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
May 26 2026
9th Cir. 25-4249 Per Curiam; Concurrence by Judge Christen

Thakur v. Trump

The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a district court preliminary injunction regarding federal research grant terminations. The court held that plaintiffs had standing but lacked jurisdiction for claims based on form-letter terminations, while finding a likely First Amendment violation for terminations based on diversity viewpoints.

May 26 2026
4th Cir. 25-6687 Per Curiam

Mills v. Hogan

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed consolidated appeals filed by a Maryland inmate. The court ruled that the appeals were untimely because the notice of appeal was not filed within the required thirty-day window.

May 26 2026
9th Cir. 25-544 Unpublished

Contreras-Lopez v. Blanche

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition challenging an Immigration Judge's refusal to accept a late motion and dismissed the petition regarding a request to reopen proceedings. The court found the petitioner waived his challenge to the timeliness ruling and lacked jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of a sua sponte reopening.

May 26 2026
10th Cir. 25-3155 Panel Decision

Hayes v. Shawnee County Board of County Commissioners, et al.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed a district court judgment dismissing an employment discrimination claim brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove he was qualified to perform the essential functions of his custodial job while working a part-time schedule.

May 26 2026
10th Cir. 2:25-CV-02231-HLT-RES Panel Decision

Zou v. Ebberts, et al.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a pro se plaintiff's Section nineteen eighty-three action against state judges. The court held that judicial immunity and the Eleventh Amendment barred the claims arising from orders restricting the plaintiff's access to a courthouse.