Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

In 1989, a man committed a brutal murder at a Kentucky laundromat, killing a 61-year-old employee after she asked him to leave. After his arrest, he was charged with several crimes, including murder. Five years later, he pleaded guilty to all charges. He sought to have a judge, rather than a jury, decide his sentence, hoping for a more favorable outcome due to the nature of his crimes. After a series of legal maneuvers and a failed attempt to withdraw his guilty plea, a judge ultimately sentenced him to death, despite the presentation of significant mitigating evidence about his abusive childhood and mental health struggles.On direct appeal, the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed both his conviction and sentence, rejecting his arguments that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary and that the sentencing court had failed to consider all mitigating evidence. The court found that while the trial court’s plea colloquy did not specifically enumerate every right waived by pleading guilty, it was sufficient to show that the defendant understood the consequences. The court also concluded that the sentencing judge had considered all mitigating evidence, even if he found it unpersuasive.After exhausting state postconviction remedies, the petitioner filed a federal habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, raising multiple grounds for relief. The district court denied relief and declined to issue a certificate of appealability. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted a limited certificate and reviewed two claims de novo: whether the plea was knowing and voluntary, and whether the trial court failed to consider mitigating evidence.The Sixth Circuit held that the Kentucky Supreme Court had not unreasonably applied clearly established federal law in either respect. The record affirmatively demonstrated the petitioner’s understanding of his rights, and the sentencing court’s consideration of mitigation evidence was constitutionally adequate. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief. View "Johnson v. Plappert" on Justia Law

Several individuals who reside in DeKalb County, Georgia, outside the city limits of Atlanta, opposed the construction of a new public safety training facility on city-owned land and wished to collect signatures for a referendum petition to repeal the city ordinance authorizing the lease for the facility. Atlanta’s municipal code required that signature gatherers for such petitions be residents of the City of Atlanta. Because they did not meet this residency requirement, the plaintiffs filed suit against the City, arguing that the restriction violated their First Amendment rights. They sought a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the residency requirement, as well as other relief connected to the signature collection process.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted the preliminary injunction, enjoining Atlanta from enforcing the residency requirement for signature gatherers. The court also ordered the City to issue new petitions without the residency restriction and restarted the 60-day signature collection period, while counting previously collected signatures. The City appealed the injunction and obtained a stay from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm sufficient for injunctive relief. The court specified that, under Kemp v. City of Claxton, 496 S.E.2d 712 (Ga. 1998), Georgia law does not allow the use of a referendum petition to challenge or repeal a city ordinance unless it amends the city charter. Because the plaintiffs could not lawfully utilize the referendum process for their intended purpose, they lacked a right to the process and consequently could not show irreparable injury. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "Baker v. City of Atlanta" on Justia Law

A group of eleven current and former employees of the Woods Hole, Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority challenged the Authority’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, which required all employees to be fully vaccinated unless they qualified for a medical or religious exemption. The policy allowed for exemptions if an employee provided sufficient medical documentation or demonstrated a sincerely held religious belief, provided that reasonable accommodations could be made without undue burden to the Authority. Thirteen employees applied for religious exemptions, but only the request of one fully remote employee was granted. One employee received a temporary medical exemption but was ultimately terminated after refusing vaccination once that exemption expired. Four appellants later became vaccinated and remained employed; the remaining seven were fired for noncompliance.After the Authority enacted its policy, the plaintiffs filed suit, alleging violations of their rights under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and Massachusetts anti-discrimination law. The state court initially granted a temporary restraining order, but after removal to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the district court denied their preliminary injunction request. On a prior appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the denial as to most claims but remanded for further consideration of the First Amendment claim, instructing the district court to address the relevance of the granted medical exemption and to determine the appropriate level of scrutiny.On remand, the district court again denied a preliminary injunction, finding the policy to be generally applicable and thus subject to rational basis review, which it held the policy satisfied. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed, holding that the policy’s medical and religious exemptions were not comparable for Free Exercise purposes, the policy was generally applicable, and the Authority’s interests justified the mandate under rational basis review. View "Brox v. Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard & Nantucket Steamship Authority" on Justia Law

