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

1,706 decisions
Jun 29 2026
9th Cir. 3:25-cv-00409-SB Unpublished

Turner v. State of Oregon

The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court order staying a federal civil rights action pending state criminal proceedings. The panel held that the federal court must abstain under the Younger doctrine because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a valid exception.

Jun 26 2026
9th Cir. 5:24-cv-01053-HDV- Unpublished

Aleman v. Aqua Caliente Casino, et al.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a civil rights lawsuit filed by a pro se plaintiff against a casino and its security guards. The court held that the plaintiff failed to allege facts showing the defendants acted under color of state law as required for a Section nineteen eighty-three claim.

Jun 26 2026
10th Cir. 2:24-CV-02501-JAR-TJJ Panel Decision

Mitchell v. Haa, et al.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a land ownership dispute due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court found the plaintiff failed to establish either federal question or diversity jurisdiction.

Jun 26 2026
11th Cir. 6:24-cv-00212-ACC-NWH Per Curiam

Non-Argument Calendar ATLC, INC. A Florida corporation Plaintiff-Counter v. BROADBAND ITV, INC A foreign corporation Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant GERALD J. DAIGLE, JR. et al

The Eleventh Circuit dismissed an appeal filed by Broadband iTV, Inc. because the district court orders it challenged were not final judgments. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction since the underlying litigation remained pending on other counts.

Jun 26 2026
6th Cir. 25-3673 Published

Washington v. First National Bank of Pennsylvania

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of discrimination claims brought by a mixed-race couple against a bank regarding a VA home loan application. The court held that while plaintiffs need not plead a prima facie case at the motion to dismiss stage, their complaint failed to state plausible claims under federal and state anti-discrimination laws.