Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Three equestrian trainers, each subjected to sanctions by the United States Center for SafeSport (SafeSport) for past misconduct, sought to challenge those sanctions. Navarro and Giorgio were permanently banned after SafeSport learned of their prior guilty pleas to child sexual abuse, while Shaffer received a suspension and probation following SafeSport’s investigation of complaints against her. Navarro and Giorgio pursued arbitration and internal grievance procedures that ultimately confirmed SafeSport’s sanctions. Shaffer declined to arbitrate, citing the cost. All three alleged that SafeSport’s procedures violated their constitutional rights because they were barred from Olympic sports without a prior hearing, and further argued that SafeSport, a private body, unconstitutionally exercises governmental authority.After their grievances and appeals were rejected by the United States Equestrian Federation (USEF) and the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee (USOC), the trainers filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. The district court dismissed their claims, holding that the trainers lacked standing to sue the USOC, that Shaffer failed to exhaust administrative remedies, that Appellees were not state actors and thus not subject to the Fifth Amendment, and that SafeSport’s powers did not violate the private non-delegation doctrine.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s rulings that the trainers lacked standing to sue the USOC, that the Appellees were not state actors subject to the Due Process Clause, and that the court lacked jurisdiction over the private non-delegation claim. However, it reversed the district court’s finding on administrative exhaustion, holding that Shaffer was not obligated to arbitrate her constitutional claims before seeking relief in federal court. Thus, the judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Navarro v. United States Center for SafeSport" on Justia Law

In August 2023, an adult defendant began communicating over the Whisper social media app with an individual he believed to be an adult, but who was actually thirteen years old. The two exchanged frequent communications, including explicit text, audio, and video messages, and spoke regularly over the course of several weeks. The defendant claimed he thought the other party was an adult, based on her representations, and that any mention of a younger age was part of a roleplay scenario. The communications were discovered when the minor’s classmates alerted school officials, leading to law enforcement intervention and the defendant’s indictment for coercion or enticement of a minor.The case proceeded to trial in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. A jury found the defendant guilty after less than forty minutes of deliberation, and he was sentenced to 140 months in prison. During closing arguments, the prosecutor made remarks suggesting the defendant’s presumption of innocence had been removed by the evidence, and reinforced this with a visual presentation, but the defense did not object at the time. The jury was instructed on the presumption of innocence only at the start of trial, and no specific curative instructions were given after the prosecutor’s statements.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case under plain error analysis, given the lack of objection at trial. The court held that the prosecutor’s statements during closing argument constituted a clear and obvious error that infringed the defendant's constitutional right to the presumption of innocence. The court found the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights, given the context and timing of the remarks, the absence of overwhelming evidence, and insufficient curative instructions. The conviction was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Petro" on Justia Law

A high school student reposted on his public TikTok account an image depicting a man in a school hallway aiming an assault rifle, with the phrase “Me at School” across it. The image was seen by another student, the juvenile’s former girlfriend, who reported it to school officials because she found it frightening. This led to an investigation, a search of the juvenile’s home (with parental consent), and subsequent charges against the juvenile for communicating a threat against a place, in violation of Massachusetts General Laws chapter 269, section 14(b).The Middlesex County Division of the Juvenile Court Department heard the case. A jury found the juvenile delinquent. After the verdict, the judge vacated the finding, continued the case without a finding, and imposed probation conditions until the juvenile’s nineteenth birthday. The case was dismissed upon completion of probation, but the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts allowed direct appellate review due to the possible collateral consequences of the delinquency complaint.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that, following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023), the Commonwealth must prove as an element of G. L. c. 269, § 14(b) that the defendant “consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence.” The Court found that the jury had not been properly instructed on this requirement, constituting a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice, even though the evidence was sufficient to support the adjudication. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, clarifying the mens rea required for convictions under the statute. View "Commonwealth v. Ushon U." on Justia Law

A Montana ballot initiative, known as BI-9, sought to amend the state constitution by creating a new section that would define and limit the powers of “artificial persons,” such as corporations and other entities, by prohibiting them from spending money or anything of value to influence electoral outcomes. The initiative arose after a previous attempt (BI-4) by the same proponents was rejected for violating the state’s constitutional separate-vote requirement. The Montana Attorney General again found BI-9 legally insufficient, determining that it combined multiple unrelated constitutional changes in a single proposal and therefore violated Article XIV, Section 11, of the Montana Constitution.After the Attorney General’s finding, the proponents petitioned the Supreme Court of the State of Montana for declaratory judgment, challenging the Attorney General’s assessment. The Attorney General argued that BI-9 not only added new material to the constitution but also limited the powers of artificial persons, affected a wide range of entities beyond corporations, and implicitly amended other constitutional provisions, all of which, in his view, required separate votes.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the initiative and disagreed with the Attorney General’s conclusions. The Court held that BI-9 constituted a single constitutional amendment under Article XIV, Section 11, because the proposal’s various components were closely related and did not amount to “logrolling” or voter deception. The Court distinguished the current proposal from prior rejected initiatives and found that the specification of affected entities and the consequences of political spending restrictions did not require separate votes. The Court reversed the Attorney General’s rejection of BI-9 and ordered him to prepare and forward a ballot statement to the Secretary of State. View "Transparent Election Initiative v. Knudsen" on Justia Law

