Ilana Kara Diamond Rovner

In Derek Hundley v. Dee Dee Brookhart, three correctional officers sued the Illinois Department of Corrections and related officials after being fired for using force on a wheelchair-bound inmate who refused to surrender his handcuffs—by entering his cell with a team, dragging him, and deploying pepper spray—before exhausting alternatives, and for inaccurately describing the incident in their reports as an “escort.” The officers claimed the Department’s “force only as a last resort” rule and truthfulness requirements were unconstitutionally vague, violating their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that the rules were not vague as applied, because “last resort” plainly requires attempting other reasonable options first—such as contacting a supervisor or activating a tactical team—before force, and the officers had time and awareness of those options with no imminent threat; the reporting rules likewise give clear notice that false statements can result in termination. The court noted that prison employers receive additional latitude in such regulations.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case concerned Souleymane Nimaga, a Malian citizen, who petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order upholding an immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings and rescind an in absentia removal order. Nimaga had failed to appear at his October 1, 2019 hearing in Chicago after a burglary left him without funds for transportation, his arranged ride fell through, and his attempts to secure alternate travel or legal help were unsuccessful. The Seventh Circuit denied the petition, holding that the immigration judge and Board did not abuse their discretion in finding that Nimaga’s circumstances were not sufficiently exceptional. The court reasoned that, although his financial hardship and lack of transportation were beyond his control and he had conceded removability while pursuing a U visa, he had the ability to contact the immigration court in advance to report his predicament yet failed to do so, despite being on notice of the risk of in absentia removal.

immigration

The case involved class-action lawsuits by current and former shuttle truck drivers who transport auto parts and empty containers solely within Illinois, between off-site storage lots and a Ford assembly plant in Chicago. The drivers sued their employers for unpaid overtime under the FLSA and related Illinois and Chicago wage laws, claiming their local routes did not qualify for the FLSA’s motor-carrier exemption. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that the drivers’ work was part of ongoing interstate shipments because the parts originated out of state, were only temporarily staged at the lots before final delivery to the plant, and the empty custom containers were returned via interstate carriers for reuse; the storage lots were not the intended final destination, so the transportation remained interstate in character.

labor & employment

The case involved class actions by current and former shuttle truck drivers who transported auto parts and empty containers on routes entirely within Illinois, between off-site storage lots and a Ford assembly plant in Chicago. The drivers sued their employers, including Bosman Trucking, alleging violations of the FLSA's overtime requirements (along with parallel Illinois and Chicago wage laws), claiming their work was purely intrastate. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that the drivers' hauls were part of ongoing interstate shipments because the parts originated from out-of-state manufacturers, were only temporarily staged at the distinct storage lots pending need at the plant, and continued on public roads to their final destination, with empty containers likewise returned interstate for reuse; therefore, the Motor Carrier Act exemption applied and no overtime was required under the FLSA.

labor & employment

Christopher Raddant sued Douglas County, Wisconsin, and several police officers, alleging that they used excessive force in violation of his civil rights while searching him at a jail booking counter and moving him to a cell after his arrest for suspected bail violations. A jury ruled for the defendants on the sole claim that reached trial regarding force at the booking counter, while the district court granted the defendants summary judgment on all other claims before trial and excluded Raddant’s expert witnesses. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that video evidence from multiple angles showed the officers used only minimal, reasonable force in response to Raddant’s physical resistance and threats, with no material factual disputes requiring a trial. The court further concluded that challenges to the exclusion of expert testimony were moot because Raddant did not appeal the jury’s verdict on the tried claim.

civil rightsprocedure

Christopher Raddant sued Douglas County, Wisconsin, and several police officers, alleging that they used excessive force in violation of his civil rights while searching him at a jail booking counter and moving him to a cell after his arrest for suspected bail violations. A jury ruled for the defendants on the sole claim that reached trial regarding force at the booking counter, while the district court granted the defendants summary judgment on all other claims before trial and excluded Raddant’s expert witnesses. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that video evidence from multiple angles showed the officers used only minimal, reasonable force in response to Raddant’s physical resistance and threats, with no material factual disputes requiring a trial. The court further concluded that challenges to the exclusion of expert testimony were moot because Raddant did not appeal the jury’s verdict on the tried claim.

civil rightsprocedure

Johnnie Russell sued Racine Police Officer Colin Powell under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that a 37-second warrantless search of his apartment violated the Fourth Amendment after a stabbing victim identified Russell as the perpetrator and officers arrived to investigate. The district court granted summary judgment to Powell on the merits, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed solely on qualified immunity grounds. The court held that the search was justified under the emergency-aid exception because officers reasonably believed an injured person might be inside, the entry occurred amid an active violent-crime response, and existing precedent did not clearly establish that the brief welfare check was unconstitutional given the facts known at the time.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

