Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

A citizen-journalist from South Bend, Indiana, challenged the constitutionality of Indiana's "buffer law," which makes it a crime to knowingly or intentionally approach a law enforcement officer within 25 feet after being ordered to stop approaching. The journalist, who records and livestreams police activity, argued that the law violated his First Amendment right to record the police in public spaces. The incident leading to the challenge occurred when the journalist was ordered by police to move back while recording a crime scene, which he complied with under threat of arrest.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana consolidated the journalist's motion for a preliminary injunction with a trial on the merits. The district court found the buffer law constitutional, ruling that it only had an incidental effect on the public's First Amendment rights and served legitimate public safety interests. The court denied the journalist's request for an injunction and entered final judgment for the defendants.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Indiana's buffer law is a content-neutral regulation of the time, place, and manner of expression. It found that the law is narrowly tailored to serve significant government interests, such as officer and bystander safety and the integrity of police investigations, without burdening substantially more speech than necessary. The court also determined that the law leaves open ample alternative channels for communication, as it does not prevent individuals from recording police activity from a reasonable distance. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding the constitutionality of Indiana's buffer law. View "Nicodemus v City of South Bend" on Justia Law

Investigators suspected Lamont Coleman of running a heroin operation from his apartment building in Gary, Indiana. They conducted fourteen controlled drug purchases using confidential informants and undercover officers. Evidence from these buys and surveillance led to a search warrant for Coleman’s apartment and a neighboring house he owned. The search uncovered drugs, money, and firearms, leading to Coleman’s conviction on most counts of the indictment.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana held a Franks hearing and denied Coleman’s motion to suppress evidence, finding sufficient probable cause for the search warrant. At trial, the jury convicted Coleman of being a felon in possession of a firearm, conspiring to distribute heroin, and possessing heroin with intent to distribute. The jury acquitted him of some drug distribution charges and possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute. Coleman was sentenced to 240 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed Coleman’s appeal, which included four claims. Coleman argued that the district court constructively amended his indictment by issuing generic jury instructions, the government withheld exculpatory information, the court improperly excluded an affidavit as evidence, and the court erred in considering acquitted conduct at sentencing. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions on all grounds. The court found no prejudice from the alleged constructive amendment, determined that the new evidence about the surveillance recordings was not material, upheld the exclusion of Leroy Coleman’s affidavit due to its unreliability, and noted that current precedent allows the consideration of acquitted conduct at sentencing. View "USA v Coleman" on Justia Law

Yelp, a company that publishes consumer reviews, introduced a notification on its business pages for crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) in 2022, stating that these centers typically offer limited medical services. After objections from several state Attorneys General, including Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, Yelp replaced the notice with one stating that CPCs do not offer abortions or abortion referrals. Despite this change, Paxton initiated an investigation and sent Yelp a notice of intent to file suit, alleging that the original notice violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices – Consumer Protection Act (DTPA). Yelp then filed a lawsuit in federal court, claiming First Amendment retaliation, and sought to enjoin Paxton from further action. The next day, Paxton filed a state court action against Yelp.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed Yelp’s federal case based on the Younger abstention doctrine, which prevents federal courts from interfering with ongoing state judicial proceedings. The district court found that the requirements for Younger abstention were met and that the bad faith exception did not apply.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that Younger’s bad faith exception did not apply because Yelp had not sufficiently established that the Texas civil enforcement action was brought without a reasonable expectation of obtaining a valid judgment or was facially meritless. The court also found that Yelp failed to show that Paxton’s enforcement action was motivated by a desire to harass or retaliate against Yelp for its support of abortion rights. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying Yelp’s request for discovery and an evidentiary hearing. View "YELP INC. V. PAXTON" on Justia Law

Roberto Felix, Jr., a law enforcement officer, stopped Ashtian Barnes for suspected toll violations. During the stop, Barnes began to drive away, prompting Felix to jump onto the car's doorsill and fire two shots, fatally wounding Barnes. Barnes's mother sued Felix, alleging a violation of Barnes's Fourth Amendment right against excessive force.The District Court granted summary judgment to Felix, applying the Fifth Circuit’s “moment-of-threat” rule, which focuses solely on whether the officer was in danger at the precise moment deadly force was used. The court found that Felix could have reasonably believed he was in danger during the two seconds he was on the doorsill of the moving car. The Court of Appeals affirmed, adhering to the same rule and limiting its analysis to the final moments before the shooting.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that the “moment-of-threat” rule improperly narrows the Fourth Amendment analysis. The Court emphasized that the reasonableness of police force must be assessed based on the “totality of the circumstances,” which includes events leading up to the use of force. The Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the lower courts to consider the entire context of the incident, not just the final moments. View "Barnes v. Felix" on Justia Law

David Nutter was indicted in August 2021 for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), which prohibits individuals with convictions for misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence from possessing firearms or ammunition. Nutter had three prior convictions in Ohio for domestic violence and child endangerment. He acknowledged possessing firearms and did not dispute his prior convictions but moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that § 922(g)(9) violated the Second Amendment.The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia denied Nutter's motion, applying the means-end analysis from District of Columbia v. Heller. Nutter entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion. After the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, which rejected the means-end analysis, Nutter filed a second motion to dismiss, arguing that § 922(g)(9) was unconstitutional under the new framework. The district court again denied the motion, concluding that § 922(g)(9) was consistent with the Nation's history and tradition of disarming individuals deemed a threat to public safety.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that § 922(g)(9) is facially constitutional, finding that it fits within the historical tradition of disarming individuals who pose a credible threat to the physical safety of others. The court noted that the statute's purpose and method align with historical analogues, such as surety and going armed laws, which were designed to mitigate demonstrated threats of physical violence. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Nutter's motion to dismiss the indictment and upheld his conviction. View "United States v. Nutter" on Justia Law

