Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

A group of prisoners in Illinois sued the state’s Department of Corrections, alleging that they were provided with inadequate medical and dental care, which they claimed violated the Eighth Amendment. The class was certified, and the parties reached a settlement that led to the entry of a consent decree. This decree required the Department to prepare an implementation plan, with oversight and recommendations from an independent monitor, to address the systemic deficiencies identified. Over time, disagreements arose regarding the adequacy and specificity of the Department’s proposals, and the monitor’s recommendations were largely adopted by the court after finding the Department in contempt for noncompliance.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, approved and amended the consent decree, eventually adopting the implementation plan as part of it. The Department then filed several motions under Rule 60(b) to modify the consent decree, including requests to remove stipulations about compliance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and to excise or terminate the implementation plan. The court denied these requests, but did acknowledge changed circumstances and amended the decree to clarify that the implementation plan would only be enforceable if the court made findings required by the PLRA. The court also extended the term of the consent decree due to the Department’s lack of substantial compliance.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found it lacked jurisdiction to review some orders, such as the denial of the motion to strike the stipulation and the extension of the decree, as these did not substantially alter the parties’ legal relationship. The court affirmed the lower court’s decisions regarding the implementation plan, holding that its terms are not enforceable unless and until the district court makes the factual findings required by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the PLRA. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Lippert v Hughes" on Justia Law

A group of parolees who had been detained challenged the procedures used by the Missouri Department of Corrections for revoking parole, arguing that these procedures violated their due process rights. The plaintiffs brought a class action suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of all adult parolees in Missouri who currently face or will face parole revocation proceedings. The district court issued an order in 2020 requiring the Department to implement certain changes. After further proceedings, the plaintiffs sought and were awarded attorneys’ fees for their partial success and for monitoring the Department’s compliance.The Missouri Department of Corrections appealed the district court’s fee awards, arguing that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) limited the attorneys’ fees that could be awarded. The district court had repeatedly rejected the Department’s argument, finding that the PLRA’s fee cap did not apply because the certified class included parolees who were not detained and because some of the relief benefited non-detained parolees. The district court issued its final judgment in January 2025 and permanently enjoined the Department while awarding additional attorneys’ fees.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit considered whether the PLRA’s attorneys’ fee cap under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d) applied to the class action. The Eighth Circuit held that the fee cap does apply because the certified class consisted of individuals who are, or will be, detained during parole revocation proceedings and thus fall under the statutory definition of “prisoner.” The court also found that the PLRA’s fee cap section is not limited to actions challenging prison conditions. The Eighth Circuit vacated the fee awards and remanded the case for the district court to recalculate the fee awards in accordance with the PLRA’s limitations. View "Gasca v. Precythe" on Justia Law

A class of inmates at the Louisiana State Penitentiary alleged that the prison’s medical care was constitutionally inadequate and that the facility failed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The lawsuit began in 2015, and evidence was introduced at trial in 2018. In 2021, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana issued a lengthy opinion finding systemic Eighth Amendment violations and ADA/RA noncompliance. While prison officials began making improvements ahead of a scheduled remedial trial, the district court later issued a Remedial Opinion and Order, prescribing detailed institutional changes and appointing special masters to oversee compliance.The district court’s Remedial Order required the state to bear the costs of three special masters, directed broad institutional reforms, and did not expressly adhere to the limitations imposed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The court entered final judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, retaining jurisdiction only for compliance procedures. After entry of judgment, the defendants appealed. During the appeal, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stayed the Remedial Order. The Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, subsequently reviewed whether it had appellate jurisdiction and the validity of the district court’s orders.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that it had appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or, alternatively, § 1292(a)(1). The Fifth Circuit found that the district court’s Remedial Order violated the PLRA by failing to apply the statutory needs-narrowness-intrusiveness standard, improperly appointing multiple special masters, and requiring the state to pay their fees. The Fifth Circuit also concluded that the district court erred by disregarding ongoing improvements to prison medical care and by misapplying the standards for injunctive relief under the Eighth Amendment and the ADA/RA. The court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Parker v. Hooper" on Justia Law

