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

A former Walmart employee alleged that he experienced discrimination based on his sexual orientation during his employment, which began in 2017. He described a workplace permeated by anti-gay slurs, derogatory remarks from coworkers and supervisors, and specific incidents such as being compared to a pedophile and bestialist, being subjected to false accusations of inappropriate conduct, and encountering offensive drawings and slurs in common areas. He was demoted from a supervisory position, briefly terminated and then reinstated, and ultimately resigned, citing ongoing harassment and disparate treatment in vacation approvals and work assignments.After the employee filed suit in New Mexico state court, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. His claims, brought under Title VII and the New Mexico Human Rights Act, included disparate treatment based on demotion and termination, retaliation for opposing unlawful conduct, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. The district court granted summary judgment to Walmart on all claims. It found the demotion and termination claims lacking evidence of discrimination or harm, dismissed the retaliation claim for lack of protected activity, rejected the constructive discharge claim for insufficient severity of conditions, and held that the hostile-work-environment claim failed because the incidents were not sufficiently severe or pervasive, and some were improperly excluded as “discrete acts.”On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment on all claims except the hostile-work-environment claim. It held that the demotion-based disparate-treatment claim was barred by the statute of limitations and that the temporary termination claim was not adequately appealed. It also found no evidence of protected opposition to support retaliation or intolerable conditions for constructive discharge. However, the court reversed summary judgment on the hostile-work-environment claim, holding that a reasonable jury could find the alleged conduct sufficiently severe or pervasive, and remanded that claim for further proceedings. View "Sharpe-Miller v. Walmart" on Justia Law

After Jared Lakey was observed behaving erratically and unclothed in a residential neighborhood in Wilson, Oklahoma, police officers from Wilson responded and used their tasers on him fifty-three times within nine minutes. A Carter County deputy, acting under a Mutual Aid Policy that required assistance to smaller police departments, arrived and used a chokehold restraint on Mr. Lakey. This resulted in Mr. Lakey’s death. The administrators of Mr. Lakey’s estate brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging constitutional violations by the individual officers as well as municipal liability against the Carter County Sheriff, Chris Bryant. The claims against Sheriff Bryant included maintaining an informal custom of permitting excessive force, enacting the Mutual Aid Policy (which plaintiffs argued created an increased risk of excessive force), and failing to train officers for mutual aid responses.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma addressed several pretrial matters. It denied a motion for spoliation sanctions based on Sheriff Bryant’s destruction of a cell phone containing potentially relevant text messages, finding no prejudice to the plaintiffs and concluding the destruction was negligent, not intentional. The court granted summary judgment in Sheriff Bryant’s favor on the claim that he maintained an informal custom of excessive force, finding insufficient evidence of a pattern of misconduct. It also granted him qualified immunity in his individual capacity on claims regarding the Mutual Aid Policy, though it permitted official capacity claims concerning the policy and training to proceed to trial.At trial, the district court excluded evidence that the deputy who applied the chokehold was not criminally charged. The jury found the Wilson officers liable for excessive force but found in favor of Sheriff Bryant on the municipal policy and training claims. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings, holding that Sheriff Bryant was entitled to qualified immunity on individual claims, that summary judgment on the custom-of-excessive-force claim was proper, that any evidentiary error was harmless, and that denial of spoliation sanctions was not reversible error. View "Lakey v. Bryant" on Justia Law

Following the 2020 presidential election, three individuals—Shawn Smith, Ashley Epp, and Holly Kasun—formed an unincorporated association called the United States Election Integrity Plan (USEIP) to investigate what they believed was widespread election fraud in Colorado. In 2021, USEIP organized volunteers to go door-to-door canvassing, asking voters questions about their voting history and, in some instances, about whom they voted for. The Colorado Montana Wyoming State Area Conference of the NAACP, the League of Women Voters of Colorado, and Mi Familia Vota (collectively, the Voter Organizations) filed suit against USEIP and its founders, alleging that these canvassing activities constituted voter intimidation.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted summary judgment for USEIP, holding that unincorporated associations could not be sued under the statutes invoked: Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1985. The district court then held a bench trial against the individual defendants. After the plaintiffs presented their case, the district court granted judgment on partial findings for the individuals under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c), finding insufficient evidence that any defendant engaged in voter intimidation. The court denied the defendants’ subsequent motion for attorney’s fees.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of USEIP, holding that unincorporated associations can be sued under both Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act and § 1985. The appellate court found that the district court’s exclusion of USEIP significantly narrowed the scope of relevant evidence at trial, affecting the plaintiffs’ substantial rights. The Tenth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for a new trial against all defendants. The related appeal regarding attorney’s fees was dismissed as moot. View "Colorado Montana Wyoming State Area Conference of the NAACP v. Smith" on Justia Law

