Howard M. Wasserman is Professor of Law at FIU College of Law, where he teaches and writes on civil procedure, federal courts and civil rights litigation. He is the author of "Understanding Civil Rights Litigation" with Carolina Academic Press. He is a former law clerk for Judge Jane R. Roth of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit and Judge James T. Giles of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Civil rights plaintiffs scored a significant victory in Health & Hospital Corp. of Marion County v. Talevski on Thursday, with a seven-justice majority reaffirming that private plaintiffs can enforce spending clause enactments through 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and allowing private damages actions to enforce the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act of 1987.
Tuesday’s argument in Health and Hospital Corp. of Marion County v. Talevski did not reveal a Supreme Court ready to reconsider or overrule a line of cases allowing private suits for damages in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to enforce rights created under federal spending clause legislation.
Health & Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski, to be argued Tuesday, returns the court to the question of when federal law is subject to private enforcement.
Rejecting Fourth Amendment excessive-force and First Amendment retaliation damages claims against a U.S. Border Patrol agent by a U.S. citizen for an incident on his property near the U.S.-Canada border, the Supreme Court in Egbert v. Boule narrowed, but did not eliminate, private civil damages actions for constitutional violations by federal officials under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents.
Continuing an unbroken decades-long run, the Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to extend the right to sue federal officers for damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents.
The Supreme Court on Monday reinstated a New York City man’s lawsuit alleging that police officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The 6-3 ruling in Thompson v. Clark clarified the “favorable termination” rule in civil claims seeking damages for constitutional violations arising in the criminal-justice process.
A plaintiff bringing a damages claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for constitutional violations arising in the criminal-justice process “need only show that his prosecution ended without a conviction” and not “with some affirmative indication of innocence,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for a six-justice majority in Thompson v. Clark.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday returned to the scope of the right to sue federal officers for damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, in a case arising from events surrounding an (unfairly) disparaged inn and suspicious characters near the U.S.-Canada border.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday will consider the continued vitality and expansion of lawsuits for damages against federal officers under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents.
Mythological creatures and French literary heroes appeared during argument in Thompson v. Clark Tuesday, as the justices sought to define “favorable termination” in certain Fourth Amendment claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Civil claims seeking damages for constitutional violations arising in the criminal-justice process require the plaintiff to show “favorable termination,” meaning the criminal proceedings were terminated in favor of the accused (the plaintiff in the subsequent civil action).
A unanimous Supreme Court in Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court (consolidated with Ford Motor Co. v. Bandemer) held Thursday that Ford is subject to products-liability suits in Montana and Minnesota arising from car accidents there.