Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

In May 1979, a six-year-old boy disappeared in Manhattan after stopping at a bodega where Pedro Hernandez worked. The case remained unsolved until 2012, when Hernandez, who had a low IQ and a history of mental illness, confessed multiple times to the crime following police questioning—initially without Miranda warnings and later after receiving them. Hernandez was charged with murder and kidnapping in New York. At trial, after a first mistrial, he moved to suppress his confessions, but the trial court found he was not in custody before receiving Miranda warnings and that he had knowingly waived his rights before later confessions. The trial court instructed the jury on voluntariness and Miranda but, consistent with New York law, did not instruct the jury to determine whether subsequent confessions were tainted by an initial, possibly involuntary confession.The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the conviction, agreeing that the confessions were admissible and the jury instructions proper under state law. The court also found that any failure to instruct on attenuation was harmless. The New York Court of Appeals denied further review.Hernandez sought federal habeas relief, arguing the trial court should have instructed the jury on the attenuation issue, citing Missouri v. Seibert. The U.S. District Court denied relief, finding no clearly established federal law requiring such an instruction. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on attenuation violated federal law as articulated in Seibert and was not harmless error.The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the Second Circuit, holding that no clearly established federal law required the trial court to instruct the jury about attenuation under Seibert. The Court concluded that the Second Circuit exceeded its authority under AEDPA, as Seibert did not address jury instructions and only governs judicial suppression determinations. The judgment was reversed and remanded. View "McCarthy v. Hernandez" on Justia Law

The case centers on Tyler Jon Taker, a resident of Maine, who became subject to a state court order for protection from abuse, which he agreed to. This order prohibited him from possessing firearms and certain other weapons until March 22, 2026. While the protective order was in effect, Taker applied for a concealed handgun permit, but his application was denied by the local police chief due to the existence of the order. Taker then filed a federal lawsuit against various federal, state, and local officials, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from federal and state statutes that prohibit individuals with certain convictions or protective orders from possessing firearms. He also sought damages against the police chief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the denial of his concealed carry permit.The United States District Court for the District of Maine dismissed Taker’s claims. The court found that Taker was not a law-abiding citizen due to his prior felony drug conviction and that the statutes prohibiting his possession of firearms were consistent with historical tradition and thus constitutional. The District Court did not specify whether it dismissed for failure to state a claim or lack of subject matter jurisdiction but appeared to rule on the merits. Taker appealed this dismissal.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Taker lacked Article III standing to pursue declaratory and injunctive relief because the protective order itself independently barred him from possessing firearms, so the relief sought would not redress his alleged injury. As for the damages claim against the police chief, the court found that the chief was entitled to qualified immunity because Taker’s constitutional rights were not clearly established in this context. The First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the damages claim, vacated the dismissal of the declaratory and injunctive claims, and remanded with instructions to dismiss those claims for lack of jurisdiction. View "Taker v. Blanche" on Justia Law

The case centers on a lawsuit filed by the Attorney General of Florida against the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and other organizations, alleging that their advocacy for gender-affirming care violated several Florida statutes, including the state's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, RICO Act, and antitrust law. The Florida enforcement action targeted AAP's policy statements and legal filings that supported access to gender-affirming care for transgender youth, with the Attorney General seeking significant monetary penalties and organizational restrictions. Although the lawsuit was publicized, there was a three-month delay before the organizations were served.Following the initiation of the Florida state court action, AAP, an Illinois nonprofit, filed a separate suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. AAP claimed that the Florida enforcement proceeding was brought in bad faith to retaliate against its First Amendment–protected advocacy. The district court granted a preliminary injunction to prevent the Florida Attorney General from pursuing the enforcement action against AAP and denied the Attorney General’s motion to dismiss, finding that personal jurisdiction and venue in Illinois were supported, and that the facts suggested the Florida action was brought in bad faith.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed only whether to stay the district court’s injunction during the expedited appeal. The Seventh Circuit denied the motion for a stay, holding that the Attorney General did not make a strong showing of likely success on the merits or irreparable harm. The court found that the bad-faith exception to Younger abstention applied based on the district court’s factual findings, and that jurisdiction and venue in Illinois were appropriate given the circumstances. The injunction against the Florida enforcement action remains in effect pending appeal. View "American Academy of Pediatrics v Uthmeier" on Justia Law