A group of Kansas residential natural gas consumers, who purchase gas from local distributors, sued several interstate wholesalers. They alleged that during Winter Storm Uri, the wholesalers manipulated the market and sold natural gas to local distributors at exorbitant prices, leading to unprecedented increases in retail gas prices. The plaintiffs claimed these actions violated the Kansas Consumer Protection Act (KCPA) by forcing local distributors into the high-priced spot market and passing the excessive costs on to consumers. The plaintiffs contended that even though the alleged misconduct occurred in the wholesale market, it had a direct and significant impact on retail customers.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas consolidated five class actions and reviewed the claims. The district court granted the defendants’ joint motion to dismiss, finding that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has exclusive jurisdiction over interstate wholesale natural gas rates under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and that the plaintiffs’ state-law claims were preempted. The court concluded that the challenged conduct concerned wholesale transactions, which are subject to comprehensive federal regulation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the NGA field-preempts the plaintiffs’ KCPA claims because the claims are aimed directly at, and challenge, transactions and practices in the interstate wholesale natural gas market, an area reserved for federal oversight. The Tenth Circuit distinguished this case from Supreme Court precedent where state-law claims were not preempted, emphasizing that these plaintiffs’ claims targeted wholesale sales rather than background marketplace conditions. The court concluded that the exclusive jurisdiction of FERC over wholesale sales foreclosed state-law consumer protection claims based on those transactions. View "Mehl v. BP Energy Company" on Justia Law

Kyle Quentin Sago shot and killed Daniel Morgan, who was unarmed, after returning to Morgan’s residence in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Sago admitted to the shooting during his testimony at trial, stating he acted out of fear. Initially, Sago entered into a plea agreement to plead guilty to second-degree murder, but the district court rejected the plea after determining the facts met the requirements for premeditated first-degree murder. Sago subsequently withdrew his guilty plea and proceeded to trial, where he was charged with multiple counts, including first-degree murder, felon in possession of ammunition, and causing death with a firearm. At trial, Sago’s counsel conceded Sago was the shooter and focused on contesting premeditation, seeking a conviction for second-degree rather than first-degree murder. Sago testified, admitted to the shooting and prior felonies, and the jury convicted him on all counts.After sentencing, Sago appealed directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which affirmed his convictions and sentence. The appellate court found no error in the district court’s refusal to instruct on imperfect self-defense and determined there was sufficient evidence supporting the jury’s verdict. Sago then filed a motion in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied his motion, holding that his counsel did not fail to subject the prosecution’s case to adversarial testing and that Sago did not meet the Strickland standard for ineffective assistance.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the denial of Sago’s § 2255 motion. The court held that neither structural error under McCoy v. Louisiana nor presumed prejudice under United States v. Cronic applied because Sago did not object contemporaneously to his counsel’s strategy and counsel did not entirely fail to contest guilt. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of Sago’s motion. View "United States v. Sago" on Justia Law

Rigoberto Santillan Quiroz, a noncitizen who entered the United States in 2006 and has since established deep family and community ties, was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in November 2025 after a traffic stop. He was not charged with a crime, and there was no suggestion that he posed a flight risk or danger to the community. ICE initiated removal proceedings against him, asserting that his detention was mandatory under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), which it interpreted to preclude any opportunity for a bond hearing.In the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Santillan Quiroz filed a habeas corpus petition, arguing that his detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), under which he would be eligible for a bond hearing. A magistrate judge recommended granting the petition, but the district court rejected that recommendation and denied relief, finding Santillan Quiroz ineligible for release or a bond hearing under the government’s interpretation of the statute.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the statutory framework and the government’s recent shift in interpreting § 1225(b)(2)(A) as mandating detention of noncitizens found in the interior of the country who have not been admitted. The Tenth Circuit held that § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies only to noncitizens seeking admission at the border, not to those detained in the interior. The court concluded that Santillan Quiroz is subject to detention under § 1226(a) and is therefore eligible for a bond hearing. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the habeas petition and remanded with instructions to order the government to provide Santillan Quiroz a bond hearing or release him within seven days. View "Quiroz v. Mullin" on Justia Law

