Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

A group of premium cigar manufacturers and trade associations challenged California’s Unflavored Tobacco List statute, which requires tobacco products to be approved and listed by the California Attorney General before they may be sold to consumers, retailers, or wholesalers in the state. To be listed, manufacturers must submit detailed applications and pay fees, certifying their products lack any characterizing flavor. The plaintiffs argued that the law would impose considerable compliance costs, particularly burdensome for the premium cigar industry where products are hand-made in smaller batches and change blends frequently. They asserted that their premium cigars, by federal definition, do not contain flavoring additives, and that the application and fee requirements would force them to reduce their product offerings in California.The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the statute in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. They contended that the federal Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA) expressly preempts California’s law as applied to premium cigars and that the statute’s presumption against flavoring based on manufacturers’ speech violates the First Amendment. The district court denied the motion, concluding the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims.Upon review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction. The appellate court held that the TCA’s Savings Clause exempts state requirements related to the sale of tobacco products from preemption, and the challenged statute falls within this exemption as it is directly tied to retail sales. The court also found that, based on the Attorney General’s representations, the statute imposes only a minimal burden on commercial speech and does not restrict speech more than necessary. Thus, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of injunctive relief. View "ROCKY PATEL PREMIUM CIGARS, INC. V. BONTA" on Justia Law

Several federally licensed firearms dealers (FFLs), including both brick-and-mortar and home-based businesses, gun rights organizations, and private citizens challenged a California statute, Section 26806, which requires all FFLs to maintain a digital video and audio recording system on their business premises. The statute mandates 24/7 surveillance of specific areas, such as points of sale and firearm display areas, and limits when and how recordings may be released or accessed, including requirements for posting notification signs and annual certification of system functionality. Plaintiffs argued that this law infringed their rights under the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments by imposing surveillance burdens, chilling speech, violating privacy, and effecting a taking of property.The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The district court found that Plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged a likelihood of success on the merits of any claims, denied injunctive relief, and granted leave to amend. Plaintiffs eventually chose not to further amend and requested final judgment, which the district court entered, leading to this appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that Plaintiffs failed to allege a cognizable Fourth Amendment claim because there was no physical government intrusion or access to recordings, nor did mere compliance with the statute transform FFLs into state actors. The court also found no Fifth Amendment violation, as the statute did not result in a physical or regulatory taking; FFLs retained ownership and control over their recording systems, and the economic impact did not rise to a taking. Finally, the court ruled that the First Amendment theories advanced by Plaintiffs—overbreadth, violations of the right to anonymity and association, and chilling of speech—were unsupported because the statute did not regulate or compel speech or disclosure, nor did it plausibly chill protected expression. The Ninth Circuit therefore affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "RICHARDS V. NEWSOM" on Justia Law

A fourteen-year-old student, JPZ, was suspended from school following an altercation. The school principal, Melissa Arendts, notified JPZ's mother and requested JPZ be picked up. Upon arrival, JPZ's grandmother found him isolated and awaiting questioning by Scott Labish, a sheriff’s deputy serving as a school resource officer. Labish, in uniform, questioned JPZ, allegedly in a threatening manner, and told him about a “Three Strike” policy that would result in criminal prosecution and expulsion after another infraction. JPZ became distressed, left school, and subsequently died by suicide at home several hours later. JPZ's father, Brian Zimmermann, as administrator of JPZ’s estate, sued Arendts, Labish, the school district, and Macomb County, alleging federal due process violations and state law claims.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed the wrongful death claim but allowed four other claims to proceed: deprivation of substantive due process, conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and Monell liability. Defendants moved to dismiss the remaining claims based on qualified and state governmental immunity and deficiencies in the Monell claim. The district court denied these motions in part, leading to an interlocutory appeal by the defendants.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial de novo. The Sixth Circuit held that the facts did not support a substantive due process claim under the state-created danger doctrine, as the defendants neither increased JPZ’s risk of harm from a third party nor acted with deliberate indifference. The conspiracy and Monell claims failed because no underlying constitutional violation was adequately alleged. The court also found the defendants entitled to state governmental immunity for the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, as the conduct alleged did not indicate malice. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the motions to dismiss and remanded the case. View "Zimmermann v. Labish" on Justia Law