Karl Rabenhorst, a FEMA employee, sued the Secretary of Homeland Security alleging that his removal from a 2017 Hurricane Maria relief operation in Puerto Rico and a subsequent unpaid suspension were motivated by sex and age discrimination, created a hostile work environment, and constituted retaliation for filing an internal EEO complaint, in violation of Title VII and the ADEA. The district court granted summary judgment to the agency, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court reasoned that Rabenhorst had a documented history of prior reprimands for inappropriate conduct with state officials and contractors, that his removal stemmed from reported disrespectful and unprofessional behavior toward female coworkers during the Puerto Rico deployment, and that the later suspension decision by his supervisor was based on legitimate performance concerns and pre-existing disciplinary plans rather than any protected activity. Although a factual dispute existed about the supervisor’s knowledge of the EEO complaint, the record contained no evidence that the complaint influenced the discipline beyond its timing.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved Minocqua Brewing Company and owner Kirk Bangstad, who alleged that Oneida County planning officials denied them a permit for an outdoor beer garden in retaliation for Bangstad’s political speech and activism on social media. The district court denied their motion for a preliminary injunction, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment retaliation claim because they had conceded repeated violations of prior permit conditions, continued operating without compliance, and offered no evidence of pretext or differential treatment of similarly situated businesses. The permit denial would have occurred regardless of the protected speech due to those violations.

free speechbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned the Secretary of Labor’s petition to enforce a final OSHA citation against contractor Elmer Miller for failing to provide required fall protection at a worksite. Miller contested enforcement, arguing that OSHA had not properly served the citation because it was sent to an incorrect address (433 E. County Road 100 North in Arcola, Illinois) rather than his claimed address (435), so the citation never became a final order. The Seventh Circuit granted the petition for summary enforcement. It held that OSHA’s service was adequate because the agency sent the citation by certified mail (later UPS) to the 433 address that Miller had repeatedly used and acknowledged as his business address in prior OSHA matters, Commission filings, and court proceedings, making it reasonably calculated to reach him.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the Secretary of Labor’s petition to enforce a final OSHA citation against Elmer Miller, a contractor, for failing to provide fall protection at a worksite. Miller argued that the citation was never properly served and thus never became enforceable, claiming it was sent to the wrong address (433 E. County Road rather than 435) and that he had no proof of receipt. The Seventh Circuit granted the petition for summary enforcement, holding that service was adequate. It reasoned that the 433 address was one Miller had repeatedly used and confirmed as his business address in prior OSHA proceedings and court filings, public records linked him to the property, and delivery attempts (including by UPS) were reasonably calculated to notify him.

labor & employmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In United States v. LaPierre Scott, the defendant was convicted after a bench trial of being a felon in possession of a firearm and possessing controlled substances with intent to distribute, based on evidence recovered when police entered an unlocked, out-of-order restroom at a gas station where Scott had gone after officers arrived to investigate an earlier robbery. Scott appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the gun, cash, and drugs, arguing an unconstitutional search, along with challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence for the firearm count and the constitutionality of the felon-in-possession statute. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings, holding that Scott had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the public restroom because he failed to show either a subjective expectation (by leaving the door unlocked and bypassing the first restroom) or an objectively reasonable one in that setting. The court also found the evidence sufficient for a rational factfinder to conclude Scott knowingly possessed the firearm and determined that his Second Amendment challenge was waived because he merely attempted to incorporate arguments from the district court without presenting them on appeal.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

In United States v. James Weiss, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of wire fraud, mail fraud, and bribery for attempting to bribe Illinois state legislators to enact legislation that would legalize sweepstakes gambling machines manufactured by his company, including payments funneled through a cooperating legislator to a fictitious person at the direction of federal agents. Weiss appealed the denial of his motion to suppress statements made during a non-custodial interview, the admission of a coconspirator’s recorded statements, a jury instruction, and his 66-month sentence, which was above the guidelines range. The Seventh Circuit affirmed in full, holding that the district court committed no error in its evidentiary rulings or instructions, that the sentence was substantively reasonable in light of the § 3553(a) factors including deterrence needs and Weiss’s greater expected gain compared to his codefendant, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to postpone sentencing for anticipated guidelines amendments it had already considered as mitigating.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned Lauren Richwine, who operates Death Done Differently LLC as a death doula providing emotional support, education on end-of-life options, assistance with funeral planning and paperwork, and supervised guidance on post-death care, without holding an Indiana funeral director license. Indiana investigated complaints that her activities constituted the unlicensed practice of funeral services and pursued a cease-and-desist order under state law. The district court granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement against Richwine and her company, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their First Amendment claim because the statute, as applied, restricts non-misleading speech on topics such as disposition methods, service choices, and memorial arrangements in a manner disproportionate to the state's interests in consumer protection and public health, while exempting certain other providers; the same analysis applied to the related commercial advertising claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

