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

Joseph Heid filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Orange County Sheriff's Deputies Mark Rutkoski and Forrest Best, alleging they used unreasonable force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The incident occurred after Heid had a domestic dispute, left his house, and later returned armed with a rifle. He engaged in a gunfight with deputies in his backyard and then re-entered his house. When he exited the house again, Deputies Rutkoski and Best, believing he was still armed, shot him multiple times.In the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Heid was found guilty of several charges, including Attempted Second Degree Murder of a Law Enforcement Officer and Resisting an Officer with Violence. Heid then filed a civil lawsuit, and the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied the deputies' motion for summary judgment, which asserted qualified immunity. The District Court found there was a genuine factual dispute regarding whether the deputies used excessive force and whether Heid posed a threat when he exited the house.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that Deputies Rutkoski and Best did not violate Heid's Fourth Amendment rights. The court reasoned that the deputies reasonably believed Heid was armed and dangerous based on the information they had, including Heid's recent gunfight with other deputies and his rapid exit from the house. The court held that the use of force was reasonable under the circumstances and that the deputies were entitled to qualified immunity. The judgment of the District Court was reversed, and the case was remanded. View "Heid v. Rutkoski" on Justia Law

John Labriola, a media aide for the Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners, wrote an inflammatory opinion piece criticizing the Equality Act, using derogatory language towards the LGBT community. Following public backlash and internal complaints, the County suspended him without pay, mandated anti-discrimination training, and eventually terminated him for not completing the training.Labriola sued Miami-Dade County in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights, compelled speech, and that the County's anti-discrimination policy was unconstitutionally overbroad. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the County on all counts, applying the Pickering-Connick test to Labriola's free speech and free exercise claims, and ruling that his free-press claim was invalid because he was not a journalist.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Labriola's free speech and free exercise claims failed the Pickering-Connick balancing test, as his speech impeded the County's ability to perform its duties efficiently and disrupted workplace harmony. The court also rejected Labriola's free-press claim, noting that even though the district court erred in stating he couldn't bring the claim as a non-journalist, his claim failed on the merits. Additionally, the court found no evidence to support Labriola's compelled speech claim, as the required training did not compel him to express views he disagreed with. Lastly, the court dismissed Labriola's overbreadth challenge to the County's anti-discrimination policy, as he failed to demonstrate that the policy was substantially overbroad.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Miami-Dade County on all counts. View "Labriola v. Miami-Dade County" on Justia Law

Katie Wood, a transgender woman teaching at a public high school in Florida, challenged the enforcement of Fla. Stat. § 1000.071(3), which prohibits her from using the honorific “Ms.” and the gendered pronouns “she,” “her,” and “hers” in exchanges with students during class time. Wood argued that this statute violated her First Amendment right to free speech and sought a preliminary injunction to prevent its enforcement.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida granted Wood a preliminary injunction, finding that she had shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of her First Amendment claim. The district court reasoned that Wood’s use of her preferred honorific and pronouns constituted speech as a private citizen on a matter of public concern, and that her interest in expressing her gender identity outweighed the state’s interest in promoting workplace efficiency.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and disagreed with the district court’s findings. The appellate court held that Wood had not demonstrated a substantial likelihood that Fla. Stat. § 1000.071(3) infringed her free speech rights. The court concluded that when Wood used her preferred honorific and pronouns in the classroom, she was speaking as a government employee, not as a private citizen. Consequently, her speech was not protected under the First Amendment in this context. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Wood v. Florida Department of Education" on Justia Law