In October 1978, a woman named Tana Woolley was found dead in her apartment in Rosamond, California. She had been strangled with a sock, and her body was partially undressed. Initial investigation yielded no arrests, although DNA and other forensic evidence were collected. Decades later, with advances in DNA technology, semen stains found on Woolley’s bedspread were tested and matched the defendant, who lived in the same apartment complex at the time. The defendant denied knowing Woolley or ever being in her apartment. Further investigation revealed he had previously committed multiple sexual assaults, and evidence of these prior offenses was admitted at trial.The case was first tried in the Kern County Superior Court. The jury convicted the defendant of first degree murder and found true two special circumstances: that the murder was committed during the commission or attempted commission of rape and burglary, both requiring a finding of willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder under the then-applicable 1977 death penalty law. At the penalty phase, the jury returned a verdict of death, and the trial court entered judgment accordingly. The defense raised several issues, including challenges to jury selection, the admission of prior sexual offenses, and various constitutional and evidentiary claims.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case on automatic appeal. It addressed whether the defendant established a prima facie case of racial discrimination in jury selection, the admissibility and instructions regarding other sexual offenses, the sufficiency of the evidence for the murder and special circumstance findings, and challenges under the California Racial Justice Act. The court held that the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination in jury selection, that the evidence and instructions regarding prior sexual offenses were properly admitted, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions and special circumstance findings. It further determined that no prejudicial error occurred under the Racial Justice Act. The court affirmed the judgment of death. View "P. v. Hazlett" on Justia Law

The case involves a defendant who was observed in a high-crime area of Albuquerque, New Mexico, acting suspiciously by loitering near a house, retrieving a duffel bag he had left overnight, and peering into the window of a car for sale. After the homeowner reported his behavior to the police, deputies responding to the call found the defendant matching the caller’s description. During their interaction, the defendant acted nervously, repeatedly reached into his duffel bag, and did not comply with officers’ commands. The deputies conducted a pat-down, discovering a pistol, a magazine, and cash on his person. After running his information, they learned of outstanding felony warrants, arrested him, and searched the duffel bag, uncovering methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia.In the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, the defendant moved to suppress the evidence from his person and the duffel bag, arguing the stop, frisk, and search were unlawful. Initially, the district court indicated the stop and frisk were lawful but suppressed the contents of the duffel bag, finding no valid inventory search or basis for inevitable discovery. After the government submitted additional evidence regarding inventory procedures, the district court reconsidered and denied the motion to suppress, holding that the items would have been inevitably discovered during a lawful inventory search prior to booking.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the appeal. The court concluded that the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion given the defendant's suspicious behavior in a high-crime area. The court further held that, even if the frisk or bag search had been unlawful, the items would have been inevitably discovered either during a search incident to arrest or a proper inventory search. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress, upholding the convictions. View "United States v. Valdez" on Justia Law

A business specializing in adult products sought to open a store in downtown Fargo, North Dakota, in a zone designated for mixed-use development. The proposed store intended to sell items such as lingerie and sexual wellness products, but not sexually explicit media like books or DVDs. To proceed, the business’s landlord applied for a change-of-use permit to allow retail sales and service at the location. The City of Fargo, through its Director of Planning and Development, denied the application, concluding that the business constituted an "Adult Bookstore" as defined by the city’s municipal code, which prohibited such establishments in the downtown zone. The city’s decision was upheld by both the Fargo Board of Adjustment and the Board of City Commissioners.Following these administrative decisions, the business filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota, raising constitutional claims including violations of the First Amendment, the imposition of a prior restraint, denial of procedural due process, and unconstitutional vagueness in the city’s code. The business also challenged the Commissioners’ decision under state law, arguing it was arbitrary and capricious. While the lawsuit was pending, Fargo amended its code to explicitly prohibit “Sexual Device Shops” in the relevant zone.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the dismissal of all federal claims, holding that the business’s planned activities were not protected expressive conduct under the First Amendment, the permit process was not a prior restraint, and the business received adequate procedural process. The court also found the city’s ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague. However, the court determined that denying the permit as an “Adult Bookstore” was arbitrary and capricious under state law, reversed the dismissal of the state-law claim, and remanded for further proceedings regarding possible relief. View "Romantix-Fargo, Inc. v. City of Fargo" on Justia Law

Two activists participated in demonstrations outside the Israeli embassy in Washington, D.C., protesting Israel's military actions in Gaza. Over several months, three incidents occurred involving Rabbi Herzfeld, a local rabbi and community leader, and the activists. During these incidents, the activists alleged that Rabbi Herzfeld and his companions made provocative and upsetting remarks, engaged in intimidating behavior, and, in one instance, initiated a federal lawsuit and media coverage that the activists felt endangered them. The activists felt harassed and took steps to increase their personal security after these events.Following the third incident, the activists filed petitions for anti-stalking orders in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, alleging that Rabbi Herzfeld’s conduct constituted stalking under D.C. law. Rabbi Herzfeld moved to dismiss the petitions, arguing that his actions were protected by the First Amendment and did not meet the statutory definition of stalking, citing precedent from Mashaud v. Boone. The trial court held a summary trial and ultimately denied the petitions, finding that the conduct did not amount to threats or surveillance within the meaning of the statute and was constitutionally protected speech. Rabbi Herzfeld later sought attorney’s fees under the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act and, alternatively, for alleged bad faith.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case. It affirmed the denial of the anti-stalking petitions, holding that Rabbi Herzfeld’s conduct did not constitute “true threats” and was protected political speech, not actionable as stalking. The court vacated the award of attorney’s fees, finding the trial court had applied the wrong legal standard under the Anti-SLAPP Act and had not given proper notice for a bad-faith fee award. The matter was remanded for further proceedings regarding attorney’s fees. View "Rokhvand & Barmada v. Herzfeld" on Justia Law