After serving a prison sentence for conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, the defendant began a term of supervised release, which included a condition that he refrain from any use of alcohol. The defendant, who is a practicing Messianic Jew, asked the court to modify this condition to allow him to drink a glass of wine during religious ceremonies on his Sabbath, arguing that the complete alcohol ban violated his rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and imposed a greater deprivation of liberty than necessary under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The defendant had a lengthy history of alcohol abuse intertwined with criminal behavior, including prior convictions related to intoxication and repeated violations of probation and supervised release conditions. Medical reports and court findings noted his inability to control alcohol consumption and recommended complete abstinence.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois denied the defendant’s motion to modify the supervised release condition. The court found that the government had a compelling interest in prohibiting the defendant from consuming alcohol entirely, given his history of rapid escalation from initial drinking to dangerous behavior. The court also found that alternatives—such as monitoring with breathalyzers—were not feasible for ensuring compliance and public safety, and therefore, a total ban was the least restrictive means to further the government’s interests.Reviewing the case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Seventh Circuit held that, under RFRA, the complete alcohol ban was the least restrictive means to further the government’s compelling interests in public safety, rehabilitation, and preventing recidivism, given the defendant’s history. The court also held that the condition did not involve a greater deprivation of liberty than necessary under § 3553(a). The district court’s denial of the motion to modify supervised release was affirmed. View "USA v Broadfield" on Justia Law

A utility company, Southern California Gas (SoCalGas), entered into a 2022 franchise agreement with the City of Los Angeles, allowing it to install, maintain, and operate its natural gas system under city streets. In exchange, SoCalGas agreed to pay the City a franchise fee equal to 5.5% of its gross receipts from natural gas sales within the City. Of this, 3.5% was passed to SoCalGas customers as a surcharge, which was later approved by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The franchise agreement was adopted after extensive, arm’s-length negotiations and CPUC review.A putative class action was filed by a customer, alleging that the surcharge component of the franchise fee constituted an unlawful tax under article XIII C of the California Constitution because it was not submitted for voter approval. The plaintiff argued the fee should have been apportioned between charges for physical use of city property and charges for the general business privilege, with the latter portion requiring voter approval. The Superior Court for Los Angeles County granted summary judgment for the City, finding the franchise fee, including the surcharge, exempt from voter approval as a charge for the use of local government property under section 1, subdivision (e)(4) of article XIII C.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The Court held that the franchise fee, including the portion passed through as a surcharge, was not a tax within the meaning of article XIII C, section 1, subdivision (e)(4), because it was compensation for the use of city property and not subject to voter approval. The Court further held that the fee did not need to be apportioned or shown to be reasonably related to the value of the franchise, but found that, even if such a requirement existed, the City met it through bona fide negotiations. View "Nguyen v. City of L.A." on Justia Law

Eight Massachusetts voters challenged the Attorney General’s summary of an initiative petition proposing a reduction of the state personal income tax rate from 5% to 4%. The summary stated that the proposed law would lower the tax rates on (1) personal taxable income consisting of interest and dividends, and (2) personal taxable income “other than interest, dividends or capital gain income, such as wages and salaries.” The plaintiffs argued that this language incorrectly informed voters that the long-term capital gains tax rate would remain unchanged, when in fact the petition would also lower that rate due to the way current law links the tax rate for most long-term capital gains to the rate for other income.After the Attorney General certified the petition and issued the summary, proponents collected over 85,000 signatures. The Secretary of the Commonwealth confirmed the required signatures and transmitted the petition to the House of Representatives. The plaintiffs then filed this action in the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, seeking a declaration that the summary was unfair under Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution, and to enjoin the Secretary from placing the petition on the ballot. The proponents intervened, and the case was reserved and reported to the full Supreme Judicial Court on stipulated facts.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the Attorney General’s summary was not “fair” as required by Article 48 because it materially misstated the effect of the proposed law by excluding the reduction in the long-term capital gains tax rate, which would occur under current law. The Court concluded that this was not a minor omission but a significantly misleading statement likely to affect voters’ understanding. The Court ordered that the petition could not appear on the 2026 Statewide election ballot and remanded for entry of judgment enjoining the Secretary from placing the measure on the ballot. View "Finfer v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The case concerns a challenge to temporary closures of Boca Chica Beach in Cameron County, Texas, which were authorized to accommodate nearby rocket launches by SpaceX. Plaintiffs, several nonprofit organizations, alleged that the closures interfered with their members’ right to access the beach, a right protected under the Texas Constitution and the Open Beaches Act. They sought declaratory relief, claiming that the statutes permitting these closures conflicted with Article I, Section 33 of the Texas Constitution, which guarantees public access to Texas beaches.The respondents originally filed suit in district court against the Texas General Land Office, its commissioner, Cameron County, and the Texas Attorney General. The defendants responded with pleas to the jurisdiction, arguing that the plaintiffs, as private parties, lacked standing and that the governmental defendants were immune from suit because Section 33(d) of the Texas Constitution expressly states it does not create a private right of enforcement. The trial court agreed and dismissed the suit with prejudice. The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas reversed, holding that at least one plaintiff had standing, and concluded that it was not necessary to determine whether the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims were facially valid before deciding the question of immunity.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that Article I, Section 33(d) of the Texas Constitution precludes private enforcement of the public’s right of access to beaches, limiting enforcement authority to governmental actors. Because the claims were brought solely by private parties, they were deemed facially invalid, and the governmental defendants’ immunity from suit remained intact. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. View "PAXTON v. SaveRGV" on Justia Law