The case involves a defendant who was charged with felony grand theft and, as part of a plea agreement, admitted to additional probation violations and a misdemeanor. He agreed to serve jail time contingent on possible release to a treatment program, subject to assessment. The trial court subsequently placed him on probation with several conditions, including one that permitted the probation department to transfer him to jail for up to 120 days—without court involvement—if he failed to successfully complete a treatment program. This condition further stated that he would not receive credit for time spent in treatment unless he completed the program.After the trial court imposed these conditions, including the challenged provision, the defendant’s probation was revoked due to his absconding from treatment, and a warrant was issued for his arrest. He was later apprehended and appealed the probation condition, arguing that it unlawfully delegated judicial authority to the probation department and was unconstitutionally vague regarding custody credits. Although the trial court later terminated his probation and credited him for all time spent in custody and treatment, the appeal continued based on the public interest and recurring nature of the legal questions presented.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, held that the trial court’s probation condition unconstitutionally delegated excessive judicial authority to the probation department by allowing it to determine and impose significant sanctions without court oversight. The court further concluded that, in the absence of a knowing and intelligent waiver, the defendant could not be denied custody credits for time spent in residential treatment, even if he did not successfully complete the program. Because these issues are likely to recur, the appellate court reached the merits but ultimately dismissed the appeal as moot, since the defendant had already received the credits in question. View "P. v. Emrick" on Justia Law

The case centers on a petitioner who was convicted of murder and related crimes following a 2016 jury trial. The conviction stemmed from a shooting incident in New London, Connecticut, in which several eyewitnesses, including Alice Phillips, identified the petitioner as the perpetrator. Phillips’ credibility was challenged at trial, but she remained an important witness for the prosecution. After the trial, it came to light that Phillips had previously provided false testimony regarding expected consideration for her cooperation in a different, unrelated murder trial prosecuted by the same state’s attorney’s office.Following his conviction, the petitioner filed a habeas petition in the Superior Court for the judicial district of Tolland, arguing that his due process rights were violated when the prosecutor failed to disclose Phillips’ prior false testimony. The habeas court denied his petition, and the Appellate Court dismissed his appeal, reasoning that the prosecutor in the petitioner’s trial had no obligation to seek out impeachment material from unrelated cases absent a specific request from the defense.On appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court held that the state’s attorney’s office is a single entity for Brady v. Maryland purposes. Therefore, the prosecutor was responsible for disclosing exculpatory or impeachment evidence known to other prosecutors in the same office, including the information about Phillips’ false testimony in the unrelated case. However, the Supreme Court concluded that the nondisclosure was immaterial because Phillips was not the only eyewitness, her credibility was effectively challenged at trial, and there was significant additional evidence implicating the petitioner.Accordingly, the Connecticut Supreme Court vacated the Appellate Court’s determination regarding the scope of the prosecutor’s disclosure obligations but affirmed the judgment in all other respects, finding no Brady violation as the suppressed evidence was not material to the outcome. View "Vega v. Commissioner of Correction" on Justia Law

Oscar Hudspeth, a member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, was convicted by a jury of two sex abuse offenses involving his young stepdaughter, D.J., which occurred when she was between five and seven years old and living in his home. The prosecution’s evidence included D.J.’s testimony about the abuse and statements Hudspeth made during a post-polygraph interview with an FBI agent, where he admitted to inappropriate touching. Prior to trial, both parties agreed to exclude any reference to the polygraph test from evidence, and the district court admitted a redacted version of the interview transcript omitting mention of the polygraph.In the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, Hudspeth moved to either exclude the entire interview or, alternatively, to ensure all polygraph references were redacted. When it became clear that a redacted version would be admitted, Hudspeth changed his position, seeking to admit the entire interview, including polygraph references, to provide context for his admissions. The district court admitted the redacted interview and excluded polygraph references, noting that Hudspeth had earlier agreed to the exclusion. Hudspeth was ultimately found guilty and sentenced to the mandatory minimum term.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed whether excluding polygraph references violated Hudspeth’s constitutional right to present a complete defense. The court held that the exclusion did not violate his constitutional rights or constitute an abuse of discretion. It found that polygraph evidence is generally unreliable and disfavored, and that the exclusion was neither arbitrary nor disproportionate. The court concluded that even if there was error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to the strength of the prosecution’s case. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Hudspeth" on Justia Law