free speechbusiness & regulatory

Frankie Nelson, a former employee at Provident Hospital in the Cook County Health system, sued the County under Title VII, alleging sex-based pay discrimination for the period 2002–2005 when she shared acting assistant director duties with a male colleague. The district court granted summary judgment to the County, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The appeals court held that Nelson provided no evidence of the male colleague’s actual compensation, so she could not establish a pay disparity. It further concluded that the colleague was not a valid comparator because the two performed different functions with different qualifications and experience, and that two other men Nelson referenced held higher-level supervisory positions and thus were not similarly situated. The court found that the district court had properly applied both the McDonnell Douglas framework and the Ortiz totality-of-the-evidence standard in reaching its decision.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

In United States v. Damon Taylor, a jury convicted the defendant on two counts of threatening to assault a federal prosecutor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B), based on statements he made to an Assistant United States Attorney in May 2022 at her office and in February 2023 via her personal Facebook account. Taylor appealed, contending that the district court erred by admitting other-acts evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) while excluding testimony from mental-health professionals and police officers, and that the evidence was insufficient on the second count because the Facebook message was sent outside work hours to a personal account. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the convictions, holding that the district court’s evidentiary rulings did not constitute cumulative error and that the evidence permitted the jury to find both that Taylor acted with the requisite reckless mens rea and that his statements were intended to interfere with the prosecutor’s official duties.

criminal lawprocedure

John Wertymer sued Walmart in an Illinois federal court, alleging that the retailer defrauded consumers by selling Great Value honey labeled “Raw Honey” and “Organic Raw Honey” that had actually been heated or industrially processed, thereby depriving buyers of the product’s claimed nutritional benefits; he sought to represent a nationwide or Illinois class under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and common-law fraudulent misrepresentation. The district court dismissed the complaint, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The appeals court held that the allegations failed to state a plausible claim because the laboratory report and Codex standards cited in the complaint did not show that the detected mannose levels necessarily indicated processing rather than natural origin, leaving only conjecture that the honey was mislabeled and that Wertymer suffered harm.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In this insurance coverage dispute, Best Inn Midwest sought payment under a commercial property policy from Ohio Security for vandalism damage to rooftop air conditioning units at its Indianapolis hotel, but the insurer denied the claim after determining the building was “vacant” under the policy’s exclusion for vandalism losses when less than 31% of the space was in customary use for 60 or more consecutive days. Ohio Security filed a declaratory judgment action after Best Inn repeatedly failed to provide requested occupancy records and submit to an examination under oath; Best Inn counterclaimed for bad-faith denial. The district court imposed discovery sanctions that deemed the hotel vacant at the time of the loss, granted summary judgment to Ohio Security on the bad-faith claim, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The appeals court held that the sanctions were a proportionate response to Best Inn’s noncompliance, that the hotel’s vacancy meant the policy afforded no coverage for the vandalism, and that any earlier investigative errors by the insurer’s adjuster were irrelevant once vacancy became the operative ground for denial.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In this insurance coverage dispute, Best Inn Midwest sought payment under a commercial property policy from Ohio Security for vandalism damage to rooftop air conditioning units at its Indianapolis hotel, but the insurer denied the claim after determining the building was “vacant” under the policy’s exclusion for vandalism losses when less than 31% of the space was in customary use for 60 or more consecutive days. Ohio Security filed a declaratory judgment action after Best Inn repeatedly failed to provide requested occupancy records and submit to an examination under oath; Best Inn counterclaimed for bad-faith denial. The district court imposed discovery sanctions that deemed the hotel vacant at the time of the loss, granted summary judgment to Ohio Security on the bad-faith claim, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The appeals court held that the sanctions were a proportionate response to Best Inn’s noncompliance, that the hotel’s vacancy meant the policy afforded no coverage for the vandalism, and that any earlier investigative errors by the insurer’s adjuster were irrelevant once vacancy became the operative ground for denial.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

John Wertymer sued Walmart in an Illinois federal court, alleging that the retailer defrauded consumers by selling Great Value honey labeled “Raw Honey” and “Organic Raw Honey” that had actually been heated or industrially processed, thereby depriving buyers of the product’s claimed nutritional benefits; he sought to represent a nationwide or Illinois class under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and common-law fraudulent misrepresentation. The district court dismissed the complaint, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The appeals court held that the allegations failed to state a plausible claim because the laboratory report and Codex standards cited in the complaint did not show that the detected mannose levels necessarily indicated processing rather than natural origin, leaving only conjecture that the honey was mislabeled and that Wertymer suffered harm.

business & regulatorytorts & liability