Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The case concerns a California statute that makes it a crime to knowingly file a false allegation of police misconduct and requires complainants to sign an advisory warning of potential criminal liability before their complaint is accepted. The Los Angeles Police Protective League sought an injunction compelling the City of Los Angeles to enforce this advisory requirement. The City had previously entered into a consent decree with the federal government prohibiting enforcement of the advisory, and even after the consent decree expired, continued not to require the advisory due to concerns about the statute’s constitutionality.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, relying on the California Supreme Court’s earlier decision in People v. Stanistreet, granted the injunction and ordered the City to require the statutory advisory. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, adhering to Stanistreet’s reasoning that had upheld the statute’s constitutionality. The City then petitioned to the Supreme Court of California, arguing that subsequent federal decisions—especially Chaker v. Crogan by the Ninth Circuit—cast serious doubt on the continuing validity of Stanistreet and the constitutionality of the statute.Reviewing the case, the Supreme Court of California reconsidered its prior Stanistreet decision in light of more recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings, including United States v. Alvarez and Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton. The court held that the statutory scheme—combining criminal penalties with a mandatory and prominently worded advisory—created a consequential risk of chilling truthful or well-intentioned complaints of police misconduct. The court concluded that this risk triggered heightened constitutional scrutiny under the First Amendment. The statute failed intermediate scrutiny because it was not narrowly tailored and burdened substantially more speech than necessary to serve the state’s legitimate interests. The court therefore reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal. View "L.A. Police Protective League v. City of L.A." on Justia Law

A worker was severely injured while operating a bulldozer during a nighttime firefighting operation on a fire line managed by the Oregon Department of Forestry. At the time, he was employed by a private company under contract with the state and received workers’ compensation benefits for his injuries. He also filed a lawsuit alleging that two state employees supervising the site had negligently directed operations, resulting in his injuries. The complaint sought damages from the employees and the State of Oregon, which was alleged to be vicariously liable.The Jackson County Circuit Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against the individual state employees based on a provision of the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.265(3), making the state the sole defendant. The court also dismissed the claims against the state under ORS 30.265(6)(a), which grants immunity to public bodies and their employees against tort claims when the injured party is covered by workers’ compensation. However, the court allowed the plaintiff’s wife’s loss of consortium claim to proceed. On appeal, the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that the statutory immunity barred the plaintiff’s claims and did not violate the remedy clause of the Oregon Constitution.The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon reviewed the case and reversed the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the circuit court. The court held that the statutory immunity provision in ORS 30.265(6)(a), which entirely bars a common-law negligence action by a privately employed worker injured by a negligent state employee, exceeds the limits imposed by Article I, section 10, of the Oregon Constitution. The court concluded that this statutory immunity unconstitutionally denies such injured persons a substantive right to a remedy by due course of law and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Crandall v. State of Oregon" on Justia Law

Daniel Gantnier was convicted by a jury in 2006 of unlawful sexual contact, a sex offense that, under Maine law at the time, required lifetime registration as a sex offender. However, when the court imposed his sentence in 2007, the judgment and commitment form mistakenly indicated that he was obligated to register for only ten years instead of life. After Gantnier completed the ten-year term, the State Bureau of Identification reviewed his case, identified the error, and in 2019 notified him that his registration requirement was corrected to require lifetime registration. Gantnier did not comply with this requirement, and in 2022 the State charged him with failure to comply with the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act of 1999 (SORNA of 1999).Following his not guilty plea, Gantnier moved to dismiss the complaint in the trial court (Kennebec County), arguing that retroactively imposing a lifetime registration requirement violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution and that the State’s correction should have been pursued under Rule 35(a), which governs correction of illegal sentences. The trial court (Daniel Mitchell, J.) denied his motion, finding that, due to a 2004 legislative amendment, SORNA of 1999 registration was not part of a criminal sentence for offenses like Gantnier’s. The court found that the correction was regulatory, not punitive, and thus not subject to ex post facto protections. After his motion for reconsideration was also denied, Gantnier entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal.On appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and affirmed the judgment. The Court held that because Gantnier’s registration requirement was not part of his sentence, the retroactive correction to lifetime registration did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. The Court also determined that the State acted properly under 34-A M.R.S. § 11222(1), and was not required to proceed under Rule 35(a). The judgment was affirmed. View "State of Maine v. Gantnier" on Justia Law

