Justia U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Several teachers, students, parents, and their organizations challenged Oklahoma’s H.B. 1775, specifically subsection B, which restricts public school employees from making certain “discriminatory concepts” a required part of courses. These concepts include assertions about inherent superiority, moral character, responsibility, and psychological distress based on race or sex, among others. If violated, educators could face suspension or revocation of their teaching credentials. Plaintiffs argued that subsection B was unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment and violated students’ First Amendment right to receive information.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma reviewed the case. It granted judgment on the pleadings against the plaintiffs on their First Amendment claims, finding no protected right in curricular speech and no plausible right-to-receive-information claim. The court partially granted a preliminary injunction, finding that the use of “require” and two of the prohibited concepts (those using “treatment” and “treat”) were likely unconstitutionally vague, and enjoined enforcement of those parts. The court denied injunctive relief for the remaining language, and both parties appealed. The Oklahoma Supreme Court later declined to answer certified questions regarding the statute’s interpretation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the injunction. The court held that the District Court abused its discretion in finding vagueness in subsection B. It interpreted the statute as prohibiting teaching or requiring teaching of the listed discriminatory concepts as correct principles, not banning abstract discussion or instruction about related history or figures. The court determined that the statute’s language was sufficiently clear and not likely vague. It vacated the preliminary injunction, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. The court declined to address the First Amendment right-to-receive-information claims due to lack of appellate jurisdiction. View "Black Emergency Response Team v. Drummond" on Justia Law

In November 2022, Anderson Aldrich entered Club Q, an LGBTQIA+ nightclub in Colorado Springs, and shot patrons, killing five people and injuring twenty-five others. Survivors and families of victims sued multiple defendants: the El Paso County Board of County Commissioners, the Sheriff, and Club Q’s owners and associated entities. Against the County Defendants, plaintiffs raised federal substantive due process claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging county policies prevented law enforcement from seeking emergency protection orders (ERPOs), thereby increasing vulnerability to private violence. Against Club Q Defendants, plaintiffs brought claims under the Colorado Premises Liability Act (CPLA), as well as negligence and wrongful-death claims, alleging inadequate security and safety measures.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted the County Defendants’ motion to dismiss all federal claims, finding plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged affirmative danger-creating conduct required under the state-created-danger theory. The court also dismissed the CPLA claims against Club Q Defendants due to lack of causation, but denied dismissal of negligence and wrongful-death claims, reasoning the exclusivity of the CPLA was a fact-intensive issue not suitable for resolution at the pleading stage. Once federal claims were dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims and entered judgment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the § 1983 claims, holding plaintiffs failed to allege that county conduct placed them at immediate risk, thus not satisfying the affirmative-conduct requirement. The court also affirmed dismissal of the CPLA claims, concluding Aldrich’s actions were the predominant cause of injury under Colorado law. However, it reversed the district court’s denial of dismissal for negligence and wrongful-death claims, holding the CPLA provides the exclusive remedy for injuries arising from Club Q’s conditions and precludes those common-law claims. View "Vance v. Aldrich" on Justia Law

A man became the primary caregiver for his two-month-old daughter after his partner returned to work. Within a few days, the child was found to have severe and unexplained injuries, including multiple broken bones, bruises, and scratches. The child’s mother noticed initial injuries but delayed seeking medical attention until a scheduled check-up, at which point a pediatrician directed them to the hospital and notified authorities. Medical examination suggested the injuries were caused by forceful, non-accidental actions over a period of days. The accused gave varying explanations for the injuries, none of which were found consistent with the medical evidence.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma conducted a two-day jury trial. The prosecution presented expert and lay witnesses, including a specialist in child abuse who diagnosed the child as having suffered abuse and neglect. The defense challenged the admissibility and scope of the expert’s testimony, as well as certain statements by lay witnesses, arguing they improperly commented on the defendant’s credibility and offered expert opinions. The jury found the defendant guilty on both charges of child abuse and child neglect. The district court denied the defendant’s motion for a new trial and imposed a ten-year sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the expert’s medical diagnoses, as these did not address the defendant’s mental state—a necessary element for conviction—leaving that determination to the jury. The court also found that any improper lay witness testimony was harmless given its similarity to uncontested expert testimony. Arguments regarding prosecutorial misconduct and cumulative error were rejected. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the convictions. View "United States v. Wilson" on Justia Law

