Aisha Johnson

Correspondent

Aisha Johnson

Federal courthouse correspondent, covers civil rights, employment discrimination, housing rights, and Second Amendment disputes.

Civil Rights & Constitutional

Decisions covered by Aisha Johnson

1,757 decisions
Apr 14 2026
5th Cir. 25-20297 Per Curiam

Thomas v. Steiner

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment against Babu K. Thomas, holding that he failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims of employment discrimination and retaliation. The court ruled that Thomas's termination was based on unexcused absences and a failure to provide medical documentation, rather than his protected status or activities.

Apr 14 2026
Fed. Cir. 25-1944 Panel Decision

Elizabeth J. Martin v. Department of Veterans Affairs

The Federal Circuit affirmed the Merit Systems Protection Board's denial of an enforcement petition, holding that the Department of Veterans Affairs complied with a 2015 settlement agreement by removing specific disciplinary records from the petitioner's Official Personnel File. The court further ruled that the subsequent disclosure of those records during unrelated litigation did not constitute a breach absent proof that the agency provided the documents to third parties.

Apr 14 2026
5th Cir. 25-10539 Per Curiam

Keeter v. Sadlar

The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for a prison official in a civil rights case, ruling that the inmate failed to prove deliberate indifference regarding his housing assignment. The court applied plain error review due to the appellant's failure to object to the magistrate judge's report and found no clear error in the district court's dismissal of the claim.

Apr 14 2026
4th Cir. 24-2026 Panel Decision

Rice v. Adams

The Fourth Circuit reversed a district court ruling that allowed a civil rights lawsuit to proceed against detention officers. The appellate court held that the complaint failed to plausibly allege that any specific officer acted with deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's medical needs.

Apr 14 2026
4th Cir. 24-4620 Panel Decision

United States v. Russell

The Fourth Circuit affirmed Trent Russell's conviction for wrongfully obtaining health information and destroying records, rejecting claims that his interview was coerced and that the evidence was insufficient. The court held that the screenshot of Justice Ginsburg's medical visits constituted protected health information and that the district court properly limited cross-examination without violating the Confrontation Clause.

Apr 14 2026
7th Cir. 25-1919 Panel Decision

Jane Doe 1 v. Steven V. Sloan

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a substantive due process claim against law enforcement officers who shared child pornography images with an untrained auxiliary officer. The court held that no fundamental liberty interest exists in preventing the sharing of such images during an investigation, even when the recipient retains them without authority.

Apr 14 2026
7th Cir. 25-1918 Panel Decision

Jane Doe 1 v. Sloan

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim against law enforcement officials. The court held that no fundamental liberty interest exists protecting minors from police sharing sexually explicit images with an untrained auxiliary officer during an investigation.

Apr 14 2026
7th Cir. 25-1917 Panel Decision

Jane Doe 1 v. Sloan

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a civil rights claim alleging that police officers violated victims' substantive due process rights by sharing child pornography images with an untrained auxiliary officer. The court held that no fundamental liberty interest exists under the Due Process Clause protecting against such disclosure during an ongoing criminal investigation.

Apr 14 2026
11th Cir. 1:22-cv-03620-TCB Per Curiam

Larry Clark, Sr. v. LC Halsten LLC

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed a district court judgment dismissing a pro se plaintiff's federal civil rights claims against private landlords and state court judges. The court held that the plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to establish that private parties acted under color of state law or that the judges were not immune from suit.