Police officers encountered a man at a playground in a public park while he was with his daughter and partner. The officers were conducting a patrol and had observed a group they suspected of smoking marijuana. The man had walked away from the group to rejoin his family. Five armed, uniformed officers approached and encircled him, with two officers standing within arm's reach and three others positioned nearby. One officer asked if the man had a firearm, and he admitted that he did; officers then frisked him and recovered a gun from his waistband.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia held a hearing on a motion to suppress the firearm. The trial court found that the defendant was not seized until after he admitted to possessing a firearm and officers physically restrained him. The court emphasized the officers’ cordial tone, the brief nature of the encounter, and the public setting, and denied the motion to suppress. The case proceeded to trial, and a jury convicted the defendant of unlawful possession of a firearm, carrying a pistol without a license, and possession of an unregistered firearm.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case. It held that the defendant was seized for Fourth Amendment purposes before he admitted to possessing a firearm—specifically, when five officers encircled and focused exclusively on him, blocking his exits and asking accusatory questions. The court concluded that this seizure was unsupported by reasonable articulable suspicion and thus unlawful. It reversed all convictions, holding that the firearm should have been suppressed as the fruit of the unlawful seizure, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Ervin v. United States" on Justia Law

In July 2023, law enforcement responded to an incident in which James Jacobs allegedly discharged a firearm during a dispute with his girlfriend at his home. During a subsequent search, officers discovered two firearms. Jacobs, who has a prior felony conviction and a previous misdemeanor conviction for domestic battery in West Virginia, admitted to knowing he was prohibited from possessing firearms. As a result, a grand jury in the Northern District of West Virginia indicted him for possessing firearms after a felony conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and after a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence under § 922(g)(9).The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia granted Jacobs’ motion to dismiss both counts of the indictment. The district court, employing the framework from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, found that the government failed to demonstrate a historical tradition of disarming individuals like Jacobs—nonviolent felons and domestic violence offenders. The court concluded that both statutes were unconstitutional as applied to Jacobs and dismissed the charges without reaching the facial challenges.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s rulings de novo. The Fourth Circuit held that recent decisions—including United States v. Rahimi, United States v. Canada, United States v. Hunt, and United States v. Nutter—foreclose Jacobs’ facial and as-applied challenges to § 922(g)(1) and his facial challenge to § 922(g)(9). Accordingly, the court reversed the district court’s dismissal of the § 922(g)(1) charge and barred Jacobs from reviving those challenges. However, the Fourth Circuit determined that further proceedings were necessary regarding Jacobs’ as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(9), vacated the district court’s ruling on that count, and remanded for additional factfinding and analysis. View "United States v. Jacobs" on Justia Law

A telehealth company developed software that enables individuals to determine their refractive eye error using a computer or smartphone without an in-person visit to an optometrist or ophthalmologist. This technology, approved by the FDA and available in many states, was offered in South Carolina until the enactment of the Eye Care Consumer Protection Law in 2016. The law prohibits eye doctors from prescribing spectacles or contact lenses based solely on information from automated equipment, including kiosks or online applications, and requires a valid prescription from a provider following an in-person examination.After the law was enacted, the company ceased providing its service in South Carolina, as local eye doctors were no longer willing to issue prescriptions based solely on remote test results. The company challenged the constitutionality of the law, arguing it violated equal protection and due process guarantees under the South Carolina Constitution. The Circuit Court for Richland County initially granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding the law’s purpose was to protect public health and that its provisions were reasonably related to maintaining the standard of care for medical professionals.Upon direct appeal, the Supreme Court of South Carolina reviewed the case. The Court applied the rational basis test and held that the legislature’s decision to require in-person examinations before prescribing corrective lenses was rationally related to the legitimate government interest of protecting public health. The Court found the classification created by the Act was reasonable and did not violate equal protection, as it treated similarly situated eye doctors alike and addressed unique risks in eye care. The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment, upholding the constitutionality of the law. View "Opternative v. South Carolina Optometric Physicians Association" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was convicted of felony murder and other offenses stemming from the shooting death of an individual in a parking garage following a dice game. The prosecution’s evidence indicated that the victim and another person were targeted for robbery by a group, including the defendant, after a dispute over gambling losses. Testimony from a co-defendant described the planning and execution of the crime, corroborated by cell phone records, surveillance footage, and forensic evidence. The defendant admitted to being present at the scene but denied active participation in the robbery.The case was initially indicted by a Fulton County grand jury, charging the defendant and four co-defendants with multiple counts. Two co-defendants pleaded guilty, while the defendant and two others were tried jointly before a jury in the Superior Court of Fulton County. The defendant was acquitted of malice murder but convicted on the remaining counts. He was sentenced to life in prison for felony murder, plus additional concurrent and consecutive terms for other offenses. The defendant filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied after an evidentiary hearing.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed several claims, including sufficiency of the evidence, alleged due process violations regarding co-defendants’ plea deals, the accuracy of jury instructions, and the denial of severance. The Court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, found no due process violations in the prosecution’s handling of co-defendants’ plea deals, concluded that the jury instructions were proper when viewed in totality, and determined that severance was not required. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the defendant’s convictions. View "WELLS v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault in the first degree and risk of injury to a child, stemming from multiple incidents of sexual abuse against two minor victims who attended an in-home day care operated by the defendant’s wife in New Haven. The alleged abuse occurred between 2007 and 2012, when the victims were approximately three to eight years old. Each count of sexual assault was predicated on multiple, separate instances of specific sexual acts committed by the defendant. Following police investigations in 2019 and subsequent arrest in 2020, the defendant was tried on these charges.At trial in the Superior Court for the judicial district of New Haven, the prosecution presented evidence of several distinct incidents of sexual abuse. The trial judge provided the jury with a specific unanimity instruction for each count, requiring jurors to unanimously agree that the defendant committed at least one specific instance of the charged conduct in order to find him guilty on any particular count. The jury found the defendant guilty on all counts of sexual assault and risk of injury to a child, and the court sentenced him to a total effective sentence of twenty-five years, with execution suspended after twenty-one years and ten years of probation.On direct appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court, the defendant argued that his federal constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict was violated because the trial court did not require the jury to answer special interrogatories regarding unanimity on each alleged incident, despite providing proper unanimity instructions. The Connecticut Supreme Court held that the constitution does not require special interrogatories in addition to specific unanimity instructions for counts charging multiple instances of conduct. The court affirmed the judgments of conviction. View "State v. Carlos G." on Justia Law

