Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Several pharmaceutical manufacturers and a trade association challenged a Louisiana statute enacted in 2023, which prohibits drug manufacturers and distributors from interfering with the acquisition or delivery of discounted drugs—purchased under the federal Section 340B Drug Pricing Program—to pharmacies contracted by certain healthcare providers. The 340B Program requires drug manufacturers participating in Medicaid and Medicare to provide discounted outpatient drugs to designated healthcare providers serving low-income and rural populations. Many of these providers lack in-house pharmacies and use external contract pharmacies. In response to manufacturer-imposed limits on contract pharmacy use, Louisiana enacted Act 358 to preserve covered entities’ ability to use such pharmacies.The plaintiffs, including AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, filed separate lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana against the Louisiana Attorney General, arguing that Act 358 is preempted by federal law, constitutes an unconstitutional taking, impairs contracts in violation of the Contracts Clause, and is unconstitutionally vague. The district court consolidated the cases, granted summary judgment for Louisiana and the Louisiana Primary Care Association (an intervenor), and rejected all of the manufacturers’ claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Fifth Circuit held that Act 358 is not preempted by federal law, as the federal 340B Program does not regulate drug distribution logistics or the use of contract pharmacies, and thus leaves room for state regulation. The court further concluded that Act 358 does not effect a taking under the Fifth Amendment, does not substantially impair contractual obligations under the Contracts Clause, and is not unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause. The Fifth Circuit thus upheld summary judgment for Louisiana on all claims. View "AbbVie v. Murrill" on Justia Law

A former superintendent of a California school district, who later became an elected member of the district’s Board of Trustees, was subject to a workplace violence restraining order (WVRO) requested by the district on behalf of three employees. These employees, who worked closely with the superintendent, reported that he engaged in a persistent course of conduct that included angry outbursts, threats of termination, intrusive and inappropriate text messages, stalking behaviors, and unsolicited photographs. The conduct caused substantial emotional distress and fear among the employees, leading them to seek mental health treatment and report his actions to the police. After his termination, the superintendent continued to interact with the employees in ways they perceived as intimidating, including the placement of campaign signs near their homes and the publication of internal documents on social media.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County granted a temporary restraining order and, after a multi-day hearing, issued a WVRO prohibiting the superintendent from harassing, disturbing the peace of, or contacting the three employees. The WVRO imposed restrictions on his proximity to the employees and their workplace, allowed his attendance at board meetings only under specific conditions, and included a provision barring him from commenting on the WVRO at board meetings. The order was set to last four years, subject to early termination if he was no longer associated with the district.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court held that an employer’s right to seek a WVRO on behalf of employees is unwaivable under Civil Code section 3513, rejected arguments concerning insufficient evidence and violation of parental rights, and found sufficient evidence of a future threat of harassment. However, it determined that the WVRO’s prohibition on comments at board meetings was overbroad and violated First Amendment rights, and that the order’s four-year duration exceeded the statutory maximum. The court modified the order to remove the speech restriction and limit its duration to three years, then affirmed the WVRO as modified. View "Adelanto Elementary Sch. Dist. v. Krause" on Justia Law

The dispute centers on whether the U.S. Department of Education may constitutionally rely on private educational accreditors in disbursing federal education funds. Under the Higher Education Act, colleges and universities must be accredited by a recognized accreditor for their students to be eligible for federal financial aid. Accreditors are private, voluntary organizations funded by the schools they accredit. Florida challenged this arrangement, alleging that it unconstitutionally delegates government power to private accreditors and violates both the Appointments Clause and the Spending Clause, claiming the accreditation requirement is an unascertainable condition for federal funds.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida reviewed the suit after Florida brought four claims: a private nondelegation doctrine challenge, an Appointments Clause challenge, a Spending Clause challenge, and a now-abandoned Administrative Procedure Act challenge. The federal government moved to dismiss, and the district court granted the motion. The district court found no unlawful delegation of government power, noted that Title IV funds are directed to students and not institutions, determined the accreditation requirement is unambiguous, and dismissed the Appointments Clause claim because accreditors do not determine eligibility for federal funds.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The Court held that private accreditors do not exercise government authority that could violate the Vesting Clauses or the Appointments Clause. The Court also determined that the accreditation requirement is an ascertainable condition for federal funds, as it is a well-understood, longstanding practice and does not amount to an ambiguous or novel restriction. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Florida’s suit. View "State of Florida v. Secretary, US Department of Education" on Justia Law

