In Miller v. Mitchell, No. 09-2144, the Third Circuit faced a challenge to the district court’s grant of plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction in their suit against the district attorney for his decision to require teens, suspected of “sexting” to attend an education program, or be subjected to felony child pornography charges.
In affirming the grant of preliminary injunction on plaintiffs’ constitutional retaliation claim, the court held that the plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on their claims that any prosecution would not be based on probable cause that they committed a crime, but rather, in retaliation for exercising their constitutional rights not to attend the education program.
Related Resource:
- Full text of Miller v. Mitchell
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