Police officers observed an African-American man walking past their parked cruiser and believed they saw the imprint of a handgun magazine under his clothing at his waistband. The officer, with extensive firearms experience, was not certain whether the object could have been a wallet or a bag. The officers followed the man after he left a restaurant, calling out to him. When he did not respond and instead ran, the officers chased and tackled him, recovering a handgun from his hip. The officers were not responding to any report of crime and had no prior information about the man. They did not know whether he was lawfully carrying the firearm.After a hearing, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the firearm, finding that the officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal conduct based on the officer’s testimony and the defendant’s flight, which was interpreted as consciousness of guilt. The defendant was subsequently convicted of several weapon offenses.On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court’s factual findings for clear error and considered de novo whether reasonable, articulable suspicion existed. The appellate court held that, in light of recent constitutional and statutory developments, mere possession of a handgun, without more, does not provide reasonable, articulable suspicion for a stop in the District of Columbia. The court also found that the circumstances of the defendant’s flight did not significantly increase suspicion, given the context of the police approach. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the appellate court concluded that the officers lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion and that the stop violated the Fourth Amendment. The court vacated the convictions and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Quarles v. United States" on Justia Law

Two Ohio statutes were originally enacted as part of the state’s 2020-2021 budget bill. One statute restricted healthcare providers from soliciting crime or motor-vehicle-accident victims for 30 days after such incidents, and the other created a public records exception for victims’ telephone numbers in police reports. Before these statutes took effect, several healthcare providers challenged their constitutionality in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, arguing that the statutes violated Ohio’s constitutional one-subject rule by exceeding the proper scope of a budget bill. While litigation was ongoing, the General Assembly enacted separate bills that amended both statutes: one changed the solicitation restriction, and two others amended the public records exception.The trial court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss and subsequently granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, holding that the two statutes were unenforceable because they originated in a budget bill that violated the one-subject rule. The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, concluding that the subsequent amendments were void since they amended provisions not validly enacted in the first place. The appellate court did not rule on other constitutional claims, finding it unnecessary after resolving the one-subject rule issue.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and reversed the Eighth District’s judgment. The court held that when the General Assembly amends a statute through a new bill, the amendment repeals the prior version and enacts the statute anew. Therefore, the constitutionality of the original versions does not render the amended statutes void. The operative law is now the amended language, and any alleged constitutional defects in the earlier versions are irrelevant to the validity of the later-enacted statutes. The case was remanded to the Eighth District for further proceedings on other issues. View "Allied Health & Chiropractic, L.L.C. v. State" on Justia Law

The defendant pled guilty to a single count of illegal reentry after removal from the United States. His presentence report detailed a criminal history that included prior convictions for driving under the influence, obstruction of justice, unlawful possession or consumption of alcohol by a minor, domestic battery, drug trafficking, and a previous illegal reentry. After being deported for his earlier illegal reentry, the defendant returned to the United States, purportedly to assist his wife, who was recovering from a significant injury and mental health issues. About ten months after his return, he was arrested for assaulting his wife, but the charges were later dismissed. The presentence report indicated the incident involved the defendant throwing water bottles at his wife, causing minor injuries, but made no mention of direct physical contact or biting.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas conducted a brief sentencing hearing, during which it adopted the presentence report but made several factual errors. The court incorrectly referenced a 2020 illegal reentry conviction that did not exist and mistakenly asserted that the defendant had bitten his wife during the alleged assault. The district court treated these purported facts as aggravating factors and sentenced the defendant to 46 months, at the top of the Guidelines range, without stating whether the same sentence would have been imposed absent these errors. No contemporaneous objections were raised by the parties.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case under the plain error standard. The court found that the district court relied on clearly erroneous facts, that the errors were clear under established law, and that they affected the defendant’s substantial rights by likely increasing his sentence. The Fifth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding that sentencing based on unfounded facts violates due process and undermines the fairness and integrity of judicial proceedings. View "USA v. Palencia-Berrum" on Justia Law