Shadon Edwards was suspected of being a high-level organizer in a drug-trafficking organization in South Florida. After obtaining an arrest warrant, law enforcement officials observed Edwards driving, followed him, and arrested him. A search incident to his arrest revealed a loaded Glock 43 nine-millimeter semi-automatic pistol. Edwards was indicted for knowingly possessing a firearm and ammunition as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He filed a motion to suppress the gun and ammunition, which the district court denied. Edwards then pleaded guilty without expressly preserving or waiving his right to appeal.The district court for the Southern District of Florida accepted Edwards's guilty plea and sentenced him to 180 months in prison, applying an enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) based on three prior convictions. Edwards did not object to the ACCA enhancement at sentencing. He later sought to appeal the denial of his suppression motion and the ACCA enhancement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. Edwards argued that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because he was not informed that he would waive his right to appeal the suppression motion. The court found no plain error, noting that there was no indication during the plea hearing that Edwards misunderstood the consequences of his plea. Edwards also contended that the ACCA enhancement was improper because the government did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his prior offenses occurred on different occasions, as required by Erlinger v. United States. The court held that Edwards failed to show a reasonable probability that a jury would have found the offenses occurred on the same occasion, thus not meeting the plain-error standard.Lastly, Edwards challenged the constitutionality of § 922(g) under the Commerce Clause. The court reaffirmed its precedent that § 922(g) is constitutional both facially and as applied, given the firearm and ammunition had moved in interstate commerce. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Edwards" on Justia Law

The defendants in this case challenged the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, which criminalizes unlawfully reentering the United States after a prior removal. They argued that the statute violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by discriminating against Mexican and other Latin American immigrants. Their theory was that the statute’s predecessor, the Undesirable Aliens Act of 1929, was enacted with discriminatory intent, and that § 1326, first codified in 1952 and amended several times thereafter, perpetuates that taint.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss their indictments. The court assumed without deciding that the Arlington Heights framework applied but concluded that the defendants had failed to establish a discriminatory purpose behind § 1326’s enactment. The court also concluded that the statute easily satisfied rational-basis review. The defendants then entered conditional guilty pleas or proceeded to a stipulated bench trial, reserving their rights to appeal the constitutional issue. The District Court sentenced the defendants to varying terms of imprisonment and supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and upheld the District Court’s decision. The court found no clear error in the District Court’s conclusion that the defendants had not shown that § 1326 was enacted or maintained for a discriminatory purpose. The court noted that the defendants’ evidence, including historical context, statements by public officials, and statistical disparities, was insufficient to establish that the 1952 Congress acted with discriminatory intent. The court also emphasized that laws do not carry forward “taint” through reenactment unless the later legislature acted with the same constitutionally impermissible purpose. The judgments of the District Court were affirmed. View "USA v. Ferretiz-Hernandez" on Justia Law

DeShawn Gervin was on probation in Georgia with the sole condition that he not return to the South Georgia Judicial Circuit. He moved to North Carolina but was later imprisoned there for various crimes. A Georgia probation officer, Pamela Florence, learned of his North Carolina offenses and sought a warrant for his arrest in Georgia, falsely claiming he had violated probation by failing to report. Gervin was arrested in North Carolina and extradited to Georgia, where he spent 104 days in jail before a court found he had not violated his probation and ordered his release.Gervin sued Florence and another probation officer, Tandria Milton, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia granted summary judgment for the defendants on the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims but denied it on the Fourth Amendment claim, characterizing it as a malicious-prosecution claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling. The court held that Gervin presented enough evidence to support his Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim. The court found that Florence and Milton recklessly made false statements and omissions that led to Gervin's arrest and prolonged detention, violating his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court also concluded that the probation officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional violations were clearly established at the time of their actions. View "Gervin v. Florence" on Justia Law

