This case challenged the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), a 1996 amendment to the Gun Control Act that prohibits anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence from possessing firearms. Plaintiff William Hiley, a deputy sheriff convicted of such a misdemeanor, faced termination from his position requiring firearm possession, though he was later reassigned to a non-firearm role following a settlement; the union and Hiley sought injunctive relief against enforcement of the law. The court considered motions to dismiss for lack of standing and ripeness, as well as failure to state a claim, and analyzed constitutional arguments including due process, ex post facto, and bill of attainder challenges. It concluded that Hiley lacked sufficient injury for standing in some respects, that the law is not retrospective or punitive, and that substantive due process claims arising from state employment rights are not cognizable, leading to dismissal of the claims.
The case involved World Insurance seeking rescission of a health insurance policy issued to Ralph Branch after learning he had misrepresented his HIV status on the 1993 application, while Branch counterclaimed for specific performance of the policy and challenged its $5,000 lifetime cap on AIDS treatment as violating Title III of the ADA. The court denied summary judgment on the rescission and specific performance issues, reasoning that the policy's explicit terms allowed voidance for fraudulent misstatements even after two years and that the contract's original terms controlled over any later change in residence. The court granted summary judgment on the ADA counterclaim, finding no evidence that the AIDS cap was based on sound actuarial principles, reasonably anticipated experience, or bona fide risk classification.
In United States v. Momodu, the defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained after a police officer stopped his car late at night outside an apartment complex where a domestic dispute had been reported earlier. The officer cited the time of night, prior crimes in the area, and the defendant's quick entry and exit while carrying a bag, but the court found these facts insufficient to create reasonable suspicion of criminal activity under Terry v. Ohio, rendering the stop unlawful. Evidence from the subsequent consent search of the defendant's car (revealing stolen mail) and later apartment searches was therefore suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree, with no attenuating circumstances. The court granted the motion to suppress in part and declined to adopt the magistrate judge's recommendation on that issue.
This case centers on a dispute over disability insurance benefits, where the defendant insurance company issued subpoenas to hospitals seeking records related to the plaintiff's alleged prior drug use and the suspension of his physician privileges. The court considered motions to quash the subpoenas, to amend the complaint to add an invasion of privacy claim, and for partial summary judgment. It granted the motions to quash, reasoning that Georgia's peer review and medical review statutes broadly protect information generated by peer review organizations, and any non-privileged material available from original sources must be sought directly from those sources rather than from the organizations themselves. The court denied the motions to amend and for partial summary judgment without prejudice, while reopening discovery for a limited period to permit proper requests.
This case involved the federal government's civil forfeiture action against a 1990 Ford Ranger truck owned by Mark Anthony Cort, following a jury verdict finding the vehicle was used to transport or conceal controlled substances. The court had previously ruled the forfeiture unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause and now reconsidered that decision at the government's request. The court granted reconsideration but reaffirmed its holding, applying a two-part test that first requires a substantial connection between the property and the offense (instrumentality) and second assesses whether forfeiture would be grossly disproportionate to the offense. Using factors from relevant precedent, the court found the truck lacked a sufficient connection to the drug activity and that forfeiture would be excessive. The opinion addresses how to weigh evidence after a jury verdict in favor of forfeiture but upholds the outcome in the claimant's favor.
This case involved David Duke's exclusion from Georgia's 1992 Republican presidential primary ballot by the state's candidate selection committee under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-193, after all Republican members voted to remove his name. Plaintiffs amended their complaint to facially challenge the statute as violating their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to association and voting, following Eleventh Circuit rulings that the committee's action constituted state action. On remand, the court applied the Anderson/Burdick framework to balance the burdens on plaintiffs' rights against the state's interests. The court found the statute advanced the state's compelling interests in protecting political parties' autonomy to define membership and candidates while facilitating orderly elections, and granted summary judgment to the defendants.