Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

This case involves challenges to the ballot title certified by the Oregon Attorney General for Initiative Petition 64 (2026), which proposes to add a provision to the Oregon Constitution. Under current law, individuals charged with crimes who are found unfit to aid and assist in their defense cannot proceed to trial and may be committed for restoration of fitness, but such commitment is limited to a maximum period based on the seriousness of the charge. The proposed measure would require these individuals, if found to require a hospital level of care due to public safety concerns, to be committed to a secure state-funded facility until a court determines they are fit or no longer require such care—removing the current statutory limit on the duration of their commitment.After the Attorney General certified the ballot title, petitioners—both as Oregon electors and as the chief petitioner for IP 64—filed timely challenges. They argued that the caption and the “yes” result statement of the certified ballot title were inaccurate and misleading. Specifically, they contended that the language incorrectly stated that such defendants “cannot be prosecuted,” when, in reality, prosecution is merely paused during the restoration process, and that the ballot title failed to inform voters that the measure would eliminate statutory time limits on commitment, allowing for potentially indefinite detention.The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon agreed with the petitioners. The court found that the caption and the “yes” result statement did not substantially comply with the requirements of ORS 250.035(2), as they mischaracterized the status of prosecution and failed to identify a major effect of the measure. The court referred the ballot title back to the Attorney General for modification. View "Paden v. Rayfield" on Justia Law

The case involves an altercation in the lobby of an apartment building, where Darryl Brown, an off-duty corrections officer, shot and killed Vonde Cabbagestalk, his daughter’s boyfriend. During a heated argument, Brown drew his firearm. Witness testimony established that Cabbagestalk became physically aggressive and swung at Brown, after which Brown pulled out his gun and held it at his waist. Cabbagestalk made a threatening remark and attempted to swipe at the gun, at which point Brown fired, resulting in Cabbagestalk’s death.Brown was tried in the New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, and convicted of first-degree manslaughter. The trial judge declined to instruct the jury on the justification (self-defense) defense, finding the evidence insufficient to warrant the charge. On direct appeal, a divided Appellate Division, First Department, vacated the conviction, reasoning that the evidence could support Brown’s belief that he needed to use deadly force. However, the New York Court of Appeals unanimously reversed and reinstated the conviction, holding that Brown’s act of drawing his gun made him the initial aggressor under New York law, disqualifying him from the justification defense. The court found no evidence that Brown withdrew from the encounter or that Cabbagestalk threatened deadly force before Brown drew his weapon.Brown sought federal habeas relief in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, arguing that denial of a justification instruction violated his federal due process rights. The district court denied relief, agreeing with the New York Court of Appeals. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, holding that Brown was not entitled to a justification instruction under New York law and, consequently, there was no constitutional violation justifying habeas relief. View "Brown v. James" on Justia Law

The case concerns a defendant indicted in two separate Superior Court proceedings for offenses including a violent home invasion and multiple firearm-related charges. The defendant was found incompetent to stand trial and unlikely to attain competency, based on several forensic psychological evaluations. While awaiting trial, the defendant was also charged with additional drug and firearm offenses in the Boston Municipal Court, which resulted in revocation of his bail in the Superior Court cases and the imposition of new cash bail. Following the expiration of the bail revocation, cash bail was set in the Superior Court cases, which the defendant could not post, resulting in his continued detention.After the Boston Municipal Court case was dismissed, the defendant remained detained solely due to his inability to post bail in the Superior Court cases. He petitioned a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court for extraordinary relief, arguing that his continued detention, given his incompetency and unlikelihood of restoration, violated his substantive due process rights under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The single justice denied relief, finding that the defendant’s detention had not yet exceeded a reasonable period necessary to determine the likelihood of competency restoration, and that the totality of circumstances—including the seriousness of the charges, time elapsed since prior evaluations, and the Commonwealth’s stated intention to seek a new evaluation—did not amount to a due process violation.On appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the framework articulated in Abbott A. v. Commonwealth, 458 Mass. 24 (2010), which limits the detention of incompetent defendants to the period necessary to assess the probability of restoring competency, applies regardless of whether detention arises from a finding of dangerousness or inability to post bail. The Court affirmed the judgment, concluding that no due process violation had occurred. View "In the Matter of an Impounded Case" on Justia Law

