Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

A fire captain who served as vice president of a local firefighters’ union was also a member of the Jefferson Parish Fire Civil Service Board. The union previously paid for legal counsel for members appearing before the Civil Service Board, but stopped doing so after the Louisiana Board of Ethics issued an advisory opinion, and later a binding declaratory opinion, stating that such payments violated Louisiana law while any union officer served on the board. The union challenged the Board of Ethics’ interpretation in state court, arguing that it misapplied state law, and then filed a federal lawsuit claiming this restriction violated its First Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted the union a preliminary injunction on First Amendment grounds, preventing enforcement of the ethics board’s opinion against the union. The district court also declined to abstain under the doctrines established in Younger v. Harris and Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co. The Louisiana defendants appealed, arguing the district court should have abstained and that granting the injunction was an abuse of discretion. While the appeal was pending, all relevant state court proceedings concluded, and, just before oral argument, the fire captain resigned from the Civil Service Board.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the case was moot due to the resignation, as neither party retained a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. The court determined that no live controversy remained, rejected arguments that mootness exceptions applied, and ruled that the appeal and the entire case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The court vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss the case. View "Jefferson Parish Firefighters Association, Local 1374 v. Roberts" on Justia Law

A West Virginia defendant was indicted in 2018 on multiple sexual offense charges involving a seven-year-old girl. Prior to trial, the court granted the defendant’s motions to exclude a video interview of the victim and records from her therapy sessions, limiting both the State and the defense from introducing certain hearsay evidence. During opening statements at the first trial, defense counsel referenced specific statements made by the victim in the excluded materials, suggesting an alternative perpetrator. The State objected after the opening statements, arguing that the defense had violated pretrial evidentiary rulings. The trial court found that the defense’s actions had gone “far afield” of its orders and, over the defendant’s objection, granted the State’s motion for a mistrial.The defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds, arguing that the mistrial was not required by “manifest necessity.” The trial court denied the motion, finding that the defense had created the necessity for a mistrial. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia later affirmed, holding that the defendant’s right against double jeopardy was not violated because defense counsel’s conduct in opening statement created a manifest necessity for the mistrial. The defendant subsequently filed a federal habeas petition in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, which granted relief, concluding that the defense had not violated any pretrial orders and that manifest necessity was lacking.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment. The Fourth Circuit held that, under the highly deferential standard of review required by AEDPA, the state court’s conclusion that manifest necessity justified the mistrial was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent. The case was remanded with instructions to deny the habeas petition. View "Wood v. Straughn" on Justia Law

New Jersey enacted laws that ban the possession of so-called “assault firearms”—including a list of over thirty models and types of semi-automatic rifles, such as the AR-15, and any firearm “substantially identical” to those listed—as well as laws restricting possession of “large capacity ammunition magazines” (LCMs), defined as magazines holding more than ten rounds. The statutes contain narrow exemptions, mostly for military, police, and certain target-shooting purposes, but in practice, they amount to a near-total prohibition on civilian possession of these weapons and magazines. Gun owners and advocacy groups challenged both sets of laws under the Second Amendment, and one group also raised a Takings Clause claim after New Jersey amended the LCM law in 2018 to further reduce the permitted capacity.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey consolidated three related lawsuits and ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment. The District Court found New Jersey’s ban on the Colt AR-15 unconstitutional under the Second Amendment but upheld the LCM restrictions and rejected the Takings Clause challenge. The plaintiffs and the State appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting en banc, applied the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment framework from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen and related cases. The Third Circuit held that the Second Amendment protects possession of semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines, as both are “in common use for lawful purposes.” The court concluded New Jersey’s ban on semi-automatic rifles and its LCM restrictions are inconsistent with the Nation’s tradition of firearm regulation and thus violate the Second Amendment. The court modified the District Court’s order to invalidate the ban as to all semi-automatic rifles, reversed the ruling upholding the LCM provisions, and remanded for further proceedings, including as to other weapons regulated by the statutes. View "Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs I v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