Police in Bloomington, Minnesota, stopped a vehicle after observing a suspended object hanging from the rearview mirror and learning that the vehicle’s registered owner, Damion Kent Hallmon, had a suspended license. Hallmon was driving, accompanied by his fiancée, Ieisha McGrone, and their two children. During the stop, police observed a bag that appeared to contain marijuana, prompting a search of the vehicle. In a handbag on the front passenger seat, officers found a loaded pistol. Both Hallmon and McGrone made statements regarding the gun, with Hallmon ultimately admitting ownership and describing the firearm. Hallmon was arrested and charged with being a felon in possession of ammunition.Before trial in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, Hallmon moved to suppress the evidence and statements from the stop, and to dismiss the indictment on Second Amendment grounds. A magistrate judge recommended denial of the suppression motions, and the district court adopted this recommendation and denied the dismissal motion. At trial, the government presented testimony that the ammunition traveled in interstate commerce. Hallmon attempted to introduce recorded jail calls with McGrone, but the district court excluded them as hearsay. The jury found Hallmon guilty, and the district court imposed a two-level sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice, sentencing him to 74 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the stop, search, and seizure were constitutional; Hallmon was not in custody for Miranda purposes when making statements; sufficient evidence supported the interstate commerce element; exclusion of the jail calls was proper; the obstruction of justice enhancement was warranted; and existing circuit precedent foreclosed Hallmon’s Second Amendment challenge. View "United States v. Hallmon" on Justia Law

An administrative law judge (ALJ) at the International Trade Commission (ITC) issued a protective order during a dispute between Qualcomm and Apple, requiring recipients of confidential business information, including expert witness Gregory Sidak, to return or destroy that information after the case ended. However, the ALJ who issued the order had been appointed solely by the ITC chairman, not by the full commission as required by the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. The ITC later ratified the ALJ’s appointments but did not ratify past actions taken by those ALJs. Years after the underlying case ended, the ITC began investigating Sidak for allegedly violating the protective order’s requirements. Sidak participated in the investigation by exchanging letters and affidavits, but eventually sued, arguing that the protective order was void because it was issued by an unconstitutionally appointed ALJ and never ratified, and sought to enjoin the ITC from enforcing it against him.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia found in Sidak’s favor, holding that the protective order could not lawfully be used as the basis for the investigation or for imposing sanctions on him. It permanently enjoined the ITC from taking further action against Sidak based on the challenged order. The ITC appealed the district court’s decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that Sidak had standing, that the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction, and that Sidak had a right of action under the Constitution. The court further held that Sidak’s challenge was both timely and ripe, rejecting the ITC’s arguments that the claim was either too early or too late. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting permanent injunctive relief. View "J. Sidak v. United States International Trade Commission" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted by a jury of first-degree felony murder, aggravated burglary, attempted aggravated robbery, two counts of aggravated assault, and criminal possession of a weapon after a 2016 home invasion and homicide. Following a mistrial at his first proceeding, a second trial resulted in convictions on all charges. At his original sentencing, the district court calculated the defendant’s criminal history score as A, in part based on a 2003 criminal-threat conviction, and imposed a life sentence without parole eligibility for 653 months, plus consecutive sentences on the remaining counts.On appeal from the original sentencing, the Supreme Court of Kansas affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentence. The court concluded that the district court erred in including the 2003 conviction in the criminal history score, as the statute under which it was obtained had been found unconstitutional in part by the Supreme Court of Kansas in State v. Boettger, 310 Kan. 800 (2019). The court remanded the case for resentencing with instructions not to include the 2003 conviction. On remand, the district court recalculated the criminal history score as B and resentenced the defendant accordingly, reducing the parole eligibility period and other determinate sentences. The court denied the defense’s renewed motion for a departure sentence.The Supreme Court of Kansas reviewed the appeal from resentencing. The defendant raised, for the first time, constitutional challenges to the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act, arguing that it violated his jury trial rights by permitting a judge to determine prior convictions that enhance punishment. The court declined to review these unpreserved claims, finding that settled law foreclosed relief. The defendant’s claim for additional jail credit was rendered moot by a nunc pro tunc order from the district court. The Supreme Court of Kansas affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "State v. Smith " on Justia Law