During a traffic stop on Highway I-80 in Wyoming, George Ostertag was pulled over by law enforcement for failing to signal a turn. A K-9 officer deployed a narcotics-detection dog named Becky to sniff the exterior of Ostertag’s vehicle while a record check was being performed. Becky subsequently made physical contact with the vehicle, alerting to the presence of contraband, which prompted officers to search the vehicle. They discovered a 9mm pistol with an obliterated serial number between the driver’s seat and center console. Ostertag, a convicted felon, was indicted for possessing a firearm as a felon and possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number.The United States District Court for the District of Wyoming held a five-day suppression hearing. It found Becky to be sufficiently reliable and determined she exhibited a positive alert behavior before making physical contact with the vehicle. The district court concluded that while Becky’s contact with the vehicle constituted a search, the alert prior to contact provided probable cause to justify the search. The court also rejected Ostertag’s argument that Becky’s open-air sniff amounted to a search. Ostertag’s motions to suppress evidence and to dismiss the indictment—on both facial and as-applied Second Amendment grounds—were denied. He then entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving his right to appeal, and the charge for possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number was dismissed. Ostertag was convicted on the remaining count and sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the appeal. The court held that Becky’s open-air sniff did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment, and even if Becky’s physical contact with the vehicle was a search, probable cause existed. The court further held that binding precedent foreclosed both facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Ostertag" on Justia Law

Nancy Martin embezzled millions of dollars from her employers over several years. After discovery of her actions, her employers obtained an $11 million default judgment against her in Kansas state court when she failed to appear, apparently following the advice of her attorney. Subsequently, Martin was federally indicted for bank fraud and for assisting in the filing of false tax documents, related to her failure to report the embezzled funds. On the advice of counsel, she pled guilty to one count of bank fraud and one count of tax fraud. The federal district court sentenced her to concurrent prison terms and ordered $3.9 million in restitution.Martin initially appealed her conviction and sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, but her appeal was dismissed due to the appeal waiver in her plea agreement. She then filed a motion in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. She claimed her attorney failed to inform her of potential defenses related to the bank fraud charge and the necessity of willfulness for the tax charge. The district court denied her motion without holding an evidentiary hearing, finding her legal theories insufficient and concluding she had not demonstrated prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the denial de novo and held that Martin was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine whether her counsel’s failure to advise her of a potential defense to bank fraud constituted deficient performance, and whether she suffered prejudice as a result. Additionally, the court found that the district court erred in its legal analysis regarding willfulness for the tax charge and remanded for further proceedings to properly assess prejudice. The district court’s denial was therefore reversed and remanded. View "United States v. Martin" on Justia Law

Mark Bayne was charged in July 2024 with multiple federal offenses, including making threats in interstate commerce and stalking, after allegedly sending numerous hostile messages through a Department of Veterans Affairs system. Bayne has a history of similar offenses and mental health issues: in 2010, after being indicted for threats, he was found incompetent to stand trial, later restored to competence, and ultimately found not guilty by reason of insanity following further psychiatric evaluations. He was conditionally released with psychiatric treatment requirements but violated those terms, resulting in re-arrest and subsequent releases. After his most recent discharge in February 2024, the current offenses allegedly occurred.Following his indictment, Bayne was detained pretrial because he refused release conditions. He missed several status conferences, citing chronic pain and transportation discomfort. Although his attorneys stated he was competent, the government requested a psychiatric evaluation under 18 U.S.C. § 4241, and the United States District Court for the District of Utah found reasonable cause to question Bayne’s competence, ordering the evaluation. Bayne challenged this order, asserting it was an abuse of discretion and that the reasonable cause determination was unsupported.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the interlocutory appeal. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s order because it did not fall within the collateral-order doctrine’s narrow exception to the final judgment rule. Specifically, the interests at stake for a detained defendant subject to a competency evaluation were outweighed by the public interest in prompt criminal proceedings. The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the court did not address the merits of Bayne’s challenge to the evaluation order. View "United States v. Bayne" on Justia Law

Three female student-athletes at a public university in New Mexico alleged that the university was deliberately indifferent under Title IX to their reports of sexual abuse by the husband of their basketball coach. The husband, while not officially employed by the university, provided unauthorized “biomechanics” treatments to student-athletes, including the plaintiffs, sometimes on campus and later at his home. The head coach, his wife, allegedly required players with injuries to see him for treatment, and if they objected, questioned the seriousness of their injuries. Incidents of inappropriate touching and sexual assault were reported by the plaintiffs and other students during these treatments.Reports of misconduct began surfacing in spring 2022, first to the head athletic trainer, who raised concerns with the university’s Athletic Director. However, reports were not always relayed to appropriate officials, sometimes due to lack of Title IX training. When allegations of sexual misconduct became known, the university’s main response was to attempt to formalize the husband’s volunteer status rather than to investigate or prohibit further contact. Only months later, after more reports and an internal meeting, did the university ban him from campus and instruct coaches not to refer players to him, at which point the assaults ceased.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico granted summary judgment to the university, finding it lacked sufficient control over the husband for Title IX liability to attach, and that there was no official policy of deliberate indifference. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo and held that, while there was no evidence of an official policy of deliberate indifference, the university had sufficient practical control over the husband and the context of the abuse to potentially incur Title IX liability. The Tenth Circuit reversed the summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Doe 1 v. Eastern New Mexico University Board of Regents" on Justia Law