A couple, the Marons, alleged that Florida's Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. They claimed that the Act allowed the state to take their unclaimed property without compensating them for the earnings accrued while the property was in the state's custody. The Act requires holders of unclaimed property to deliver it to the state's Department of Financial Services, which then uses the property for public purposes, including investing it. The Marons argued that they were entitled to these earnings.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida dismissed the Marons' suit. The court reasoned that the state could constitutionally escheat the property altogether, so it could also keep the property in its custody without compensating for the earnings. The court also addressed jurisdictional issues, concluding that the Marons had standing and that their claim was not fully barred by sovereign immunity, but ultimately found that the Marons failed to state a claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that the district court had jurisdiction over the Marons' takings claim, as the Marons had standing, the claim was ripe, and it was not barred by sovereign immunity. However, the appellate court disagreed with the district court's analysis on the merits. The appellate court held that the Act did not transfer title of the unclaimed property to the state, but merely placed it in the state's custody. The court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the Marons' property was directly appropriated by the state and whether the Act provided just compensation. View "Maron v. Chief Financial Officer of Florida" on Justia Law

A Florida restaurant, Hamburger Mary’s, regularly hosted drag performances, including family-friendly shows that invited children. Following the enactment of Florida’s Senate Bill 1438, which prohibits children from attending "adult live performances" deemed obscene for minors, Hamburger Mary’s canceled its family-friendly shows and barred children from all performances, fearing penalties under the new law.Hamburger Mary’s filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against the Governor of Florida and the Secretary of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (FDBPR), alleging that the Act was unconstitutionally vague, overbroad, and a content-based speech regulation that failed strict scrutiny. The district court issued a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the Act and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Act was likely unconstitutional on its face due to its vague and overbroad nature. The Act’s prohibition on "lewd conduct" was found to be insufficiently specific under the Miller test for obscenity, which requires clear definitions to avoid arbitrary enforcement and to protect free speech. Additionally, the Act’s age-variable obscenity standard, which adjusts the criteria for what is considered obscene based on the age of the child present, was deemed unconstitutionally vague and likely to chill a substantial amount of protected speech.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction, preventing the enforcement of the Act against Hamburger Mary’s and others, citing the need for clarity in speech regulations to avoid arbitrary enforcement and protect First Amendment rights. View "HM Florida-ORL, LLC v. Secretary of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation" on Justia Law

Davion Rivers was convicted of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon and sentenced to 188 months in prison. Rivers appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motions to suppress evidence and in sentencing him under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) without a jury determining whether his prior offenses occurred on different occasions.The district court denied Rivers's motions to suppress the firearm found on his person and a spent shotgun shell from his residence. The court found that the officers' approach to Rivers's residence was lawful under the knock-and-talk exception and that the search warrant for the residence was supported by probable cause. Rivers was convicted by a jury, and the district court applied the ACCA enhancement based on Rivers's prior drug offenses, finding that they occurred on different occasions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed Rivers's conviction, finding no error in the denial of the suppression motions. The court held that the officers' approach to the residence was lawful and that the search warrant was supported by probable cause.However, the court vacated Rivers's sentence under the ACCA, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Erlinger v. United States, which requires that a jury, not a judge, must determine whether prior offenses occurred on different occasions. The court found that the district court's judicial fact-finding violated Rivers's constitutional rights and that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The case was remanded for resentencing consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling in Erlinger. View "United States v. Rivers" on Justia Law

Bruce Henry, who pled guilty to possessing child pornography in 2013, challenged Alabama Code § 15-20A-11(d)(4), which prohibits adult sex offenders convicted of a sex offense involving a child from residing or conducting overnight visits with a minor, including their own child. Henry, who has completed his prison term, married, and fathered a son, argued that the statute violated his First Amendment right of intimate association and the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantees of equal protection and due process.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama denied Henry’s motion for a preliminary injunction but later partially granted his motion for summary judgment, finding the statute facially unconstitutional. The district court concluded that the statute was not narrowly tailored to further Alabama’s compelling interest in protecting children and issued an injunction against its enforcement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and agreed that the statute violated Henry’s fundamental right to live with his child. The court held that the statute was overinclusive, underinclusive, and not narrowly tailored to achieve its goal. However, the court also concluded that the district court abused its discretion in facially enjoining the statute, as Henry had not shown that it was unconstitutional in all its applications. The court vacated the district court’s injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Henry v. Sheriff of Tuscaloosa County" on Justia Law