What Will the Court Say About Religious Freedom?

LESLIE C. GRIFFIN

UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin comments on the oral argument the U.S. Supreme Court heard this week in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, which presents the justices with questions about the meaning of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment. Griffin describes the questioning by the justices and predicts that the outcome in this case will demonstrate how many justices still believe in the separation of church and state.

Read More

Roberts v. City of Fairbanks

Docket: 18-35938

Opinion Date: January 22, 2020

Judge: Richard C. Tallman

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order dismissing plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985 claims on the ground that the claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The panel explained that whether section 1983 plaintiffs may recover damages if the convictions underlying their claims were vacated pursuant to a settlement agreement depends on whether such a vacatur serves to invalidate the convictions and thus renders the related section 1983 claims actionable notwithstanding Heck. In this case, the panel held that all convictions underlying the section 1983 claims were vacated and no outstanding criminal judgments remained, and therefore Heck did not bar plaintiffs from seeking relief under section 1983. Accordingly, the panel remanded for further proceedings.