CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
WENDY COCKRUN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
BERRIEN COUNTY, MICHIGAN, et al.,
Defendants,

CELENA HERBERT, Sergeant; HANNAH NOFS, Deputy; MIRANDA BAILEY, Deputy; ABIGAIL PIFER, Deputy; SABRINA LARATTA; KRISTINA HENDERSON, Deputy; BRITTANY ZABEL, Deputy; ANDREA LENEWAY, Deputy; CAROL VAUGHN, Deputy; COREY BURKS, Lieutenant, in their individual and official capacities,
Defendants-Appellants.
   No. 23-1291
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 1:21-cv-00070—Janet T. Neff, District Judge.
Argued: January 31, 2024
Decided and Filed: April 26, 2024*
Before: SILER, MATHIS, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SILER, Circuit Judge. In this interlocutory appeal from a partial denial of summary judgment, Defendants-Appellants Berrien County Jail officers (“Officers”) argue that they properly raised a qualified immunity defense, and that Plaintiff-Appellee Wendy Cockrun’s evidence did not create a genuine dispute of material facts to overcome summary judgment. But we do not linger on the merits of the case or the standard of qualified immunity: the issues presented can be answered solely on procedural grounds. We conclude that Officers failed to sufficiently assert qualified immunity in their motion for summary judgment, and therefore forfeited the defense. For that reason, we dismiss Officers’ summary judgment claim for want of jurisdiction. In the alternative, we hold that even if Officers did assert qualified immunity, we still would not have jurisdiction over their appeal because they only raised questions of fact instead of questions of law.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
JOHN DOE #1; JOHN DOE #2; JOHN DOE #4; JOHN DOE #5; JOHN DOE #6; JOHN DOE #7; JOHN DOE #8; JOHN DOE #9,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
WILLIAM BYRON LEE, Governor of the State of Tennessee, in his official capacity; DAVID B. RAUSCH, Director of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, in his official capacity,
Defendants-Appellants.
   No. 23-5248
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.
Nos. 21-cv-590; 21-cv-593; 21-cv-595–598; 21-cv-624; 21-cv-671;
Aleta Arthur Trauger, District Judge.
Argued: December 7, 2023
Decided and Filed: May 15, 2024
Before: SILER, NALBANDIAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SILER, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs are eight men sentenced for sexual offenses between 1982 and 1994. Under the 2004 Tennessee Sexual Offender and Violent Sexual Offender Registration, Verification, and Tracking Act (“the Act”) and its subsequent amendments, they are required to comply with various reporting requirements and geographical restrictions imposed on all sex offenders. Tennessee considers these laws instrumental in combating recidivism among a class of defendants it views as particularly dangerous to the most vulnerable within its society—its children. But Plaintiffs view the laws as a violation of the Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause. The district court agreed with the Plaintiffs and issued a sweeping injunction prohibiting Governor Lee and Director Rausch from enforcing the entire Tennessee code against the Plaintiffs.

For the reasons laid out below, we disagree with the district court. Therefore, we REVERSE IN PART the district court’s judgment that the Act violates the Ex Post Facto Clause and REMAND with orders to VACATE the declaratory judgment, DISSOLVE the injunction against Governor Lee, DISMISS Governor Lee from the suit based on a lack of standing, and to MODIFY the injunction against Director Rausch consistent with this opinion.