An employee of the Falmouth Public Schools in Maine, enrolled in a health insurance plan administered by Anthem Health Plans of Maine, Inc., challenged the plan’s exclusion of coverage for weight-loss medications. After being diagnosed with obesity and prescribed FDA-approved weight-loss drugs, the employee’s requests for coverage were repeatedly denied. Her medical providers appealed to Anthem, supporting the necessity of the medication, but Anthem maintained its denial, citing the plan’s explicit exclusion of weight-loss medications regardless of obesity diagnosis.The employee, on behalf of herself and a proposed class, sued Anthem’s parent company, Elevance Health, Inc., in the United States District Court for the District of Maine. She alleged that the exclusion constituted disability discrimination under Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which incorporates the nondiscrimination requirements of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Elevance moved to dismiss, arguing the complaint failed to plausibly allege disability discrimination. The district court granted the motion, reasoning that the exclusion applied to all enrollees, regardless of disability status, and did not target disabled individuals for discriminatory treatment. The court found the allegations of discrimination to be conclusory and insufficient to support claims of intentional, proxy, or disparate impact discrimination.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that the exclusion of weight-loss medication coverage constituted discrimination under Section 1557. The court concluded that the exclusion was facially neutral, did not serve as a proxy for disability discrimination, and did not result in a lack of meaningful access to plan benefits for disabled individuals. Accordingly, the dismissal of the complaint was affirmed. View "Holland v. Elevance Health, Inc." on Justia Law

In the fall of 2025, federal immigration authorities increased enforcement activities in Chicago through “Operation Midway Blitz,” prompting protests near an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in Broadview, Illinois. Protesters and journalists alleged that federal officers from ICE, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) violated their First and Fourth Amendment rights by deploying tear gas and other chemical agents without justification. The plaintiffs described instances of excessive force and sought injunctive relief to stop such practices.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued a temporary restraining order and later a broad preliminary injunction that applied districtwide, enjoining all federal law enforcement officers and agencies from using certain crowd control tactics. The court also certified a plaintiff class and required ongoing compliance reporting from DHS officials. The government appealed the preliminary injunction, arguing it was overbroad and infringed on separation of powers principles. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stayed the injunction, citing its expansive scope and concerns over standing.Subsequently, as the enforcement operation ended and no further constitutional violations were reported, the plaintiffs moved to dismiss the case. The district court dismissed the case without prejudice and decertified the class, contrary to the plaintiffs’ request for dismissal with prejudice. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that extraordinary circumstances warranted vacating the district court’s preliminary injunction. The Seventh Circuit held that vacatur was appropriate because the case had become moot and to prevent the now-unreviewable injunction from producing adverse legal consequences in future litigation. The court vacated the injunction and dismissed the appeal. View "Chicago Headline Club v. Noem" on Justia Law

A company operating a private detention facility in Colorado under contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was sued in a class action by a former detainee. The lawsuit challenged two of the company’s work policies for detainees: a sanitation policy that required unpaid cleaning under threat of punishment, and a voluntary work program offering minimal pay. Plaintiffs alleged that the sanitation policy violated federal anti-forced-labor laws and that the voluntary work program constituted unjust enrichment under Colorado law.After discovery, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado considered the company’s argument that, under the Supreme Court’s decision in Yearsley v. W. A. Ross Construction Co., it could not be held liable for conduct that the government had lawfully “authorized and directed.” The District Court concluded that the government contract did not instruct the company to adopt the specific work policies at issue and that the company had developed those policies on its own. Therefore, the court held that the Yearsley doctrine did not shield the company from liability and allowed the case to proceed to trial.The company appealed immediately, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that a denial of Yearsley protection is not subject to interlocutory appeal under Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the Tenth Circuit’s decision, holding that Yearsley provides a merits defense, not an immunity from suit. Therefore, a pretrial order denying Yearsley protection cannot be immediately appealed; any review must wait until after final judgment. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Geo Group, Inc. v. Menocal" on Justia Law

A commercial trucking business owner, who is white, learned about a $25,000 grant program administered by two insurance companies in partnership with another company. The program offered grants to ten small businesses to help them purchase commercial vehicles but was limited to black-owned businesses. After receiving an email invitation to apply, the business owner began the online application but stopped and did not submit it upon realizing that only black-owned businesses were eligible. He later alleged that he would have otherwise applied and met all requirements except for the race-based criterion.Following the application deadline, the business owner and his company filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, claiming that the grant program’s racial eligibility requirement violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981 by denying them the opportunity to enter into two contracts: one at the application stage and one at the grant award stage. The complaint sought damages and injunctive relief. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they had not suffered a cognizable injury caused by the defendants’ conduct.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The Sixth Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed the causation requirement for standing because the business owner chose not to submit the application, resulting in any alleged injury being self-inflicted rather than fairly traceable to the defendants’ actions. The court clarified that the judgment was without prejudice and affirmed the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Roberts v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Co." on Justia Law

