Our constitutional protections are among the most important rights we have. Not only do they constitute a bulwark against government interference with our substantive civil rights, they also encompass important procedural limitations regarding how these rights are protected. Nevertheless, these substantive and procedural rights can often be violated by misguided or malicious government actions.

We have substantial experience litigating such civil rights issues, including disputes involving the Freedom-Of-Speech, Free Exercise, Establishment, Search-And-Seizure, Due Process, Takings, Right-To-Counsel, Trial-By-Jury, Equal Protection, Case-Or-Controversy, Spending, and Supremacy Clauses. These constitutional issues often arise in the context of police brutality, prisoners’ rights, and government discrimination.

Our lawyers have litigated appeals involving a business organization whose members were deprived of a trial by jury, a developer and investor that alleged they were discriminated against in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, prisoners whose First, Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment rights were violated, and individuals injured or killed by police brutality or false arrests.

Our notable victories include obtaining reversal of a summary judgment against a prisoner’s First Amendment retaliation claim because his mere use of capital letters in grievance, viewed alone, was not disrespectful, see Moton v. Cowart, 631 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2011), obtaining reversal of the dismissal of a pretrial detainee’s First Amendment free speech claim and vacation of the dismissal of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, First Amendment retaliation, and Fourth Amendment unreasonable search claims because he alleged his prison interfered with his legal mail, see Ford v. Hunter, 534 Fed. App’x 821 (11th Cir. 2013), obtaining reversal of the dismissal of a prisoner’s lawsuit because his grievance had administratively exhausted his claim that guards had gassed him, see Dimanche v. Brown, 783 F.3d 1204 (11th Cir. 2015), and obtaining reversal of a summary judgment based on qualified immunity given “massive disputes of material fact” whether a suicidal veteran who was repeatedly shot in the face by police while taking a selfie had posed an immediate threat of serious bodily harm to the officers, see Turk v. Bergman, 685 Fed. App’x 785 (11th Cir. 2017).

In addition to Moton (argument unavailable), Ford, and Dimanche, we have taken many other civil rights appeals to oral argument, including Edwards v. Shanley, 580 Fed. App’x 816 (11th Cir. 2014) (affirming grant of directed verdict and jury verdict involving § 1983 police dog bite), Howard v. Kraus, 642 Fed. App’x 940 (11th Cir. 2016) (reversing order that prisoner was not a three striker per Prison Litigation Reform Act), and Kenning v. Carli, 648 Fed. App’x 763 (11th Cir. 2016) (affirming summary judgment based on qualified immunity to officers who shot plaintiff to death on front doorsteps of mobile home).

Our sample briefs include:

Appellant’s brief and reply brief in Moton v. Cowart, 631 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2011) (reversing summary judgment against prisoner’s First Amendment retaliation claim because mere use of capital letters in grievance, viewed alone, was not disrespectful);

Appellant’s brief in Ford v. Hunter, 534 Fed. App’x 821 (11th Cir. 2013) (reversing dismissal of pretrial detainee’s First Amendment free speech claim and vacating dismissal of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, First Amendment retaliation, and Fourth Amendment unreasonable search claims because prison interfered with legal mail);

Appellant’s brief and reply brief in Edwards v. Shanley, 580 Fed. App’x 816 (11th Cir. 2014) (affirming grant of directed verdict and jury verdict involving § 1983 police dog bite);

Appellant’s brief in Dimanche v. Brown, 783 F.3d 1204 (11th Cir. 2015) (reversing dismissal of prisoner’s lawsuit because his grievance administratively exhausted his claim that guards had gassed him);

Principal brief and reply / cross-answer brief in Howard v. Kraus, 642 Fed. App’x 940 (11th Cir. 2016) (reversing order that prisoner was not a three striker per Prison Litigation Reform Act);

Appellant’s brief and reply brief in Harris v. Prison Health Serv., 706 Fed. App’x 945 (11th Cir. 2017) (affirming dismissal of prisoner’s Eighth Amendment claim).