Don Karns v. Kathleen Shanahan
879 F.3d 504
3rd Cir.2018Background
- Earns and Parker (evangelical preachers) were arrested at NJ Transit’s Princeton Junction platform in June 2012 for preaching without a non‑commercial permit required by NJ Admin. Code § 16:83‑1.1; Parker knew of the permit rule, Earns apparently did not.
- NJ Transit officers Shanahan and Crowe, instructed to enforce permit rules, approached, asked for ID, and arrested Earns and Parker for obstruction and defiant trespass after they refused to leave and did not provide sufficient identification.
- Karns (Earns) was acquitted; Parker’s trespass conviction was later reversed in state court. Plaintiffs sued NJ Transit and the officers in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations.
- District Court granted summary judgment for defendants based on Eleventh Amendment immunity (for NJ Transit and officers in official capacities) and qualified immunity (for officers in individual capacities); plaintiffs appealed.
- Third Circuit majority affirmed: held NJ Transit is an “arm of the state” entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity (barring § 1983 claims against it and official‑capacity defendants) and upheld qualified immunity for officers on selective‑enforcement, retaliation, lack‑of‑probable‑cause, and right‑to‑record claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NJ Transit is an "arm of the state" entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity | Fitchik precludes relitigation; NJ Transit is not an arm of the state (financially independent) | NJ Transit is an instrumentality of the State under NJ law and subject to executive control; Eleventh Amendment applies | NJ Transit is an arm of the state; Eleventh Amendment immunity applies (state‑treasury factor disfavors immunity but status-under-state-law and autonomy factors favor immunity) |
| Whether § 1983 claims can proceed against NJ Transit for its permitting policy | NJ Transit maintains an unconstitutional policy of selective enforcement and illegal arrests | NJ Transit immune under Eleventh Amendment; not a "person" under § 1983 | § 1983 claims against NJ Transit barred because NJ Transit is an arm of the state and thus not a § 1983 "person" |
| Whether officers are liable for selective enforcement or retaliation violating First/Fourteenth Amendments | Plaintiffs: officers selectively enforced permit rule and arrested in retaliation for protected speech/recording | Officers: enforcement consistent with policy; arrests supported by probable cause; qualified immunity applies | Qualified immunity granted: plaintiffs failed to show comparator evidence or discriminatory purpose (selective enforcement); retaliation claim fails because an arrest supported by probable cause was not clearly prohibited at the time |
| Whether officers had probable cause / violated Fourth Amendment and whether plaintiffs had a clearly established right to record police | Plaintiffs: no probable cause; right to record police protected | Officers: probable cause for trespass (plaintiff knew permit required and were warned); right to record not clearly established then | Qualified immunity granted: probable cause supported for trespass; recording/right‑to‑film not clearly established in 2012 for officers to be on notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (recognizing Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity for states)
- Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (Eleventh Amendment and state sovereign immunity principles)
- Hess v. Port Auth. Trans‑Hudson Corp., 513 U.S. 30 (state dignity and solvency as Eleventh Amendment concerns)
- Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Doe, 519 U.S. 425 (Eleventh Amendment inquiry focuses on entity’s legal liability; informed Third Circuit recalibration of factors)
- Fitchik v. N.J. Transit Rail Operations, Inc., 873 F.2d 655 (3d Cir. en banc) (original Third Circuit analysis of NJ Transit’s arm‑of‑state status)
- Benn v. First Judicial Dist. of Pa., 426 F.3d 233 (identifying coequal treatment of Fitchik factors post‑Regents)
- Cooper v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth., 548 F.3d 296 (application of the three‑factor test to transit authority immunity)
- Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (states and arms of the state are not § 1983 "persons")
- Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658 (an arrest supported by probable cause is not clearly established as unlawful retaliation at that time)
- Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224 (officials are entitled to qualified immunity for reasonable but mistaken probable‑cause determinations)
- Kelly v. Borough of Carlisle, 622 F.3d 248 (Third Circuit: right to videotape police during stops not clearly established at that time)
- Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353 (recognizing First Amendment protection for recording police but not clearly established at the time of these arrests)