A property in Hollis was owned by a trust with Wisarat Manutsom as trustee. The trustee, often traveling abroad, provided various mailing addresses—including in California, Manchester (New Hampshire), and later Maine—as well as an email address, to the town for tax-related correspondence. Mark Copp was authorized to act for the trust and provided his Manchester address. Over several years, the town sent multiple certified mail notices regarding unpaid property taxes and impending tax liens and deeds to these addresses; some were signed for and received, but several were returned as undeliverable. The town also communicated about the delinquent taxes by email. In 2019, after more undelivered certified mailings and no payment for 2016 taxes, the town executed a tax deed transferring ownership to itself, then sent post-deed notices by regular mail and, years later, by certified mail and email.The plaintiff sued in the Superior Court, alleging the town’s notice regarding the 2016 and 2018 tax liens and the 2016 tax deed was constitutionally deficient under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Superior Court granted summary judgment to the town, finding the notice sufficient. The plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was denied, and she appealed.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case de novo. It held that the town’s failure to take additional reasonable steps—such as emailing notice—after certified notices of the impending 2016 tax deed were returned undelivered, and before executing the deed, violated the plaintiff’s due process rights. The court also found the town’s notice of the 2016 tax lien insufficient because it relied on an address that had repeatedly failed. However, notice of the 2018 tax lien, sent to both Manchester and Maine addresses, was deemed sufficient. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Manutsom v. Town of Hollis" on Justia Law

A firefighter with sixteen years of service in the Chicago Fire Department (“CFD”) was terminated after an investigation revealed that he had posted racially offensive and derogatory content on his public Facebook account. He openly identified himself as a CFD firefighter on his page, which included photos in uniform, and his posts targeted Black and Asian Americans, groups served by the CFD. The posts prompted complaints from members of the public, leading to an Office of Inspector General investigation. The investigation concluded that the firefighter’s posts undermined public trust and recommended his dismissal, which the Fire Commissioner approved. The firefighter unsuccessfully challenged his termination through arbitration.He then sued the City of Chicago and two CFD officials in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, alleging his termination violated his First Amendment rights and challenging the City’s social media policy as unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The district court granted summary judgment for the City, holding that the firefighter’s posts were not protected by the First Amendment because they did not address matters of public concern. Alternatively, the court found that, even if the posts did touch on public concern, the City’s interest in departmental efficiency and maintaining public trust outweighed his free speech interests.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court found that the district court erred in its analysis of public concern, concluding that the posts could be seen as addressing matters of public concern. However, applying the Pickering balancing test, the appellate court held that the City’s interests in preserving public trust, especially given the firefighter’s public identification with the CFD and the nature of his posts, outweighed his speech interests. The court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the City. View "Inendino v Nance-Holt" on Justia Law

Two men, Jamal Cruz and Rokiem Henley, attended a nightclub in Providence with friends. After the club closed, Cruz had a brief verbal disagreement with two other men, including Terrel Barros and Stephen Bodden. As Cruz and Henley were leaving, Bodden confronted Cruz outside, followed by gunshots that injured Henley and fatally wounded Cruz. Police officers nearby responded quickly, saw Bodden and Barros get into a car, and arrested both men. Barros was subsequently charged and convicted of first-degree murder and several related offenses, largely based on Cruz’s dying identification, eyewitness testimony, and evidence presented at trial.Following his conviction, Barros filed an application for postconviction relief in the Rhode Island Superior Court, alleging several constitutional violations, actual innocence, and the existence of newly discovered evidence. During the postconviction hearing, Barros introduced testimony from Gloria Parajon, Bodden’s cousin, who stated that Bodden had privately confessed to her, on multiple occasions, that he was the shooter. The hearing justice found Parajon’s testimony to be newly discovered, credible, and not merely cumulative, and concluded it could change the verdict at a new trial. The Superior Court granted Barros’s application for postconviction relief and vacated his conviction.On review, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island determined that the Superior Court did not err in admitting Parajon’s testimony as a statement against penal interest under Rule 804(b)(3) of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence, and that her statements were sufficiently corroborated. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court, holding that Barros was entitled to postconviction relief based on newly discovered evidence, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Barros v. State of Rhode Island" on Justia Law

A seventeen-year-old individual planned and carried out a violent attack resulting in the death of one person and serious injuries to two others. After purchasing a knife, he attended a dinner and sleepover with friends. Late at night, he attacked and fatally stabbed one victim, then proceeded to injure two others. The police apprehended him at the scene. He was charged with first-degree murder and two counts of attempted first-degree murder. The jury convicted him on all counts. Because he was a juvenile at the time, a separate sentencing hearing was held to consider mitigating factors under Florida law.The Circuit Court for Palm Beach County sentenced him to life without parole (LWOP) for each count, with the two attempted murder sentences running concurrently but consecutively to the murder sentence. The court announced that he would be eligible for judicial review after serving 25 years on the murder conviction, and again after serving another 25 years on the consecutive sentences for attempted murder. The defendant challenged his sentence, arguing that consecutive LWOP sentences for offenses committed in a single episode violated the Eighth Amendment, relying on Graham v. Florida. The Circuit Court denied relief, and on direct appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld the sentences, holding that the structure provided a meaningful opportunity for release consistent with constitutional requirements. The Fourth District certified conflict with the Second District Court of Appeal’s decision in Mack v. State, which had found such consecutive sentences unconstitutional.The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed the case and held that the Eighth Amendment’s requirement of a “meaningful opportunity for release” from Graham v. Florida does not apply to juveniles convicted of homicide offenses. Instead, sentencing for juvenile homicide offenders is governed by Miller v. Alabama and Jones v. Mississippi, requiring individualized sentencing but permitting discretionary LWOP. The Court approved the Fourth District’s result, disapproved Mack, and upheld the sentences. View "Johnson v. State of Florida" on Justia Law