An Ohio resident and an Illinois wine retailer challenged two Ohio laws regarding wine importation. The first law prohibits out-of-state retailers from shipping wine directly to Ohio consumers, while permitting in-state retailers to do so. The second law bars Ohio residents from personally bringing more than six bottles of wine purchased outside Ohio into the state within any thirty-day period, though it allows up to 288 bottles if purchased inside Ohio. The plaintiffs argued that both laws discriminate against out-of-state businesses and consumers, violating the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.The case was first heard in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. That court found the shipping restriction constitutional under the Twenty-first Amendment and concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the transportation limit. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, clarifying that the appropriate test comes from Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas, and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, after additional discovery, the district court again granted summary judgment to the defendants, evaluating the restrictions as part of Ohio’s three-tier alcohol regulatory system and finding the restrictions justified.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the plaintiffs had standing. The court found that the challenged restrictions were not essential components of Ohio’s three-tier system and must be evaluated independently under the Tennessee Wine test. The court concluded that Ohio’s justifications for the restrictions—public health, safety, price control, and temperance—were speculative or undermined by evidence that Ohio allows similar activities by other out-of-state entities. The court held that both laws are unconstitutional because their predominant effect is economic protectionism, not the protection of public health or safety. The district court’s judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Block v. Canepa" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was discovered inside a stranger’s apartment in Oklahoma City. After being confronted by the resident, a physical altercation ensued and the defendant fled. The resident claimed that the defendant pulled a gun and fired at him as he was chased outside. Although no firearm was recovered, police found a recently fired shell casing at the scene. Video evidence and witness testimony corroborated the sequence of events. The defendant was subsequently arrested after a foot chase, and a grand jury indicted him for possessing ammunition as a felon.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma presided over the trial. The government sought to introduce evidence of the defendant’s prior conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm under Rule 404(b), which the defendant opposed. The district court admitted the evidence over objection, provided a limiting instruction, and the jury found the defendant guilty. The presentence report calculated a guideline range of 63 to 78 months; however, the district court imposed an above-guidelines sentence of 120 months, citing the seriousness and repetitive nature of the defendant’s conduct.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the admission of the prior conviction was an abuse of discretion because knowledge was not at issue under the circumstances, but found the error harmless due to the strength of the evidence. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, the sentence was substantively reasonable, and the argument that the statute was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment was foreclosed by binding precedent. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Dias" on Justia Law

The defendant was involved in a violent incident with his girlfriend and their young daughter, during which he physically assaulted the girlfriend multiple times, including striking her with his fists and a handgun, strangling her to unconsciousness, and kicking her to the extent of causing severe injuries. Their daughter also sustained injuries. The defendant was charged with several felonies, including aggravated assault, battery, strangulation of a household member, and child abuse. He was also facing charges in other unrelated cases. The parties reached a global plea agreement covering all the charges, under which the defendant pled guilty to certain offenses, and the State agreed to dismiss others in exchange for restitution and the right for both sides to argue sentence.In the District Court of Goshen County, the defendant was sentenced to consecutive prison terms for the charges to which he pled guilty. At sentencing, the victim presented both oral and written impact statements, some of which referred to uncharged conduct by the defendant, including additional incidents of abuse and property theft or destruction. The defendant did not object to the use of these statements at sentencing.On appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Wyoming, the defendant argued that the district court erred by considering the victim impact statements referencing uncharged crimes. The Wyoming Supreme Court applied the plain error standard, since no objection was raised below. The court held the defendant failed to show that the district court relied on inaccurate or unreliable information in imposing sentence; the record reflected the court’s decision relied on the violent nature of the charged offenses and the defendant’s criminal history, not on the contested statements. The court found no plain error or violation of due process, and affirmed the district court’s sentencing decision. View "Atkinson v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

A grand jury in the District of Maine indicted a noncitizen for knowingly possessing a firearm while being “illegally or unlawfully” in the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A). The statute prohibits firearm possession by noncitizens who are not lawfully present in the country. The defendant moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the statute violated his Second Amendment rights both on its face and as applied to him.The United States District Court for the District of Maine granted the motion to dismiss. It held that the defendant was among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment, relying in part on United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez. The court then found that the government failed to demonstrate, under the test established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, that the statute was consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation as applied to the defendant. The court concluded that the government had not met its burden because it did not provide direct historical analogues and relied on secondary sources. As a result, the indictment was dismissed, and the government appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the District Court’s application of the Bruen framework de novo. The First Circuit determined that, even assuming the defendant was protected by the Second Amendment, the government had shown that § 922(g)(5)(A) fits within the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court relied on English common-law practices, colonial and founding-era laws, and analogues disarming groups considered outside the political community. The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the statute is constitutional as applied in this case. View "US v. Rebollar Osorio" on Justia Law