Three individuals employed as customer service agents for a ground services provider and an airline at Denver International Airport brought a class action lawsuit asserting violations of Colorado’s wage laws. Their complaint alleged that the employers improperly deducted time for lunch breaks not taken, forced work during rest breaks, failed to pay overtime, and withheld commissions. Each employee’s contract contained a mandatory arbitration clause, which the employers sought to enforce under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and Colorado law. The employees responded that, as transportation workers, their contracts were exempt from the FAA, and further argued that Colorado law voided such arbitration agreements for wage claims.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado denied the motions to compel arbitration. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court focused narrowly on the specific duties of the three employees, rather than considering the work typically performed by the broader class of customer service agents. It found that the employees “actually and routinely” handled passenger luggage and played a “gatekeeping” role with respect to cargo. On this basis, the court concluded they were transportation workers exempt from the FAA. The district court did not address the request to compel arbitration under Colorado law.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that the district court erred by defining the relevant class of workers too narrowly—focusing only on the specific employees, rather than the typical duties of the class as a whole, as required by Supreme Court precedent (including Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon). The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s order denying the motions to compel arbitration and remanded for further proceedings to properly determine the attributes of the class of workers under the correct legal standard. View "Joyner v. Frontier Airlines" on Justia Law

An attorney licensed in Utah challenged the state’s requirement that lawyers join the Utah State Bar and pay annual dues as a condition of practicing law. She argued that the Bar engaged in activities—such as lobbying, publishing a journal, and posting on social media—that were not sufficiently related to regulating the legal profession or improving legal services. She also objected to the procedures used by the Bar for handling members’ mandatory dues, claiming they were inadequate to protect her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the District of Utah first dismissed the plaintiff’s claim that mandatory dues violated her rights, relying on precedent from the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Schell v. Chief Justice & Justices of Oklahoma Supreme Court. The district court then reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment on the remaining claims. It ruled for the defendants, finding that most challenged Bar activities were germane under the standard set in Keller v. State Bar of California, and that the Bar’s procedures for handling objections to expenditures and providing refunds were constitutionally sufficient.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decisions. The appellate court held that, under existing Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit precedent, mandatory bar dues are constitutional when used for activities germane to regulating the legal profession or improving legal services. The court also held that the correct legal standard for evaluating the Bar’s activities is the “germaneness” test from Keller, not a heightened “exacting scrutiny” standard. Because the plaintiff did not adequately challenge the district court’s germaneness findings or show that the Bar’s procedures were constitutionally deficient, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal and summary judgment rulings. View "Pomeroy v. Utah State Bar" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, who had donated funds to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, alleged that the Church and its investment subsidiary, Ensign Peak Advisors, Inc., fraudulently induced donations by concealing the true use and accumulation of donated funds. They claimed that the Church misrepresented that tithing would be used for charitable and religious purposes, when instead large portions were invested and used for commercial ventures, such as the development of the City Creek Mall. A key event in the case was the publication of a whistleblower report in December 2019, which was widely reported in national and local media and described how the Church managed and concealed a large investment portfolio. The Church publicly responded, and three other lawsuits were filed by different donors based on similar allegations.After actions were filed in several federal district courts, the cases were consolidated in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. Plaintiffs brought claims for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, fraudulent concealment, fraudulent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment, seeking to represent a nationwide class of post-1997 donors. The district court dismissed the consolidated complaint with prejudice, ruling that the claims were untimely under Utah’s three-year statute of limitations for fraud. The court found that the widespread news coverage of the whistleblower report meant that plaintiffs, exercising reasonable diligence, should have discovered the alleged fraud more than three years before filing suit.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Tenth Circuit held that the plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred because the whistleblower report and related media coverage provided sufficient public notice to trigger the statute of limitations, and that reasonable diligence would have led to earlier discovery. The court also found no error in the district court’s procedural rulings and denied the request for leave to amend. View "In re: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" on Justia Law