A man who was convicted of possessing child pornography in 2013 served his sentence and later married and had a son. Despite completing sex offender treatment and complying with supervised release conditions, he remained subject to Alabama’s Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Act (“the Act”). This law prohibits him, for life, from residing with or conducting overnight visits with any minor—including his own child—because his conviction involved a child-related offense. The Act contains no mechanism for relief or individualized assessment, even for parents who have shown rehabilitation.After the birth of his son, the man sued the Sheriff and District Attorney of Tuscaloosa County and the Alabama Attorney General under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking to enjoin enforcement of the Act’s prohibition against living with his child. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama granted summary judgment in his favor, declaring the Act’s prohibition facially unconstitutional and issuing a universal injunction. On appeal, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated and remanded in part, finding the Act unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiff but vacating the universal injunction. The panel’s opinion was then vacated, and the case was reheard en banc.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that all parents—including those with past convictions or “misconduct”—enjoy a fundamental right to live with their children under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court rejected Alabama’s argument that certain classes of parents lack this right due to prior offenses. The court remanded the case to the panel for further proceedings under strict scrutiny, requiring Alabama to show its law is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. The court affirmed in part and remanded in part. View "Henry v. Sheriff of Tuscaloosa County, Alabama" on Justia Law

Three individuals, each having entered the United States unlawfully more than a decade ago, were detained by federal immigration authorities after routine traffic stops in Texas. None had criminal histories, and each was a long-term resident and father of U.S. citizen children. They petitioned for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1), claiming exceptional hardship to their U.S. citizen children if removed. After being detained without bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), they filed habeas corpus petitions, asserting their detention violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas reviewed each petition, applying the procedural due process framework from Mathews v. Eldridge. The district courts found the mandatory detention regime unconstitutional as applied to these petitioners, ordered their immediate release, and required that any future detention must be preceded by a hearing to determine dangerousness or risk of flight. The government appealed these rulings, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit consolidated the cases.The Fifth Circuit examined precedent, including Zadvydas v. Davis, Demore v. Kim, and Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, and concluded that physical presence and long-term residence within the United States entitles aliens to due process protections. The court held that mandatory, indefinite detention of noncriminal, long-term resident aliens under § 1225(b)(2)(A) without a bond hearing violates the Fifth Amendment. The government must provide a bond hearing within ninety days of detention to determine if continued detention is justified by individualized findings of dangerousness or flight risk. The court affirmed the district courts’ grants of habeas corpus and clarified the scope of its decision to similar aliens detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A). View "Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega" on Justia Law

A Maine Catholic school, the Roman Catholic Diocese that operates it, and parents seeking to send their children there challenged several antidiscrimination provisions in Maine’s Human Rights Act (MHRA). The MHRA applies to schools receiving public tuition assistance and prohibits discrimination based on religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity. St. Dominic Academy, not currently receiving tuition assistance but eligible to do so, argued that these rules would require them to change admissions and employment policies central to their religious mission, including prioritizing Catholic students and requiring conformity with Catholic teachings. The school also objected to policies on gender identity that would compel the school to use students’ preferred pronouns and permit dress consistent with gender identity, potentially over parental objections.The United States District Court for the District of Maine denied St. Dominic’s request for a preliminary injunction, finding the school’s employment practices protected by MHRA carveouts and determining St. Dominic had not shown a likelihood of success on its other claims. The court also denied similar relief in a companion case brought by another religious school, and entered final judgment for the state officials.Reviewing the appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court affirmed that St. Dominic lacked standing to challenge the employment rule, and that the challenges to the religious nondiscrimination and sexual orientation/gender identity rules were unlikely to succeed: these rules are neutral, generally applicable, and rationally related to legitimate state interests. However, the court reversed as to the “Religious Expression Rule,” finding it facially nonneutral and likely unconstitutional under the Free Exercise Clause. The First Circuit ordered entry of a preliminary injunction against enforcement of this rule as applied to St. Dominic. The parental-rights claim was deemed moot and remanded for dismissal. View "St. Dominic Academy v. Makin" on Justia Law

A Christian church in Maine operates a private K–12 school that adheres closely to its religious beliefs, including requiring students and staff to conform to a statement of faith and specific codes of conduct and dress. The school is willing to admit students of any background if their families support its religious philosophy, but it maintains policies that exclude students who are openly gay or transgender and requires employees to be co-religionists. The school sought to participate in Maine’s tuition-assistance program, which allows public funds for private education in certain circumstances, but did not apply because of state nondiscrimination laws it believed would conflict with its religious practices.The United States District Court for the District of Maine denied the school’s motion for a permanent injunction against several provisions of the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA), finding either no case or controversy or no constitutional violation. The case reached the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit after the parties stipulated to final judgment based on the preliminary injunction record, reserving all appellate rights.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed whether the MHRA’s rules on employment, religious expression, religious nondiscrimination, and sexual orientation/gender identity nondiscrimination violate the First Amendment as applied to the school. The court held there was no case or controversy regarding the employment rule due to existing carveouts. It affirmed the district court’s rejection of the school’s challenges to the religious nondiscrimination and sexual orientation/gender identity rules, finding no constitutional violation. However, the court determined that the religious expression rule violates the school’s free-exercise rights and must be enjoined as applied to the school. The judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case was remanded for entry of a permanent injunction against enforcement of the religious expression rule. View "Crosspoint Church v. Makin" on Justia Law

