CLOSE X
RSS Feed LinkedIn Instagram Twitter Facebook
Search:
FMG Law Blog Line

Posts Tagged ‘14th Amendment’

Split in the Circuits May Force SCOTUS to Revisit Kingsley

Posted on: March 14th, 2019

By: Ali Sabzevari 

In Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (2015), the Supreme Court held that a pretrial detainee may prevail on a § 1983 excessive force claim if he or she shows that the force used was objectively unreasonable, regardless of whether the officer had a subjective intent to cause the detainee harm. In reaching this decision, the Court granted more protection to pretrial detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause than is given to convicted prisoners under the Eighth Amendment, which still requires proof of a subjective intent to cause harm before there is a constitutional violation. This make sense because a pretrial detainee is innocent until proven guilty, and so the detainee cannot be subjected to any form of punishment. On the other hand, it is well-settled that a convicted prisoner may be punished so long as the punishment is not “cruel and unusual” under the Eighth Amendment.

Recently, we have seen an uptick in cases whereby pretrial detainees are contending that the holding in Kingsley applies to any and all § 1983 claims, not just those founded on allegations of excessive force. But this is not the holding in Kingsley. Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit in Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2016) applied such an interpretation, opening the door for this creative argument. Other circuits, such as the Eleventh Circuit, have denied such an extension despite recent opportunities to do so. Johnson v. Bessemer, 741 F. App’x 694, 699 n.5 (11th Cir. 2018).

The fact remains that the Supreme Court has not ruled on whether to extend this objective reasonableness standard of review to cases of pretrial detainees which do not involve the use of excessive force, e.g., cases challenging medical treatment or conditions of confinement. The current circuit split could mean that the issue might be back in front of the Supreme Court at any time.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Ali Sabzevari at [email protected].

 

Is “Birthright Citizenship” Subject To Revocation By A Presidential Executive Order?

Posted on: October 30th, 2018

By: Ken Levine

citizenship

During an interview by Axios on October 29, 2018, President Trump declared that he was about to sign an executive order to abolish birthright citizenship in the United States. While the President insisted that birthright citizenship, a concept enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, could be revoked via executive order, it is an understatement to say that the constitutionality of such an order would be dubious.

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, in part, that all individuals born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of this country, are automatically U.S. citizens. Any amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires a 2/3rd majority in both houses of Congress or a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.

Furthermore, the issue of birthright citizenship has already been comprehensively addressed in the 1898 U.S. Supreme Court case of U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649. The issue at hand in the case was whether a child born in the United States to Chinese citizens, who were temporarily residing in the U.S., was automatically a U.S. citizen by operation of law. In a 6 to 2 decision the Supreme Court determined that the 14th amendment, which was passed after the U.S. Civil War, guaranteed U.S. citizenship to all individuals born in the United States, no matter the citizenry of the child’s parents. The decision reiterated that the 14th amendment does however exclude birthright citizenship for the children of foreign diplomatic officers, which is the sole exception.

Eminent constitutional scholars around the U.S. have already weighed in on this issue and have spiritedly validated that the U.S. Constitution not only guarantees birthright citizenship, but that a unilateral Presidential Executive Order cannot amend the constitution. It is unclear at this time whether President Trump will actually move forward with this executive order.

For additional information related to this topic and for advice regarding how to navigate U.S. immigration laws you may contact Ken Levine of the law firm of Freeman, Mathis & Gary, LLP at (770-551-2700) or [email protected]

Qualified Immunity Applied to Employment

Posted on: October 3rd, 2018

By: Owen Rooney

In Kramer v. Cullinan 878 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir., 2018) the Ninth Circuit reversed the denial of a Motion for Summary Judgment, holding that that the employer’s public statement was not “stigmatizing” and defendant was entitled to qualified immunity.

Plaintiff served in dual roles as Executive Director of Public Radio and a related Foundation. He reported to Southern Oregon University President Cullinan who became concerned that plaintiff was engaged in costly projects and a potential conflict of interest existed in plaintiff serving in both capacities. The University system conducted an asset liability investigation which concluded that the projects could cause a financial strain on the university and that the projects were not aligned with the university’s interests. Plaintiff resisted the university’s efforts to remove him from both roles by trying to have the Board pass resolutions to keep him in both positions. The university president sought advice of counsel who authored a letter urging the Foundation not to adopt plaintiff’s resolutions and also raising the potential liability of plaintiff and the Directors. The letter was given to the Board members prior to voting on plaintiff’s resolutions, a meeting at which the press was present.  At the meeting, President Cullinan spoke, again raising the issue of possible legal liability, but expressing hope for an amicable resolution.

Thereafter, plaintiff’s annual appointment was not renewed. Following the grievance procedure, plaintiff filed suit, alleging, among other things, a civil rights violations for deprivation of his liberty without due process. The District Court granted summary judgment as to all claims except the civil rights cause of action. In reversing, the Ninth Circuit held that the letter did not actually impute bad faith, willful or wasteful conduct. Rather, the letter in question stated that “if” plaintiff had engaged in bad faith, willful or wasteful conduct, he would not be entitled to indemnity.

Secondly, the Court recognized that an employer’s statement about an employee may implicate a liberty interest. Thus, an employee charged with fraud, dishonesty or immoral conduct is entitled to a name-clearing hearing under the 14th Amendment. The Court also held that prior legal precedent was not sufficient to put the university president on notice that her conduct violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights because the prior cases did not involve the conditional language at issue here.

The take away is that qualified immunity is still alive in the Ninth Circuit and is applicable in an employment context.

If you have any questions or would like more information please contact Owen Rooney at [email protected].