Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Farm Labor Organizing Committee v. Ohio State Highway Patrol

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
308 F.3d 523 (2002)


Facts

Jose Aguilar and Irma Esparza (plaintiffs) are legal permanent resident aliens who were pulled over by Kiefer (defendant) for driving with a faulty headlight. After taking both plaintiffs' green cards, Kiefer asked if they had paid for them. The plaintiffs do not speak much English, and thought the trooper was asking if they paid the required fees, so they answered affirmatively. Kiefer kept the green cards and let the plaintiffs go. The plaintiffs retained an attorney but were unable to get their green cards back until four days later. The plaintiffs and the Farm Labor Organizing Committee sued the Ohio State Highway Patrol (OSHP) and Kiefer, arguing that Kiefer's actions were part of a larger pattern of OSHP questioning motorists about their immigration status solely based on their Hispanic appearance in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteen Amendment. The district court denied Kiefer's motion for summary judgment based on a claim of qualified immunity. He appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Moore, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Kennedy, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 200,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.