Speech First, Incorporated, challenged Texas State University's harassment policy, arguing it violated the First Amendment. The policy prohibited "unwelcome verbal" or "written conduct" without defining these terms, potentially stifling speech on sensitive topics like abortion, immigration, and gender identity. Speech First claimed the policy targeted politically disfavored speech, causing students to self-censor.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas acknowledged the policy's First Amendment issues but refused to issue a preliminary injunction. Instead, it pressured the University to amend the policy. The University reluctantly complied, and the district court dismissed Speech First's motion as moot, believing the policy change resolved the issue.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. It disagreed with the lower court's ruling that the policy change rendered the request for a preliminary injunction moot. The appellate court noted that voluntary cessation of allegedly illegal conduct does not moot a case unless it is absolutely clear the behavior will not recur. The court found that Texas State's policy change, made under judicial pressure, did not meet this stringent standard. The University continued to defend the original policy, and there was no controlling statement ensuring the policy would not revert.The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's decision and remanded the case for further consideration of the motion for preliminary injunctive relief. View "Speech First v. McCall" on Justia Law

Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and other appellants challenged the constitutionality of the 2023 South Carolina Fetal Heartbeat and Protection from Abortion Act. The Act prohibits most abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected, which the appellants argued occurs only after approximately nine weeks of pregnancy. The State contended that a fetal heartbeat is detectable at approximately six weeks of pregnancy.The federal district court initially enjoined the 2021 version of the Act, but the injunction was lifted following the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The South Carolina Supreme Court later declared the 2021 Act unconstitutional under the state constitution. In response, the General Assembly revised the Act in 2023, maintaining the same definition of "fetal heartbeat." The circuit court ruled in favor of the State, and Planned Parenthood appealed.The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's decision, holding that the term "fetal heartbeat" refers to the detection of cardiac activity, which can be identified by medical professionals using diagnostic technology such as a transvaginal ultrasound. The Court determined that this cardiac activity typically occurs at approximately six weeks of pregnancy. The Court's interpretation was based on legislative history, medical evidence, and statutory construction principles, concluding that the General Assembly intended to ban most abortions at this early stage of pregnancy. View "Planned Parenthood v. South Carolina" on Justia Law

Grant Gambaiani was sentenced to 34 years in prison after being found guilty by an Illinois jury of multiple crimes, including the repeated sexual assault of his minor cousin, D.G. During the trial, the courtroom was partially closed during D.G.'s testimony, which Gambaiani argued violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed his conviction, and the Supreme Court of Illinois denied review. Gambaiani then sought postconviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations, but the state courts denied relief.Gambaiani filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court, claiming violations of his constitutional rights to a public trial and effective assistance of counsel. The district court denied his petition. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the Illinois Appellate Court's conclusion that Gambaiani waived his right to a public trial by failing to object to the partial closure was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. The court also found that the partial closure of the courtroom during D.G.'s testimony did not violate Gambaiani's Sixth Amendment right. Additionally, the Seventh Circuit upheld the state court's determination that Gambaiani's attorneys provided effective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations, as the state court's credibility determinations were reasonable and supported by the record. View "Gambaiani v Greene" on Justia Law

Theresa Brooke, a woman with disabilities who uses a wheelchair, visited the Ramada by Wyndham Burbank Airport hotel in August 2023. She alleged that architectural barriers at the hotel deterred her from entering. Brooke sued the hotel's owner, Tsay JBR, LLC, for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. She sought injunctive relief under the ADA and statutory damages under the Unruh Act.The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted partial summary judgment in favor of Brooke, finding that Tsay JBR had violated the ADA due to the lack of an access aisle in the hotel's passenger loading zone. This ADA violation also constituted a violation of the Unruh Act. However, the court found that there was a factual issue regarding whether Brooke personally encountered the violation or was deterred by it, which is necessary for statutory damages under the Unruh Act. The district court scheduled a bench trial, concluding that the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial did not apply to claims for statutory damages under the Unruh Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and granted Tsay JBR's petition for a writ of mandamus. The Ninth Circuit held that the Seventh Amendment entitles parties in federal court to a jury trial on claims for statutory damages under section 52(a) of the Unruh Act. The court determined that Brooke's claim was legal in nature, both in terms of its historical analog to 18th-century English public accommodations law and the punitive and deterrent nature of the statutory damages sought. The court directed the district court to set the matter for a jury trial. View "TSAY JBR LLC V. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA" on Justia Law

David Samuel Crawford and A.L. ended their four-year relationship in 2018. Despite A.L.'s firm decision to end the relationship, Crawford persistently contacted, surveilled, and approached her for over four years. His actions included calling, emailing, texting, messaging on social media, contacting her friends and family, sending letters and gifts to her workplace, and showing up uninvited at her home. A.L. reported serious emotional distress due to Crawford's conduct, but law enforcement determined there was no imminent threat of harm as Crawford's actions did not include true threats.The Jefferson County District Court charged Crawford with two counts of stalking under section 18-3-602(1)(c), C.R.S. (2024). The prosecution sought to introduce evidence of Crawford's repeated contacts with A.L. Crawford challenged the charges, arguing they violated the First Amendment based on the precedent set in Counterman v. Colorado. The district court concluded that the prosecution needed to prove Crawford had recklessly disregarded that his repeated contacts would cause A.L. serious emotional distress.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and held that stalking charges based on repeated actions, including contacts but not their contents, do not require proof of a reckless state of mind. The court reversed the district court's order expanding Counterman's holding and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court clarified that Counterman's recklessness mens rea requirement applies only to true-threats cases based on the content of speech, not to cases involving repeated, unwelcome, and content-neutral conduct. View "People v. Crawford" on Justia Law