A journalist with over twenty-five years of experience covering the Utah Legislature previously received media credentials while working for established news organizations. After founding an independent news outlet, he applied for a media credential under a new policy that categorically excluded bloggers, independent media, and freelance journalists from receiving credentials. This exclusion prevented him from accessing restricted areas and events within the Capitol that were available only to credentialed journalists, limiting his ability to gather news directly from legislative press conferences and availabilities.The plaintiff filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Utah against legislative officials, alleging that the credentialing policy was unconstitutional as both facial and as-applied viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment, along with claims of retaliation, prior restraint, and vagueness. The district court dismissed all claims, including denying a preliminary injunction as moot. The court reasoned, in part, that there was no protected speech implicated by the policy and that the plaintiff’s continued reporting without a credential undercut the retaliation claim.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The appellate court held that the district court erred in dismissing both the facial and as-applied viewpoint discrimination claims. The appellate court found that the plaintiff plausibly alleged denial of access based on his viewpoint and that the exclusion from a government-created forum for journalists implicated protected speech. The court remanded those claims for further proceedings. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the retaliation, prior restraint, and vagueness claims, finding no plausible allegation of chilling effect and determining the policy did not regulate expression sufficiently to support a prior restraint or vagueness challenge. View "Utah Political Watch v. Musselman" on Justia Law

The defendant was involved in a shooting at a homeless encampment in Tulsa, Oklahoma, resulting in the death of one individual and serious injury to another. The incident followed a dispute regarding stolen property, with witnesses testifying that the defendant fired shots into tents after a confrontation. The police recovered shell casings and matched them to a firearm later found in the possession of another individual, which was confirmed to belong to the defendant. Witness testimony indicated the defendant claimed he was shot at first, but no firearm was found at the scene associated with the victims.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma presided over the trial, where a jury convicted the defendant of first-degree murder, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault resulting in serious bodily injury, and carrying and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence. The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment plus ten years. On appeal, the defendant challenged the admission of a tribal database screenshot to prove Indian status, the inclusion of certain language in the self-defense instruction, and the court’s refusal to instruct the jury that the government must disprove imperfect self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s admission of the tribal database record and its self-defense instruction, finding no abuse of discretion or legal error. However, it held that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury that the government must disprove imperfect self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, violating due process. The court remanded with instructions to vacate the murder conviction (Count One) and ordered further proceedings, while affirming the remaining convictions. View "United States v. Lynn" on Justia Law

Several conservation groups challenged a 2020 amendment to the management plan for Thunder Basin National Grassland, alleging that the United States Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The State of Wyoming intervened in the case. After the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming, the district court upheld the agency’s plan amendment, ruling that it complied with both statutes.The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The Tenth Circuit found that the Forest Service’s amendment did not comply with NEPA, specifically because the agency issued an unduly narrow Purpose and Need statement, failed to consider a reasonable range of alternatives, and did not take the required “hard look” at environmental consequences. The Tenth Circuit did not reach the ESA claims. Instead of determining the appropriate remedy itself, the Tenth Circuit remanded the case to the district court to decide whether the plan amendment should be vacated or remanded without vacatur, instructing the district court to apply the two-part Allied-Signal test.On remand, the district court considered additional briefing and ordered remand to the Forest Service without vacatur of the 2020 Plan Amendment, finding that both Allied-Signal factors favored this approach. The plaintiffs then sought appellate review of the district court’s refusal to order vacatur. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s remand order because it was not a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and no exception to the administrative remand rule applied. The appeal was therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. View "Western Watersheds Project v. Forest Service" on Justia Law

President Biden expanded the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments in Utah, designating over 3.23 million acres under the Antiquities Act and identifying more than 500 items for protection. Plaintiffs—including the State of Utah, two counties, individuals, and an organization—objected to the scope of these expansions. They argued that the President exceeded his authority by designating items and reserving land that, in their view, did not qualify under the Act’s requirements for “historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest,” and by not limiting the land to “the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management” of those objects.Reviewing the case, the United States District Court for the District of Utah dismissed the claims. It held that sovereign immunity barred review of the President’s actions, found some plaintiffs lacked standing, and concluded that challenges to agency management plans were not ripe because those plans were not final agency actions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The Tenth Circuit held that the district court erred in concluding that sovereign immunity barred all review of the President’s actions under the ultra vires doctrine, since the Antiquities Act imposes discernable statutory limits on presidential authority. The court found that plaintiffs could bring ultra vires claims alleging that the President exceeded specific statutory limits, and remanded for the district court to consider whether the President’s actions were indeed ultra vires. The Tenth Circuit also vacated and remanded the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ Administrative Procedure Act claims due to subsequent agency action, but affirmed the dismissal of claims by individual plaintiffs and one organization for lack of standing. View "Garfield County v. Biden" on Justia Law