Federal Civil Practice

Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security alleging that the department violated federal law by arresting non-citizens without reason to believe that they were likely to escape before warrants could be obtained. To resolve the lawsuit, the parties entered into a consent decree. On appeal, defendants did not challenge the validity of the consent decree or the authority of the district court to enter it, but objected to the district court’s decision to extend the consent decree by 118 days due to defendant’s substantial non-compliance and the district court’s order that the defendant release 13 class members as well as approximately 200 additional individuals whose arrests “potentially” violated the law. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the order extending the consent decree and affirmed the order for the release of class members to the extent that it ordered the release of class members for whom a determination was made that they were arrested without a warrant but reversed to the extent it required the release of “potential” class members. (PRYOR, concurring in part and concurring in judgment and KIRSCH, dissenting)

Petitioners purchased products from the respondent’s website and alleged that respondent engaged in false and deceptive marketing practices. Petitioners pursued relief pursuant to the website’s terms and conditions, which contained an arbitration clause. Respondent refused to file an arbitration agreement and petitioners filed a petition to compel arbitration in federal court. The district court denied the petition and petitioners appealed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the decision of the American Arbitration Association to terminate the arbitration proceedings followed the process the parties agreed to in their arbitration agreement. (SCUDDER, concurring and KOLAR, dissenting)

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of Homeland Security alleging that a stalled investigation into a background check the department performed in conjunction with his job application was not attributable to legitimate security concerns but instead was a pretext for retaliation in violation of the Rehabilitation Act. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and plaintiff appealed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, explaining that prior precedent forecloses judicial review of claims but does not affect the court’s adjudicative power. Thus, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal but on its merits as opposed to jurisdictional grounds. (LEE and KOLAR, concurring)

In a case where the plaintiff alleged excessive force, defendant appealed from the district court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The Seventh Circuit concluded that the appeal presented a factual question and dismissed it for want of jurisdiction. (LEE and MALDONADO, concurring)

The Seventh Circuit considered an emergency motion from the State of Indiana seeking to stay a preliminary injunction prohibiting the application of a statutory provision impacting voter eligibility. The Seventh Circuit granted the motion, explaining that lower federal courts should not ordinarily alter election rules on the eve of an election and that to do so would risk disruption of the primary election.

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit challenging a state law prohibiting instruction on “human sexuality” to grade school children as being facially overboard and vague in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court denied plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction and plaintiff appealed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that plaintiff had failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits. (JACKSON-AKIWUMI and PRYOR, concurring)

In a lawsuit filed based on state and federal minimum-wage statutes, the defendant employer appealed from a district court order staying proceedings pending arbitration. At issue was whether the plaintiff had agreed to arbitrate any claims during the employee on boarding process. The district court concluded that defendant did not establish that plaintiff agreed to arbitrate where plaintiff submitted an affidavit explaining that human-relations staff filled out the forms and did not explain them to the plaintiff. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, explaining that it could not disturb the district court’s order where the only evidence was plaintiff’s affidavit in which he stated he did not agree to arbitrate so that the evidence in the record did not show that the district court’s conclusion was clearly erroneous. (PRYOR and MALDONADO, concurring)

Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against two local police officers who shared sexually explicit photos of them when they were underage with an “auxiliary police officer” who then retained those images for his own illegal use, alleging that the officers violated their substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment when they gave the auxiliary officer access to their images. The district court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss the section 1983 claims and plaintiffs appealed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the plaintiffs did not allege a viable substantive due process claim. (BRENNAN and RIPPLE, concurring)

In a case involving allegations of sex discrimination in education programs brought under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act, the Seventh Circuit considered the limited question of whether the plaintiff should be allowed to proceed under a John Doe pseudonym or whether he must proceed using his real name. The district court order that plaintiff litigate under his real name but stayed its order pending appeal. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff the use of a pseudonym and declined to broaden the existing legal standard to protect a party from risks that publicity would harm mental health. The Seventh Court further kept the appeal under advisement to allow plaintiff the opportunity to dismiss the appeal to avoid public disclosure of his name. (BRENNAN and ST. EVE, concurring)

Plaintiff filed a section 1983 action against two deputies in the Wisconsin state court system alleging that they violated his constitutional rights by telling a jury during deliberations that it had to reach a unanimous verdict and that a hung jury was not a permissible outcome of deliberations. Defendants filed an answer asserting qualified immunity as an affirmative defense. The district court denied qualified immunity to the deputy who made the statement to the jury and provisionally denied qualified immunity to the other deputy. The second deputy then filed an appeal challenging the denial of qualified immunity. The Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal, finding that the district court’s action did not constitute a final adjudication of the qualified immunity issue and that the court lacked appellate jurisdiction. (LEE, concurring and KIRSCH, dissenting)