Emon Hollins v. City of Madison
20-2109
| 7th Cir. | Feb 7, 2022Background
- Madison implemented a focused-deterrence program (2011) to target repeat violent offenders; the program increases surveillance but provides services (education, housing, substance-abuse, mental-health, transportation).
- A local unit nominated candidates using factors: recency, frequency, severity of crimes; number of police contacts; and reasons to suspect reoffending.
- Investigators prepared anonymized short forms (no name or race) for the selection committee; investigators kept longer forms in their files that included names and race. Committee members say they did not see racial identifiers.
- Hollins, an early selectee (2011), is African American; eight of ten early participants were Black. After being notified, Hollins’s probation was later revoked in 2012.
- Hollins sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 raising equal-protection and due-process claims; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants, and Hollins appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal-protection: discriminatory purpose | Hollins: selection had disparate racial impact and committee knew and acted on his race | Defendants: selection based on neutral crime-related criteria; no evidence of racial motive | Court: No evidence of discriminatory intent; awareness of race alone insufficient to infer intent; summary judgment affirmed |
| Equal-protection: class-of-one | Hollins: he was singled out arbitrarily and criteria were misrepresented | Defendants: selection was discretionary but rationally based on violent history and contacts | Court: Inclusion was rational given Hollins’s violent history; class-of-one fails |
| Due process: stigma-plus reputational harm | Hollins: program stigmatized him as a repeat violent offender and altered rights (more probation contacts; alleged ex parte judicial contacts leading to revocation) | Defendants: increased supervision is not a protected interest; allegations of ex parte contacts unsubstantiated; Heck bar for damages tied to revocation | Court: Stigma acknowledged but no cognizable alteration of rights; increased monitoring not a protected liberty; Heck bars damages tied to revocation; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Alston v. City of Madison, 853 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 2017) (rejected similar constitutional challenges to Madison’s program)
- Pers. Admin. of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979) (disparate impact requires proof of discriminatory purpose for Equal Protection violation)
- Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976) (stigma-plus test for reputational liberty claims)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (§ 1983 claims that imply invalidity of conviction or sentence are barred until sentence is invalidated)
- Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (class-of-one equal-protection theory)
- Engquist v. Or. Dep’t of Agric., 553 U.S. 591 (2008) (limits on class-of-one claims in discretionary government decisions)
- Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 140 S. Ct. 1891 (2020) (awareness of race alone does not establish discriminatory intent)
- Herzog v. Graphic Packaging Int'l, Inc., 742 F.3d 802 (7th Cir. 2014) (speculation cannot support an inference at summary judgment)
- Doe ex rel. Doe v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 665 F.3d 524 (3d Cir. 2011) (awareness of race is not proof of racially discriminatory intent)
- Chicago Tchrs. Union v. Bd. of Educ., 14 F.4th 650 (7th Cir. 2021) (standard of review for summary judgment)