Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals traveled to Bloomington recently to hear six oral arguments of cases ranging from abortion to strip search.
The visit was part of the court’s larger plan to visit and conduct business at Midwestern law schools. The court already has taken its road show to the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law in Indianapolis and University of Wisconsin-Madison as part of their plan to visit more law schools.
The panel of judges that heard the six oral arguments last week were Frank Easterbrook, Doris Pryor and Thomas Kirsh.
The law school’s DeLaney Moot Court Room was filled with undergraduate and law school students as well as professors, law clerks and attorneys.
Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Steve Sanders said it was a unique opportunity to see the Chicago-based court in action.
Here is a brief summary of all six cases heard last week. All were taken under advisement.
William Huggins, et al. v. ABK Tracking, Incorporated, et al.
The first case to be heard originated from Evansville.
Executive Director of Equal Justice Under Law Phil Telfeyan argued on behalf of his clients William Huggins and Keith Miller.
Huggins was sentenced to electronic home detention in February 2022 and ABK Tracking required he pay a $300 set up fee plus a $112 weekly fee and $35 per drug test one to two times a week. When he was unable to pay, ABK filed petitions to revoke Huggins’ community placement. Huggins paid about $2,000 in ABK fees in the three months he was on electronic home detention.
Miller was on pretrial supervision and had not been convicted. According to the lawsuit he paid hundreds to ABK in fees if his first few months of supervision.
In August 2022, Equal Justice Under Law filed its lawsuit against ABK. The lawsuit accused ABK Tracking, Circuit Court Judge David Kiely, and Vanderburgh County of conspiring to “extort” money from poor residents.
In June 2023, U.S. District Judge Judge Matthew P. Brookman dismissed the lawsuit stating it lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
Telfeyan asked the court to reverse the Southern District Court’s judgment.
Pryor asked Telfeyan if there was standing in the case. He stated they believed they have standing against all three defendants.
Partner-in-charge at Reminger Alex M. Beeman argued on behalf of ABK Tracking and Kiely. Beeman stated that Brookman’s dismissal should be affirmed.
Ziemer Stayman Weitzel Shoulders LLP Associate Attorney Bernard Lobermann argued on behalf of the Vanderburgh County.
Lobermann stated that Kiely was a state actor and not employed by Vanderburgh County.
During arguments, Telfeyan said Huggins was still under supervision but Beeman said Huggins was no longer under supervision.
Easterbrook asked for both parties to meet and discuss after arguments whether Huggins is still under any form of supervision. The parties are to submit a joint letter to the court with that information by Oct. 31.
Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Todd Rokita, et al.
New Jersey attorney James Mac Naughton argued on behalf of the Satanic Temple.
He stated that the Satanic Temple wants to be able to provide abortion-inducing drugs to its Hoosier members virtually through Telehealth without facing criminal prosecution under Senate Enrolled Act 1.
Easterbrook noted that there are other state statutes other than Senate Enrolled Act 1 which bans abortion in the state with a few exceptions for the life or health of the mother, rape or incest or fatal fetal anomaly.
“There are other statutes on the books in Indiana requiring these drugs to be approved personally by a physician after at least one in-person visit,” Easterbrook responded.
The discussion continued and with judges trying to gain clarification from Mac Naughton on what relief Satanic Temple could possibly be granted.
“You are not saying anything relevant, that’s my problem,” Easterbrook said. “I’ll let you go on, but you have to understand that unless you can answer the question as I pose it, you have no hope.”
Indiana Deputy Solicitor General Jenna Lorence argued on behalf of the state.
“Plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that they have standing at every stage of a case. The Satanic Temple has failed to do that here, despite opportunities to do so,” Lorence said.
USA v. Jonathan S. Rose
Chad Pennington argued on behalf of Jonathan S. Rose. Rose was indicted on seven counts, four were for making false statements on an ATF form and three for possessing a firearm despite previously being committed to a mental institution.
Pennington stated that they believe the Northern District Court made errors, one of them was denying Rose the ability to demonstrate his mental fitness for a firearm possession.
Easterbrook pointed out how Rose is still receiving Social Security disability checks basked on a current mental illness.
Pennington did not address the social security checks in his brief to the court.
“You want us to ignore that because your head is in the sand of that,” Easterbook said in regards to Rose receiving disability checks.
On rebuttal, opposing counsel David Hollar stated the court should remand the judgment of the district court.
“The court can certainly read the tea leaves in whatever way it wishes to. The government reads it differently,” Hollar said.
USA v. Edward Gibbs
Michael Roy argued on behalf of Edward Gibbs.
The court previously reversed and remanded Gibbs’ 16-year drug sentence for resentencing to the Indiana Southern District Court after the circuit court found that federal prosecutors failed to present evidence to support the allegation that he confessed to conspiring to distribute crystal meth.
Gibbs is now challenging his new sentence he received last year.
Colin Clark argued on behalf of the USA. He stated that it is now a vagueness challenge.
Raquel Haro v. Porter County, Indiana, et al.
Alexa Bradley argued on behalf of Raquel Haro.
Haro received a strip search when the body scan detectors flagged a small circular object in her groin area. The object was the snaps to the bodysuit Haro was wearing at the time and had informed officers about.
Bradley asked the court to reverse the summary judgment granted by the district court.
Crystal Rowe argued on behalf of the Porter County Sheriff’s Department. Rowe stated that it was not unconstitutional for the officers to continue the search when they had reasonable suspicion after seeing an anomaly on the body scan.
Rowe asked the court to affirm the district courts ruling.
Gayl Flynn v. Consolidated City of Indianapolis and County of Ma. et al.
Matthew Land argued on the behalf of Gayl Flynn.
Flynn sued the city for the death of her husband who was hit by an Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department vehicle during a high speed chase he was not involved in.
Alexander P. Will argued on behalf of the city of Indianapolis.
He stated while the situation is “tragic” the officers did not violate a law for making a quick decision to purse the individual.
Will asked the court to affirm the district court’s ruling in favor of the city.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.