A police officer in Peoria, Illinois, encountered a parked vehicle in a closed, dark parking lot at around 2:45 a.m. Inside the vehicle were Dazmine Erving and a female companion. The officer observed Erving make a sudden movement that appeared to be an attempt to hide something, smelled burnt cannabis, and noticed the woman provided false identification information. The officer determined that Erving was on federal supervised release for a weapons offense, only twelve days into his release. After allowing both individuals to retrieve their belongings, the officer conducted a limited search under the driver’s seat, where he discovered a handgun. Erving admitted ownership of the firearm.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois reviewed Erving’s motion to suppress the firearm, arguing the search was not justified under the Fourth Amendment. The district court found the officer’s testimony credible and held that, considering the totality of circumstances—furtive movement, odor of cannabis, Erving’s criminal history, and his companion’s false statements—a protective search was warranted. Erving’s motion to suppress was denied. He then pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a felon and admitted to violating supervised release; the court sentenced him to the upper range of the advisory Guidelines and imposed a consecutive sentence for the supervised release violation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court found the protective search justified under the Fourth Amendment, as the officer had reasonable suspicion that Erving was dangerous and could gain immediate access to a weapon. The appellate court also rejected Erving’s arguments regarding procedural and constitutional errors at sentencing, concluding the district court did not rely on impermissible factors or speculation in imposing sentence. The denial of the suppression motion and the sentencing decision were affirmed. View "United States v. Erving" on Justia Law

Raymond Richardson was indicted for first-degree robbery under West Virginia law, specifically charged with using the threat of deadly force against Denise Cool to steal money. However, at trial, the prosecution presented evidence that Richardson accomplished the robbery by physically assaulting Cool rather than by threatening her with a deadly weapon. Richardson admitted to hitting Cool but denied taking her money. The jury found him guilty of first-degree robbery, assault during the commission of a felony, and possession with intent to deliver cocaine. The central issue on appeal concerned the alleged variance between the indictment and the State’s theory at trial.Following his conviction, Richardson sought post-conviction relief in state court, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the variance between the indictment and the evidence presented at trial. At an evidentiary hearing, Richardson and his trial counsel testified. Counsel acknowledged missing the indictment’s specific language but stated that the variance did not affect the defense strategy, which was focused on denying any theft rather than disputing the manner in which the robbery was committed. The state court denied habeas relief, finding Richardson had sufficient notice of the charges and was not prejudiced by the variance. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the difference between the indictment and trial evidence did not mislead Richardson or prejudice his defense.On federal habeas review, the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia denied Richardson’s petition, finding he received adequate notice under the Fourteenth Amendment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that the variance did not violate due process because Richardson was convicted of the offense charged, had actual notice of the evidence to be presented, and failed to show that the variance hindered his defense. The court found no ineffective assistance of counsel or prejudice and affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief. View "Richardson v. Frame" on Justia Law