Ali Al-Timimi, a respected lecturer at an Islamic center in Virginia, became acquainted with a group of young Muslim men who engaged in activities including paintball, which some saw as preparation for “jihad in the form of combat.” While Al-Timimi did not directly participate in these preparations, he offered advice on discretion after FBI attention. Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Al-Timimi attended a gathering where he urged attendees to repent, leave the United States, and join militant groups abroad, including Lashkar-e-Taiba (LET) in Pakistan. His statements inspired several individuals to make concrete plans to travel overseas for training, though he did not provide operational details or set timelines. Some group members subsequently traveled to Pakistan but did not engage in combat.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia indicted and convicted Al-Timimi on multiple counts, including conspiracy, solicitation, and aiding terrorist groups. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and other consecutive terms. Over two decades, his case saw numerous appeals and remands, including vacatur of certain counts based on changes in law regarding “crimes of violence” (as in Johnson v. United States and United States v. Davis). Ultimately, Al-Timimi appealed his remaining convictions (Counts 2–6, 9, and 10), asserting First Amendment protection for his speech.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed de novo whether Al-Timimi’s speech constituted unprotected incitement, solicitation, or facilitation of criminal acts. The court held that his speech, though inflammatory and disturbing, did not incite imminent lawless action nor did it intentionally solicit or assist a specific crime. As his advocacy did not meet the narrow exceptions to First Amendment protection, the court vacated Al-Timimi’s remaining convictions and remanded for judgments of acquittal. View "US v. Al-Timimi" on Justia Law

Police in Milwaukee searched Michael Yumang’s car and home in 2019 and 2022, finding distribution quantities of methamphetamine, a handgun, and ammunition. Before the 2022 search, a postal inspector intercepted a package containing a quarter pound of meth addressed to Yumang’s residence from California. Yumang admitted to regularly obtaining meth from California and reselling it in Wisconsin. He was charged with three drug-trafficking offenses related to each meth seizure and the intercepted shipment, as well as unlawful possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime.After an indictment and pretrial proceedings, Yumang waived his right to a jury trial and had a bench trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The government called multiple witnesses, including three forensic chemists who analyzed the seized meth, confirming its purity and quantity. Prior to trial, the government disclosed—subject to a protective order—that the DEA chemist who tested the 2019 meth had been placed on a performance improvement plan in 2023. At trial, Yumang’s attorney sought to cross-examine the chemist about the plan, but the judge ruled the information irrelevant since the performance issues arose years after the chemist’s work on the case. The judge found Yumang guilty on all counts and imposed a sentence of 180 months.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Yumang argued that briefly closing the courtroom to make a record of the sidebar discussion about the chemist’s performance plan violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial, and that the exclusion of the proposed cross-examination was both evidentiary error and a Confrontation Clause violation. The Seventh Circuit held that the five-minute courtroom closure was too trivial to constitute a Sixth Amendment violation and that excluding the cross-examination was neither an evidentiary nor constitutional error. The court affirmed the judgment. View "USA v Yumang" on Justia Law

Ridgeline Medical, LLC provided medical services to David Lyon and sought to recover $777 in unpaid charges. Ridgeline sent a final billing statement to Lyon at his provided address, but Lyon did not receive it and did not pay. Ridgeline retained a law firm to collect the debt, which sent demand letters to the same address, also not received by Lyon. Subsequently, Ridgeline initiated a lawsuit for breach of an implied-in-fact contract and reported Lyon’s debt to a consumer reporting agency. Lyon responded by alleging Ridgeline’s actions violated the Idaho Patient Act (IPA) and counterclaimed for statutory penalties under the Act, asserting noncompliance with its procedural requirements.The Magistrate Court for Bonneville County initially found some IPA provisions unconstitutional, severed them, and dismissed Ridgeline’s complaint for noncompliance with the remaining requirements. It denied Lyon’s claim for statutory penalties, finding that provision violated the Eighth Amendment as applied. The Idaho Attorney General intervened to defend the Act’s constitutionality. After further briefing and argument, the magistrate court vacated its prior decision, held the IPA constitutional in full, dismissed Ridgeline’s complaint again, and awarded statutory penalties to Lyon. On intermediate appeal, the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District affirmed the magistrate court’s amended decision.On further appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the magistrate court’s decision independently, with due regard for the district court’s ruling. The Supreme Court held that the challenged IPA provisions regulate commercial speech and are subject to intermediate scrutiny, which they satisfy. The court found no violation of the First Amendment (speech or petition), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection or due process), or Eighth Amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision, upholding the IPA against Ridgeline’s constitutional challenges. Neither party was awarded attorney fees on appeal. View "Ridgeline Medical, LLC v. Lyon" on Justia Law

The defendant killed his former high school girlfriend by strangling and cutting her throat after their relationship ended. In the months leading up to the crime, he exhibited signs of emotional distress and had several altercations with the victim and others. On the day of the killing, he took calculated steps to conceal his involvement, including moving the victim’s body, cleaning evidence, and misleading police about their interactions. During trial, the defendant admitted to the killing but argued he was not criminally responsible due to mental illness, presenting expert testimony regarding his psychological state.In the Superior Court, the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder on theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty, along with assault and battery charges. He was sentenced to life without parole. After his conviction, he filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from searches of his home and vehicle, arguing lack of probable cause, which the court denied. Later, he moved for a new trial, citing newly discovered evidence of developing schizophrenia after the crime. After an evidentiary hearing, a Superior Court judge denied the motion, finding the new evidence did not cast real doubt on the justice of the conviction.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the consolidated appeals from the convictions and denial of the new trial motion. The court held that the lower court did not err or abuse its discretion in denying the new trial or in its evidentiary rulings. It also found the denial of the suppression motion proper, concluding the warrants were supported by probable cause. The court affirmed all convictions and the denial of the new trial motion. However, it held that the sentence of life without parole was unconstitutional for defendants under twenty-one and remanded for resentencing to life with parole eligibility after fifteen years. View "Commonwealth v. Fujita" on Justia Law

