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
Mar 30 2026
9th Cir. 3:20-cr-03419-TWR-1 Unpublished

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. KEVIN ANDRE BARNES

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of a motion to suppress text messages, ruling that the government's one-year retention of a defendant's cellphone was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The court held that the prompt initial seizure, pandemic-related delays, and the defendant's failure to request the device's return outweighed the duration of the hold.

Mar 30 2026
5th Cir. 25-50616 Per Curiam

Mortel v. Nowicki

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Donna Mortel's housing dispute, ruling that her attempt to serve defendants via email failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. The court further held that the district court acted within its discretion to dismiss the case for Mortel's failure to attend a court-ordered status conference.

Mar 30 2026
4th Cir. 25-2471 Per Curiam

Dymond Thomas v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a pro se litigant's Rule 60(b) motion because the appellant failed to challenge the specific reasons for that denial in his informal brief. The court further held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the underlying dismissal order because the appeal was untimely and the Rule 60(b) motion did not toll the appeal period.

Mar 30 2026
4th Cir. 25-2068 Per Curiam

Lorenzo Dominic Richardson v. Gerald Baker; Jet Insurance Company; On Point Risk Solutions; Adam B. Midgette; Thomas L. Teal; Tim C. Jarvis; J.R. Moore; David S. Brannon; Wake C...

The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal regarding the underlying dismissal and denial of post-judgment motions because the notice of appeal was filed after the mandatory thirty-day deadline. The court affirmed the separate order enjoining further filings, finding no reversible error in the district court's decision.

Mar 30 2026
6th Cir. 25-1527 Unanimous

RENEE MARIE JOHNSON v. HON. MATTHEW ANTKOVIAK, Chief Circuit Court Judge

The Sixth Circuit vacated a district court's dismissal of a § 1983 complaint alleging due process violations in a child custody removal, ruling that the domestic-relations exception does not automatically bar federal constitutional claims. The appellate court remanded the case for further proceedings, determining that the lower court prematurely dismissed the complaint without allowing the plaintiff to prove her federal claims.

Mar 30 2026
10th Cir. 4:17-CV-00336-EFM-SH Panel Decision

MICHAEL MANNING, as the Administrator of the Estate of Terence Crutcher, Sr v. CITY OF TULSA; BETTY JO SHELBY

The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of qualified immunity to Officer Betty Shelby, holding that the right to be free from deadly force against an unarmed, nonthreatening suspect was clearly established. The court affirmed the dismissal of Monell claims against the City of Tulsa but remanded for consideration of supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law wrongful death claim.

Mar 30 2026
7th Cir. 24-3346 Panel Decision

MAURICE J. HOLT v. GARY BOUGHTON

The Seventh Circuit reversed a district court's grant of habeas relief, holding that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reasonably applied federal standards in rejecting a defendant's claims regarding excluded evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court found that the state court's decision was not an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.

Mar 30 2026
4th Cir. 25-6295 Panel Decision

DANIEL NEIL JACKSON v. D. DAMERON, RN; DR. K. SMITH

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a pro se prisoner's complaint, holding that district courts must construe pleadings liberally but are not required to act as legal advocates. The court determined the plaintiff's essential grievance was an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference, not an Americans with Disabilities Act claim.