Free US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit case summaries from Justia.
If you are unable to see this message, click here to view it in a web browser. | | US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit May 1, 2020 |
|
|
Table of Contents | Carey v. Throwe Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law |
Click here to remove Verdict from subsequent Justia newsletter(s). | New on Verdict Legal Analysis and Commentary | A Constitutional Commitment to Access to Literacy: Bridging the Chasm Between Negative and Positive Rights | EVAN CAMINKER | | Michigan Law dean emeritus Evan Caminker discusses a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in which that court held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause secures schoolchildren a fundamental right to a “basic minimum education” that “can plausibly impart literacy.” Caminker—one of the co-counsel for the plaintiffs in that case—explains why the decision is so remarkable and why the supposed dichotomy between positive and negative rights is not as stark as canonically claimed. | Read More |
|
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Opinions | Carey v. Throwe | Docket: 19-1194 Opinion Date: April 30, 2020 Judge: James Harvie Wilkinson, III Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law | Plaintiff filed suit against defendants after he was terminated for submitting two blog posts about the then Captain of the Internal Affairs Unit of the Maryland Natural Resources Police (MNRP). Among other things, the blog posts contained screenshots from the Captain's private Facebook page that showed photos of the Captain posing with scantily-clad women and various comments that he had made about gun violence. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim, holding that plaintiff's posts concern nothing more than purely personal speech, as they are devoid of any content that rises to a level of public concern. The court also affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim that defendants violated plaintiff's right to carry a concealed firearm under the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act, holding that the Act was not privately enforceable under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Finally, the court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's defamation per se claim, holding that the statement at issue was not actionable as defamation. | |
|
About Justia Opinion Summaries | Justia Daily Opinion Summaries is a free service, with 68 different newsletters, covering every federal appellate court and the highest courts of all US states. | Justia also provides weekly practice area newsletters in 63 different practice areas. | All daily and weekly Justia newsletters are free. Subscribe or modify your newsletter subscription preferences at daily.justia.com. | You may freely redistribute this email in whole. | About Justia | Justia is an online platform that provides the community with open access to the law, legal information, and lawyers. |
|
|