A former elected county prosecutor in Kentucky’s 21st Judicial Circuit was charged with Honest Services Wire Fraud, violations of the Travel Act, and Federal Program Bribery. The charges stemmed from an arrangement with a young woman, M.H., who repeatedly faced legal troubles. Evidence showed that the prosecutor agreed to help her with matters such as getting warrants withdrawn, charges reduced, and release from jail, in exchange for sexual acts and explicit images. The FBI discovered the scheme, leading to federal prosecution. At trial, the government presented incriminating text messages, testimony from M.H., and law enforcement, while the defendant claimed he did not solicit images and that M.H. was assisting in investigations—a claim disproved by evidence.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky oversaw the jury trial, which resulted in convictions on all counts. The court sentenced the defendant to 41 months in prison and imposed supervised release conditions, including refraining from excessive alcohol use. On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the defendant challenged the exclusion of certain testimony about Kentucky law, sufficiency of the evidence on several elements, the federal funding nexus for the bribery charge, the supervised release condition, and the sentencing court’s refusal to consider “collateral consequences.”The Sixth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion or violate constitutional rights in excluding expert legal opinion testimony and that the jury was properly instructed on the meaning of “official acts.” The court found overwhelming evidence supporting the verdict, including proof of a quid pro quo and an interstate nexus. The federal funding requirement was satisfied by evidence that the state received sufficient funds. The supervised release condition and sentencing decisions were not plainly erroneous. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in all respects. View "United States v. Goldy" on Justia Law

Jason Florence, while on supervised release for a prior federal child pornography conviction, was found in possession of a smartphone containing child pornography during an unscheduled home visit by his probation officer. The conditions of his supervised release prohibited him from possessing such devices without his probation officer's knowledge. A forensic analysis of the confiscated phone revealed over one hundred images and two videos of child pornography, some accessed shortly before the search. Florence admitted ownership of the phone and provided its passcode, and other evidence linked him to the device and the illicit materials.This case was tried before the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The parties stipulated to Florence’s prior convictions and the terms of his supervised release. After a two-day trial, a jury convicted Florence of possessing child pornography and found that the material depicted minors under 12 years old. At sentencing, the district court determined that Florence’s prior conviction triggered a statutory mandatory minimum sentence of ten years’ imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(2), and imposed a life term of supervised release. Florence objected, arguing that Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights required the jury to find the fact of his prior conviction, and he challenged the admission of his probation officer’s credibility testimony and the reasonableness of his sentence.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the district court did not err in finding the fact of Florence’s prior conviction and applying the mandatory minimum, citing the narrow exception in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, which allows a judge to find the fact of a prior conviction. The court found any error in admitting the probation officer’s credibility testimony harmless, given the overwhelming evidence of guilt. Finally, the Sixth Circuit held that the life term of supervised release was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Florence" on Justia Law

Ryan Mendoza checked into a Pittsburgh hotel for a two-night stay, receiving a receipt indicating his departure date as February 25. The hotel had a posted noon checkout time, and guests could leave either by visiting the front desk or simply walking out. By noon on February 25, Mendoza had not checked out at the front desk, so hotel staff placed him on a “due-out” list and inspected his room. Later that afternoon, the hotel manager discovered a backpack with packages of white powder and called the police. Around 5:20 p.m., officers entered the room without a warrant and confirmed with the manager that Mendoza’s stay had ended and he no longer had rights to the room. Mendoza returned to the hotel at 10:00 p.m. and was arrested.In the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Mendoza moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the warrantless search of the hotel room, arguing that he retained a Fourth Amendment privacy interest in the room because he had not formally checked out. The District Court denied the motion, finding that Mendoza did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the room after checkout time, based on hotel policies and practices.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s factual findings for clear error and exercised plenary review over its legal determinations. The Third Circuit held that Mendoza’s expectation of privacy in the hotel room five hours after checkout time was not objectively reasonable. The court emphasized that, absent any communication about a late checkout or ambiguous circumstances, society does not recognize an expectation of privacy in a hotel room well after checkout time. Accordingly, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of the motion to suppress. View "USA v. Mendoza" on Justia Law