Several property owners in New Braunfels, Texas, challenged a city zoning ordinance that prohibits short-term rentals in residential districts. The ordinance, originally enacted in 2006 and amended in 2011, was in place prior to the appellants’ purchase of their properties. Despite knowing about the restrictions, the appellants either engaged in or sought to engage in short-term rental activities and, after being denied zoning changes to permit such use, filed suit against the city. Their claims alleged the ordinance violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of both the United States and Texas Constitutions.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas initially dismissed the appellants’ claims under Rule 12(b)(6). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in a prior decision, vacated and remanded, allowing the appellants to proceed to discovery. After discovery, both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court again ruled in favor of the city, granting summary judgment on all claims. The appellants then sought review of this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that Texas law does not recognize a protected property interest in the right to lease one’s home on a short-term basis, which is required for a due process claim. It further found that the ordinance’s restrictions on short-term rentals survive rational-basis review under the Equal Protection Clause, as the city’s goal of preserving the residential character of neighborhoods is a legitimate government interest, and the line drawn between short-term and longer-term rentals was not arbitrary. Accordingly, the court found no constitutional violation and affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the city. View "Marfil v. City of New Braunfels" on Justia Law

After law enforcement arrested the defendant for unlawfully discharging a firearm, they executed a search warrant at his home. During the search, officers seized multiple firearms, suspected silencers, and other related paraphernalia. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives evaluated the items and determined the suspected silencers met the statutory definition of devices designed for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a firearm. The defendant admitted to manufacturing and possessing the silencers.A federal grand jury charged the defendant with possession of unregistered firearms, specifically silencers, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), and possession of a firearm without a serial number under 26 U.S.C. § 5861(i). He moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that both statutes violated the Second Amendment facially and as applied to him. The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana denied the motion, finding silencers to be “dangerous and unusual weapons” not protected by the Second Amendment. The defendant then entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the constitutional issue, and was sentenced to twenty-four months in prison and three years of supervised release.Reviewing the appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit applied de novo review to the preserved constitutional questions. The court acknowledged that, per Supreme Court precedent, silencers qualify as Second Amendment “Arms.” However, in light of United States v. Peterson, 161 F.4th 331 (5th Cir. 2025), the Fifth Circuit held that the National Firearms Act’s shall-issue regime for silencer registration is presumptively lawful unless a challenger shows it has been put toward abusive ends, such as through exorbitant fees or lengthy delays. Because the defendant did not allege such abuse, the court held that § 5861(d) did not violate his Second Amendment rights and affirmed the conviction. View "USA v. Comeaux" on Justia Law

The case concerns a challenge to Ohio’s Parental Notification by Social Media Operators Act, which requires operators of certain social media platforms to obtain verifiable parental consent before unemancipated children under sixteen can enter into contracts to use their services. The Act defines covered operators based on features such as enabling social interaction, profile creation, and content sharing, and details factors to determine whether a site targets or is likely to be accessed by minors. The law imposes civil penalties for non-compliance and grants enforcement authority to the Ohio Attorney General.When the Act was set to take effect, NetChoice, LLC—a trade association representing major online platforms—sued the Ohio Attorney General in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. NetChoice argued the Act was unconstitutional on First Amendment and vagueness grounds, asserting that it would chill protected speech and was impermissibly vague about which platforms were covered. The district court agreed, finding that NetChoice had standing, that the Act was a facially unconstitutional content-based restriction on speech that failed strict scrutiny, and that it was unconstitutionally vague. The court permanently enjoined enforcement of the Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that NetChoice lacked third-party standing to assert the First Amendment rights of its members’ minor users due to a conflict of interest between the trade group and the affected minors. The court further found that, even considering NetChoice’s own First Amendment and vagueness claims, NetChoice failed to show the Act was facially unconstitutional. The Sixth Circuit held that the Act, while content-based and subject to strict scrutiny, was narrowly tailored to compelling state interests in protecting children and was not impermissibly vague in all its applications. The case was remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the Attorney General. View "NetChoice, LLC v. Yost" on Justia Law