After a late-night police pursuit in Makaha, a white Honda being followed by several Honolulu Police Department officers crashed, causing severe injuries to its young occupants. Officer Joshua Nahulu was alleged to have driven the lead pursuit vehicle, with officers Erik Smith, Jake Ryan Bartolome, and Robert Gus Lewis III following. Witness accounts conflicted on whether police vehicles made physical contact with the Honda. However, an expert found no evidence of such contact. None of the officers stopped to render aid after the crash, and they only returned after other emergency responders had arrived. Nahulu was charged under Hawaiʻi’s “fled scene” statute, which requires a driver “involved in a collision” resulting in serious injury or death to stop and render aid. His co-defendants were charged with hindering prosecution and conspiracy.The Circuit Court of the First Circuit denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss, finding the statute’s language—specifically, “involved in a collision”—was not unconstitutionally vague and that the defendants had sufficient notice of the charges. The court ordered the State to clarify, through a bill of particulars, whether it alleged physical contact between Nahulu’s vehicle and the Honda; the State responded that it did not rely on such a theory.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaiʻi held that Nahulu could only challenge the statute as vague as applied to his conduct, not on its face, since the law does not implicate constitutional rights such as free speech. The court further held that “involved in a collision” is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Nahulu and that the combination of the charging instrument and the bill of particulars provided sufficient notice of the nature and cause of the accusation. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of the motions to dismiss. View "State v. Nahulu" on Justia Law

The case centers on a defendant charged with multiple crimes stemming from a fatal gang-related shooting in Watts, Los Angeles. Two eyewitnesses, one from inside the victim’s car and another from a nearby house, identified the defendant as the shooter or as fleeing the scene. Their identification was primarily based on a photo lineup and their testimony at trial. The first trial ended in a hung jury, but during the retrial, both witnesses added new details, claiming to have told police about key identifying features or sightings soon after the shooting. These statements were contradicted by police interview transcripts, which were not presented at trial.Following the retrial, the defendant was convicted of murder, attempted murder, shooting at an occupied vehicle, and possession of a firearm by a felon. On direct appeal, one attempted murder conviction was reversed, but the rest of the judgment was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal. The defendant filed a habeas corpus petition, alleging that the prosecution allowed false testimony and that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach the witnesses. The Los Angeles County Superior Court denied the petition after an evidentiary hearing, finding the witnesses’ statements to be merely inconsistent, not false. The California Supreme Court then ordered the Court of Appeal to reconsider the habeas petition.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the petition and found that the prosecution failed its constitutional duty to correct false testimony from its witnesses, and defense counsel’s lack of preparation contributed to the use of false evidence. Applying the materiality standard from Napue v. Illinois and Glossip v. Oklahoma, the court held that the People did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the false testimony did not contribute to the conviction. The court granted the writ of habeas corpus, vacated the conviction, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "In re Melson" on Justia Law

After a robbery at a Chinese restaurant owner’s home in South Carolina, three masked men assaulted the family and stole their earnings. The victims could not identify the attackers, and no forensic evidence was left behind. Weeks later, a tip led investigators to three suspects, including K.C. Langford, who was arrested and indicted along with two co-defendants. Langford’s trial was delayed for nearly two years, partly due to difficulties in securing an interpreter for the victims and because one co-defendant, Alvin, initially refused to testify after being pressured by Langford and another defendant. The trial eventually proceeded, with Alvin testifying against Langford. Langford was convicted of criminal conspiracy, armed robbery, first-degree burglary, and kidnapping.After conviction, Langford appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court, which affirmed his convictions. The court found that although the prosecutor’s control over the trial docket violated the state constitution, Langford suffered no prejudice from it. Applying the Barker v. Wingo framework, the court determined the nearly two-year delay did not violate Langford’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, considering the reasons for the delay and lack of prejudice to Langford’s defense. Langford’s postconviction relief application in the Court of Common Pleas was denied, as the court found no ineffective assistance of counsel regarding a hearsay issue in the trial. The South Carolina Court of Appeals denied certiorari. Langford’s co-defendant, Bryan, received postconviction relief in a separate proceeding.Langford then sought federal habeas corpus relief in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, which granted the writ on claims of speedy trial violation and ineffective assistance of counsel. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that the South Carolina courts’ decisions were not unreasonable applications of clearly established federal law nor based on unreasonable factual determinations. The Fourth Circuit ordered reversal of the district court’s grant of habeas corpus. View "Langford v. Stonebreaker" on Justia Law