In 1965, individuals filed a class action lawsuit against the public schools in St. Mary Parish, Louisiana, seeking to end segregation and secure injunctive relief. The district court granted an injunction requiring desegregation and oversight, with subsequent orders and modifications over the years as the parties and courts responded to compliance issues and changes in the law. After a period of inactivity, new representatives and counsel stepped in around 2018–2019, seeking to further modify the original injunction. The School Board responded by filing motions challenging the procedural propriety of the new plaintiffs, the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, and the ongoing validity of the injunction.The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana allowed the substitution of new plaintiffs, denied the Board’s motions to dismiss, and recertified the class, despite acknowledging factors that weighed against doing so. The Board did not appeal immediately but later renewed its objections, moving to dissolve the decades-old injunction and to strike or dismiss the new plaintiffs’ motions for further relief. The district court denied the Board’s motions to dismiss and to strike, and clarified that the Board could not present certain arguments under Rule 60(b)(5) at an upcoming hearing. The Board appealed these rulings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed whether it had appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), which allows interlocutory appeals of orders granting, continuing, modifying, or refusing to dissolve injunctions. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court’s orders did not have the practical effect of continuing, modifying, or refusing to dissolve the injunction, but merely maintained the status quo pending further proceedings. As such, the appellate court determined it lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal and dismissed it for want of appellate jurisdiction. View "Navy v. Sch Bd of St. Mary Prsh" on Justia Law

A group of nine individuals, representing a putative class, alleged that a credit union systematically discriminated against racial minorities in its residential mortgage lending practices. The plaintiffs varied in racial background (eight Black, one Latino), state of residence, type of loan product sought, and financial circumstances. Despite these differences, they claimed the credit union used a single, semi-automated underwriting process for all applicants, which, through its proprietary algorithm, resulted in discriminatory outcomes against minority applicants. The complaint sought both damages and injunctive relief, and proposed a class consisting of all minority applicants for mortgage-related products from 2018 to the present who faced adverse actions compared to similarly situated non-minority applicants.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia partially granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss and struck the class allegations, relying on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(f) and 23(d)(1)(D). The district court focused on the diversity of the plaintiffs’ circumstances, suggesting that the variations in loan types and applicant characteristics defeated the possibility of class certification, particularly under Rule 23(b)(3).On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit addressed the standards governing class certification denials at the pleading stage before discovery. The Fourth Circuit held that district courts should only deny class certification at this stage if, on the face of the complaint, the Rule 23 requirements are not met as a matter of law. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s denial of class certification under Rule 23(b)(3), finding the lack of predominance and superiority apparent from the complaint due to the differences among the plaintiffs. However, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s order as to Rule 23(b)(2), concluding that the complaint sufficiently alleged commonality for classwide declaratory and injunctive relief, and that the district court acted prematurely in denying certification under that provision. View "Oliver v. Navy Federal Credit Union" on Justia Law

A group of patients civilly committed under Minnesota law challenged the state's sex offender treatment program, alleging inadequate treatment and unconstitutional conditions of confinement. The lawsuit was brought as a class action, initially filed pro se and later supported by counsel through the Minnesota Federal Bar Association’s Pro Se Project. During the litigation, the patients, citing indigence and the need for expert testimony, requested court-appointed experts under Federal Rule of Evidence 706. Both parties jointly nominated experts, and in 2013, they recommended a 50/50 split of expert costs. However, the court initially allocated all costs to the defendants, reserving the option to adjust later.After more than a decade of litigation, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ruled in favor of the state officials on all claims. The officials then sought to recover litigation costs, including expert fees, as prevailing parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1). The district court declined to award any costs to the officials, citing the plaintiffs' indigence, good faith, public importance of the issues, vigorous litigation, difficulty and closeness of the issues, and potential chilling effect on future litigants.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion. The appellate court held that the district court failed to consider the plaintiffs’ 2013 recommendation to share expert costs and did not adequately weigh their acknowledged ability to pay half at that time. The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court’s cost judgment and remanded with instructions to award half of the expert costs to the prevailing defendants, to be assessed jointly and severally against the named plaintiffs. View "Karsjens v. Gandhi" on Justia Law