth Amendment, and that the officer had probable cause to arrest Thomas for possession of a fraudulent driver’s license under Florida law. Therefore, the evidence obtained from the car search was admissible, and Thomas’s conviction was affirmed. View "United States v. Thomas" on Justia Law

Jason Starr, following a contentious divorce from his ex-wife Sara Starr, was required to pay substantial monthly support and other financial obligations. Evidence showed Jason was deeply frustrated by these requirements and expressed anger in personal writings. After Sara moved out, she confided to a friend that she feared Jason would kill her. Prior to the murder, Jason suggested to a friend that his brother Darin could “take care of” marital problems for a fee. Darin, living in Texas, purchased a motorcycle with Jason’s financial assistance and received additional payments from Jason through a third party. Cell-site data and witness testimony placed Darin near Sara’s Alabama residence in the days leading up to her murder. Sara was shot and killed outside her home, and surveillance footage showed a motorcycle leaving the scene shortly after. Darin returned to Texas the same day. Later, while in jail for an unrelated offense, Darin made statements implying Jason owed him a significant favor.A federal grand jury in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama indicted Jason and Darin Starr for using interstate commerce facilities in the commission of a murder-for-hire, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958. At trial, the government presented circumstantial evidence linking both brothers to the crime. The jury convicted both Jason and Darin, and the district court imposed mandatory life sentences.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed claims that the district court erred by excluding alternate perpetrator evidence, admitting certain hearsay and investigative testimony, and that the evidence was insufficient to support conviction. The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court properly excluded speculative alternate perpetrator evidence, correctly admitted the challenged statements under evidentiary rules, and found the evidence sufficient for conviction. The court affirmed both convictions and sentences. View "USA v. Starr" on Justia Law

Several landowners in Walton County, Florida, owned beachfront properties that were affected by a county ordinance enacted during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. In March and April 2020, the county first closed public beaches, then issued a new ordinance that closed all beaches—public and private—making it a criminal offense for anyone, including private owners, to access or use their own beachfront property. The ordinance was enforced by law enforcement officers who entered private property, excluded owners, and threatened arrest for violations. The ordinance remained in effect for about a month, after which it expired and was not renewed.The landowners filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, raising several claims, including a Takings Clause claim under the Fifth Amendment, and seeking both damages and prospective relief. The district court dismissed the claims for prospective relief as moot, finding the ordinance had expired and was unlikely to recur. On the merits, the district court granted summary judgment to the county on all damages claims, holding that the ordinance was not a per se physical taking but rather a use restriction, and that the government’s actions during a public health emergency were entitled to deference.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the dismissal of the claims for prospective relief, agreeing that the ordinance’s expiration rendered those claims moot. However, the court reversed the district court’s judgment on the Takings Clause claim, holding that the ordinance constituted a per se physical taking because it barred owners from their property and allowed government officials to physically occupy and control access. The court remanded for a determination of just compensation, holding that no public emergency, including COVID-19, creates an exception to the Takings Clause. View "Alford v. Walton County" on Justia Law

New South Media Group, LLC, along with other plaintiffs, sought to construct four types of signs—flags, artwork, political messages, and event notices—on private property in Rainbow City, Alabama. The city denied their permit applications, determining that the proposed signs were billboards, which are prohibited under Section 214 of the city’s sign ordinance. The plaintiffs believed their signs qualified for exemptions under Section 213, but the city’s definition of “billboard” encompassed their proposed signs. After receiving the denial, New South requested variances, which were also denied by the city’s zoning board.Following these denials, New South appealed in state court and brought federal and state constitutional challenges, which were dismissed in state court and then refiled in federal court. In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, New South alleged that several city sign regulations violated the First Amendment and the Alabama Constitution by imposing content-based restrictions, lacking time limits for permit decisions, and granting unbridled discretion to city officials. The district court granted summary judgment to Rainbow City, finding that New South lacked standing because the injury—the denial of the applications—was caused by the unchallenged billboard prohibition, not the provisions New South contested.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The Eleventh Circuit held that New South lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the non-billboard regulations because the injury was not traceable to those provisions and a favorable decision would not redress the harm caused by the billboard prohibition. The court affirmed the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Rainbow City and dismissing the case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. View "New South Media Group, LLC v. City of Rainbow City" on Justia Law

Six women who were formerly incarcerated at the Jasper City Jail in Alabama alleged that they suffered repeated sexual abuse by jailers, primarily by one officer, while serving as inmates. The plaintiffs described a range of sexual assaults and harassment, with one plaintiff also alleging abuse by a second jailer. The jail operated under the authority of the City of Jasper’s police chief, with a chief jailer and other supervisory staff responsible for daily operations. Jail policies expressly prohibited sexual contact between staff and inmates, and there were procedures for reporting grievances, but the plaintiffs claimed these mechanisms were ineffective or inaccessible.After the alleged abuse, the Alabama State Bureau of Investigation began an inquiry, leading to the resignation of the primary alleged abuser and, later, his indictment on state charges. The plaintiffs filed six separate lawsuits, later consolidated, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Eighth Amendment violations against the police chief, chief jailer, and the City, as well as claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA). One plaintiff also brought claims against a second jailer. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama granted summary judgment to all defendants, finding insufficient evidence that the supervisory officials or the City had knowledge of, or were deliberately indifferent to, the alleged abuse, and that the claims against one jailer failed for lack of proper service.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a causal link between the actions or inactions of the supervisory officials or the City and the alleged constitutional violations, as there was no evidence of a widespread custom or policy of tolerating sexual abuse, nor of deliberate indifference or failure to train. The court also found that certain claims were time-barred and that the TVPRA claims failed due to lack of evidence that the City knowingly benefited from or had knowledge of the alleged trafficking. View "Bridges v. Poe" on Justia Law

Early one morning, law enforcement officers went to the home of an individual whose son was suspected of assault and possibly being armed. The officers approached the house from different sides, announced their presence, and knocked on the front and side doors. The resident, believing his son was at the door, opened the back door—where no officer had knocked—and walked back inside without seeing or speaking to any officer. An officer then entered the home through the open back door without a warrant or exigent circumstances, only announcing his presence after passing through the kitchen. The resident, who was in his bedroom, was confronted, tased, handcuffed, and detained outside for a period of time.The resident filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, alleging unlawful entry and unlawful seizure (including excessive force) in violation of the Fourth Amendment. After discovery, the officer moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The district court denied summary judgment on both the unlawful entry and unlawful seizure claims, finding that material factual disputes precluded qualified immunity. The officer appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that, construing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a reasonable jury could find that the officer entered the home without consent, in violation of clearly established Fourth Amendment law. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of summary judgment on the unlawful entry claim. However, the court found that the unlawful seizure and excessive force claims were entirely derivative of the unlawful entry claim, and therefore vacated the denial of summary judgment on those claims, remanding for the district court to treat them as subsumed within the unlawful entry claim. View "Dukes v. Gregory" on Justia Law