Justia U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the Board, the County Sheriff, and two deputy sheriffs, alleging that the deputies violated her Fourth Amendment rights when, after questioning her at her workplace, they arrested her on an outstanding civil warrant for removal issued by ICE. The court concluded that the deputies did not seize plaintiff until one of the two deputies gestured for her to remain seated while they verified that the immigration warrant was active; the civil immigration warrant did not provide the deputies with a basis to arrest or even briefly detain plaintiff; the individual defendants were immune from suit because at the time of the encounter neither the Supreme Court nor the court had clearly established that local and state law enforcement officers could not detain or arrest an individual based on a civil immigration warrant; and qualified immunity did not extend to municipal defendants. Therefore, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Santos v. Frederick County Board" on Justia Law

This case concerned a class action filed against defendants for contamination of plaintiffs' properties by gasoline and a gasoline additive (the Koch action). Former Koch class members subsequently filed a new class action (the Ackerman action). On appeal, defendants challenged the district court's order abstaining from exercising jurisdiction under the Colorado River doctrine. The court held that 28 U.S.C. 1446(d) affected only the jurisdiction of the state court only with regard to the case actually removed to federal court; because Koch was not removed, the state court maintained jurisdiction over it, and the amendment to the complaint in that case was not void ab initio; and the district court was correct to consider the amended Koch complaint in determining whether the Koch and Ackerman actions were parallel, and the district court did not abuse its discretion when concluding that exceptional circumstances warranted abstention in favor of the pending Koch action. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Ackerman v. ExxonMobil Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the Town after the Town declared plaintiffs' cottages to be in violation of its nuisance ordinance. The cottages were considered nuisances as a result of storm or erosion damage. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiffs' procedural due process claims because plaintiffs' procedural due process rights were not violated where the Town never deprived plaintiffs of any property interest; affirmed the grant of summary judgment on plaintiffs' equal protection claims because plaintiffs' equal protection rights were not violated where the Town had a rational basis for its decision to declare plaintiffs' cottages nuisances under the Town's ordinance; and remanded the takings claims based on the court's conclusion that a state and its political subdivisions waived the state-litigation requirement by removing a case to federal court. View "Sansotta v. Town of Nags Head" on Justia Law

In this pre-enforcement challenge to a package of immigration laws known as Act 69, the district court preliminarily enjoined certain sections of the Act on preemption grounds. On the merits, the court concluded that the district court was correct to enjoin Sections 4(A) and (C) because they criminalized actions that Congress has, as a policy choice, decided were a civil matter. The court also concluded that Sections 4(B) and (D) created an obstacle to the smooth functioning of federal immigration law, improperly placed in the hands of state officials the nation's immigration policy, and stripped federal officials of the authority and discretion necessary in managing foreign affairs. Accordingly, the court concluded that these sections, along with Sections 5 and 6(B)(2), were all preempted by federal law and, therefore, the court affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction. View "United States v. State of South Carolina" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, current and former members of the armed forces, brought suit against defendants, two former Secretaries of Defense, alleging that they were victims of rape and sexual misconduct by fellow servicemembers during their military careers. Plaintiffs sought money damages pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. The court held that no Bivens action will lie where special factors counsel hesitation in creating an implied right of action and special factors clearly counsel hesitation in implying a cause of action for injuries arising out of military service. The court concluded that judicial abstention was the proper course in this case pursuant to Chappell v. Wallace, United States v. Stanley, and Feres v. United States. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint. View "Cioca v. Rumsfeld" on Justia Law

Defendant, a former CIA agent, was indicted for illegally disclosing classified information about a covert CIA operation regarding an Iranian nuclear weapons operation to the intervenor for publication in a book written by the intervenor. In the majority opinion written by Chief Judge Traxler, the court reversed the district court's order holding that the intervenor had a reporter's privilege that entitled him to refuse to testify at trial concerning the source and scope of the classified national defense information illegally disclosed to him. In a separate majority opinion written by Judge Gregory, the court reversed the district court's order suppressing the testimony of the two government witnesses, and affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA), 18 U.S.C. app. 3, ruling. View "United States v. Sterling" on Justia Law

In these two consolidated cases, at issue was whether the Board had a quorum at the time it issued its decisions in 2012. First, the court determined that Enterprise and Huntington did not prevail on their statutory challenges under the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq. The court denied the Board's applications for enforcement of its orders, concluding that the President's three January 4, 2012 appointments to the Board were constitutionally infirm because the appointments were not made during "the Recess of the Senate." View "NLRB v. Enterprise Leasing Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought a nuisance action against CTS because their well water contained solvents that had carcinogenic effects. The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), concluding that North Carolina's ten-year limitation on the accrual of real property claims barred the suit. The court reversed and remanded, holding that the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Liability, and Compensation Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675, preempted North Carolina's ten-year limitation. In so holding, the court furthered Congress's intent that victims of toxic waste not be hindered in their attempts to hold accountable those who have strewn such waste in their land. View "Waldburger v. CTS Corp." on Justia Law

SCV filed suit against the City and its officials alleging that Lexington City Code section 420-205(C) (the "Ordinance), which bans any private access to City-owned flag standards, contravenes the SCV's First Amendment rights and breached a consent decree resolving an earlier lawsuit between SCV and the City. The court concluded there was no legal support for requiring the City to relinquish its control over the flag standards because they are not a traditional public forum; inasmuch as the Ordinance was lawfully enacted to close a designated public forum, the court affirmed the dismissal of the SCV's free speech claim; in regards to the civil contempt claim relating to the Consent Decree, the court agreed with the district court's conclusion that, because there was no constitutional violation posed by the Ordinance, there could be no violation of the Decree; and, because the flag standards are no longer given over to private expression, their use is not governed by the Decree. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Sons of Confederate Veterans v. City of Lexington, VA" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the Secretary's determination that he had committed intentional and egregious violations of the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619, by discriminating on the basis of disability against Delores and Gregory Walker and ordered petitioner to pay a civil monetary penalty as well as damages for Ms. Walker's emotional distress. The Department alleged that petitioner violated the FHA by requiring Ms. Walker to provide a note from Mr. Walker's doctor, to obtain a renter's insurance policy with $1 million in liability coverage, and to assume responsibility for any damage Mr. Walker, who suffered from autism, might have caused to the property. The court rejected petitioner's contention that his conduct was justified under the circumstances, concluding that substantial evidence supported the Secretary's determination. View "Corey v. HUD" on Justia Law