Late one night, three police officers responding to a report of a recent nearby shooting observed a man walking on the street. The man appeared to have an L-shaped bulge in his right jacket pocket, which the officers believed could be a firearm. When the officers pulled their marked cruiser alongside him and asked if he had a gun, the man did not respond and instead fled on foot, clutching and “fiddling” with his pocket as he ran. After a brief pursuit, he surrendered, and officers conducted a pat-down, discovering a handgun in his jacket pocket.Before trial in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, the defendant moved to suppress the gun, arguing that it was found as a result of an unlawful seizure and search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The trial court denied the suppression motion, finding that the officers did not seize the defendant until after his flight and that, at that point, they had reasonable articulable suspicion to stop and frisk him based on his behavior, the observed bulge, his flight, and actions during the pursuit. The court then found the defendant guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm and related charges following a stipulated trial.On appeal, the defendant limited his argument to whether the officers had reasonable articulable suspicion to stop and frisk him when he surrendered. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals concluded that, considering the totality of the circumstances—including the recent shooting in the area, the observed bulge consistent with a firearm, the defendant’s apparent panic and evasive behavior, his flight, and his actions while fleeing—officers had reasonable articulable suspicion to justify the stop and frisk. The court affirmed the convictions, finding no Fourth Amendment violation. View "Doby v. United States" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted in Texas state court in 2004 for assault causing bodily injury to a family member, which qualifies as a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence under Texas law. The incident involved the defendant pushing his wife during an argument and, when she attempted to call 911, striking her in the face while trying to knock the phone from her hand. Based on this conviction, he was later indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) for possessing a firearm after being convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.Before the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, the defendant moved to dismiss the indictment, raising two constitutional challenges: that the statute exceeds Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause, and that, as applied to him, it violates the Second Amendment. The district court denied the motion. The defendant then entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss, and was sentenced to imprisonment and supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. It rejected the Commerce Clause challenge, extending the reasoning from United States v. Alcantar to § 922(g)(9). The court then addressed the as-applied Second Amendment challenge, applying the historical tradition test articulated in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen and clarified in United States v. Rahimi. The Fifth Circuit concluded that § 922(g)(9), as applied to the defendant, is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of disarming individuals found to threaten the physical safety of others. The court found that the statute’s rationale and burden are supported by historical analogues and that the defendant’s conduct was sufficiently dangerous to warrant disarmament. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "USA v. Allred" on Justia Law

The case concerns a man accused of kidnapping and sexually assaulting a woman in Maui in 1989. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence and expert testimony from an FBI agent, who analyzed hair and fiber samples. The expert testified that hair found in the defendant’s car was “consistent with” originating from the complainant, and that fibers found on her clothing were “consistent with” coming from the car’s seat cover and carpet. The defense challenged the complainant’s credibility but did not contest the expert testimony. The jury convicted the defendant, and he was sentenced to forty years. Nearly thirty years later, a letter from the Department of Justice revealed that the expert’s testimony about hair analysis overstated the science and was invalid. The defense then argued that both the hair and fiber testimony should be deemed unreliable based on scientific developments.The Circuit Court of the Second Circuit held a hearing and found that the hair analysis testimony exceeded the bounds of science but ruled the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to other corroborative evidence. The court did not rule on fiber analysis. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief, applying the State v. McNulty “newly discovered evidence” test. The ICA found that the fiber testimony was not impeached by the DOJ letter and considered the hair evidence cumulative, so it declined to address whether the new evidence would probably change the result at retrial.The Supreme Court of Hawai‘i reviewed the case and held that when scientific advances later invalidate expert testimony presented at trial, the “false evidence” standard applies, not the “newly discovered evidence” standard. The court found both the hair and fiber testimony materially false, took judicial notice of landmark scientific reports, and concluded there was a reasonable possibility the false evidence contributed to the conviction. The defendant’s due process rights were violated, and the court vacated the lower courts’ decisions, remanding for a new trial. View "Granillo v. State" on Justia Law