The appellant was indicted in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico for possessing a firearm while being an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A). He moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that, as applied to him, the statute violated his Second Amendment rights. The District Court denied his motion, finding that, even assuming the Second Amendment protected him, the statute was consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The appellant then pleaded guilty, was sentenced, and timely appealed his conviction, preserving his constitutional challenge.The appeal was reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The government argued that the statute did not violate the Second Amendment, both because the appellant was not among “the people” whom the Amendment protects, and because, even if he was, the statute was consistent with historical tradition. The First Circuit, like the District Court, did not resolve whether the Second Amendment’s text covered the appellant, relying instead on the second step of the framework established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen.Applying the Bruen framework, as clarified by United States v. Rahimi, the First Circuit held that § 922(g)(5)(A) is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court found that historical analogues, including laws disarming those without allegiance to the sovereign, supported the regulation. The court concluded that the government met its burden to show that the statute is relevantly similar to such historical regulations. Therefore, the First Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment and rejected the appellant’s Second Amendment challenge. View "US v. Vizcaino-Peguero" on Justia Law

During a December 2023 election recount at the Oakland County Courthouse in Michigan, Andrew Hess, serving as an observer, raised concerns about ballot-box tampering with the county’s director of elections, Joseph Rozell. Following a tense exchange, Hess left the recount room and, in the courthouse lobby, remarked to another member of the public, “hang Joe for treason.” The comment was overheard by a county receptionist, who later reported it to law enforcement. Although Hess was not removed from the event, months later Oakland County prosecutors charged him with a felony under Michigan’s terrorist-threat statute for this statement. The charge was initially dismissed after the Michigan Court of Appeals found the statute facially unconstitutional, but the Michigan Supreme Court later vacated that decision, and the potential for prosecution was revived.In response, Hess filed a civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages, primarily arguing that the prosecution violated his First Amendment rights. He also sought a preliminary injunction to prevent any renewed prosecution under the statute. The district court denied the preliminary injunction, finding Hess unlikely to succeed on his constitutional claims and failing to demonstrate irreparable harm.Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the denial of the preliminary injunction. The appellate court held that while Hess was likely to succeed on the merits of his as-applied First Amendment claim—concluding his statement did not constitute a true threat—he had not shown irreparable harm because any threatened prosecution targeted only his past speech, not future speech. Furthermore, Michigan’s state-court procedures offered him a fair and prompt opportunity to litigate his First Amendment defense. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction. View "Hess v. Oakland County" on Justia Law

A man who was born in India entered the United States illegally and sought asylum, which was denied. He then submitted a second asylum application under a false identity and later married a U.S. citizen, using the same false information to obtain permanent residency and, eventually, naturalization as a U.S. citizen. After obtaining a U.S. passport and reentering the country, he was questioned by border agents and gave false answers regarding his identity. As a result, he was charged with using a fraudulently obtained passport and making false statements to federal agents. He pleaded guilty to the passport charge, with the other charge dismissed, and was sentenced to probation. Both his plea agreement and the district court informed him of potential immigration consequences, including possible loss of citizenship.Later, the government initiated denaturalization proceedings, alleging that he had illegally procured citizenship through fraud and misrepresentation. The man petitioned the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for a writ of coram nobis, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel because his lawyer did not advise him that his guilty plea could lead to denaturalization. The district court denied the petition, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding he had not shown a reasonable probability that, but for his counsel’s advice, he would have chosen a different course. After a Second Circuit decision in Farhane v. United States adopted a broader view of counsel’s obligations, he sought reconsideration, which was also denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the appeal and held that the Sixth Amendment does not require defense attorneys to advise naturalized citizens that a guilty plea may carry the risk of denaturalization and eventual deportation. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion for reconsideration. View "United States v. Singh" on Justia Law