This case involved a defendant charged as a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition after police executed a no-knock search warrant at a motel room and seized those items along with drugs. The defendant moved to suppress both his statement and the physical evidence, arguing that the warrant affidavit—based on an anonymous tip and a confidential informant's report of seeing cocaine and a handgun—failed to establish probable cause. The magistrate judge recommended denying suppression of the statement but granting it for the physical evidence, but the district court rejected that recommendation after de novo review. The court held that the affidavit provided a fair probability that contraband would be found under the totality-of-the-circumstances test from Illinois v. Gates and, alternatively, that the officers acted in good-faith reliance on the warrant under United States v. Leon, so both motions were denied.
The case involved a First Amendment challenge by the International Caucus of Labor Committees and its members against the City of Montgomery, Alabama, over a city policy banning the placement of tables on public sidewalks. Plaintiffs had used small tables on grassy areas beside sidewalks to distribute political literature, recruit members, and engage with passersby near post offices, but police ordered them to remove the tables or face arrest after complaints from postal staff. The court found that the tables did not obstruct pedestrian traffic and that the city failed to demonstrate how the complete ban served a significant government interest in a narrowly tailored manner. Applying intermediate scrutiny to this content-neutral restriction on protected expressive activity, the court held the policy unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and issued a declaratory judgment for the plaintiffs.
This case involved a negligence claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act by parents who alleged that military medical providers failed to offer or document alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) testing during the mother's 1988 pregnancy, resulting in the birth of a child with spina bifida myelomeningocele. The court, applying Alabama's wrongful birth doctrine from Keel v. Banach, found that the standard of care required offering and documenting the optional AFP test within the 16-20 week window and that this was not done. It rejected the government's claim that the mother had refused the test, citing the absence of required documentation and other evidence, and therefore held the United States liable for damages flowing from the breach. The decision awarded damages to the parents and, by stipulation, to a sibling, while noting limits on certain claims like sibling loss of consortium.
This case is a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by the family of David Dolihite, a 15-year-old placed in the Eufaula Adolescent Center by juvenile court order due to behavioral problems, alleging that center staff violated his constitutional rights by failing to adequately address his documented suicidal ideations, self-mutilation, and related mental health needs, accompanied by pendent state claims for negligence and wantonness. The defendants moved for summary judgment on grounds of qualified and substantive immunity. The court denied the motions as to the federal claims, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the defendants exercised professional judgment in response to the documented risks, but granted the motions as to the state claims.
The case involved ambulance service providers in Alabama challenging a state Medicaid regulation that limited reimbursement to 80% of reasonable costs for services provided to qualified Medicare beneficiaries (QMBs), who are low-income individuals eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid. Plaintiffs argued that federal law under 42 U.S.C. § 1396a required states to pay 100% of reasonable costs for these beneficiaries, similar to coverage under Medicare Part B supplemental insurance. The court held that the Alabama Medicaid plan, as approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, did not violate the statute because it permissively allows but does not mandate full payment of coinsurance amounts for outpatient services to QMBs. The decision rested on statutory interpretation of the Medicaid Act's provisions distinguishing mandatory inpatient hospital payments from optional coverage for other Part B services.
This case involved a class action by recipients of Alabama's ASSETS pilot program benefits, who challenged the state's practice of recouping overissued food stamp benefits by reducing their monthly allotments by 15% even when the overissuance resulted from agency administrative error or inadvertent household error. The court certified the class and, on cross-motions for summary judgment, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. It held that the Secretary of Agriculture exceeded his authority under the Federal Food Stamp Act by granting waivers that allowed recoupment beyond the statutory limits protecting recipients. The decision was based on the plain language of the statutes limiting recoupment to 10% for inadvertent errors and prohibiting waivers that impair participants' rights.
