Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Daniel and Shatina Grady were arrested by police during a late-night shooting investigation outside a Michigan residence owned by their daughter. The Gradys lived nearby and approached the scene, filming officers and questioning their authority as they crossed into a perimeter that officers had established around the house suspected to contain the shooter. Despite receiving repeated commands to step back, the Gradys refused and continued to challenge the officers verbally. After warnings, the officers arrested them for interfering with the investigation, which led to a physical struggle.The Gradys were prosecuted in Michigan state court for assaulting, resisting, or obstructing the officers and damaging a police cruiser but were acquitted by a jury. While those charges were pending, the Gradys filed a civil suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, raising several claims, including First Amendment retaliation. The district court found that the officers had probable cause to arrest the Gradys for failing to comply with lawful orders but allowed the First Amendment claim to proceed under the exception recognized in Nieves v. Bartlett. The district court concluded that the Gradys presented evidence that other bystanders, who had not criticized the police and were not arrested, were similarly situated.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to the officers. The appellate court held that the other bystanders cited by the Gradys were not similarly situated because they did not enter the established perimeter or defy police orders. The court further found that the Gradys did not provide other objective evidence to satisfy the Nieves exception. As a result, the presence of probable cause defeated the Gradys’ First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Grady v. Cratsenburg" on Justia Law

Marion Thomas was stopped by Chicago police officers after failing to signal a turn. During the stop, officers reported smelling marijuana coming from his vehicle. After Thomas partially rolled down his window and refused to comply with several commands, officers opened his door and removed him from the car. Thomas was handcuffed and his car was searched, revealing a marijuana cigarette and a tray. Thomas claimed the items did not belong to him and experienced a medical issue, after which he was taken to the hospital. He was cited for the traffic violation and marijuana possession.Following his arrest, Thomas filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the officers and the City of Chicago, alleging illegal search, illegal seizure, false arrest under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and malicious prosecution under state law. Some claims and defendants were dismissed at summary judgment. At trial, the jury found for the defendants. Thomas moved for a new trial, arguing that the jury instructions were erroneous, that an officer gave misleading testimony, and that a question about his criminal record was prejudicial. The district court denied his motion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the challenged jury instructions accurately stated the law, including the principle that probable cause to arrest for any crime defeats a false arrest claim. The court found no abuse of discretion regarding the officer’s testimony about a marijuana “grinder,” as there was no evidence of fraud or prejudice. The court also determined that the question about Thomas’s criminal record did not prejudice the jury, since the objection was sustained and no answer was given. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Thomas v McAuliffe" on Justia Law

A California-based company that produces lab-grown chicken sought to distribute and sell its product in Florida. After the company received federal approval from the USDA and FDA to market its lab-grown chicken, Florida enacted SB 1084, a law banning the manufacture, sale, and distribution of all lab-grown meat within the state. The company had previously held tasting events and developed business relationships in Florida but had no plans to manufacture its product there.Following the enactment of SB 1084, the company filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida against state officials, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The company argued that the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) preempted Florida’s ban, claiming the state’s law imposed “additional or different” ingredient or facilities requirements in violation of the PPIA. The district court denied the company’s motion for a preliminary injunction, finding the company unlikely to succeed on its preemption claims because SB 1084 did not regulate the company’s ingredients, premises, facilities, or operations. The court also addressed standing and procedural questions, ultimately dismissing the preemption claims after the company amended its complaint.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether the filing of an amended complaint or the district court’s dismissal order rendered the appeal moot and whether the company could challenge the Florida law as preempted. The Eleventh Circuit held the appeal was not moot and that the company could bring a preemption action in equity. However, the court concluded the company was unlikely to succeed on the merits. The court held that Florida’s ban did not impose ingredient or facilities requirements preempted by the PPIA, as it simply banned the product’s sale and manufacture. Therefore, the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction was affirmed. View "Upside Foods Inc v. Commissioner, Florida Department of Agriculture" on Justia Law

A Mexican national attempted to enter the United States in 2003 using fraudulent documents and was removed under an expedited order. After re-entering the country illegally, he was discovered in 2024 and his prior removal order was reinstated. During the reinstatement proceedings, he expressed fear of returning to Mexico and received a reasonable-fear interview, but the asylum officer determined he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture. The immigration judge reviewed and affirmed this negative reasonable-fear determination, meaning he was not eligible for further proceedings to seek withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).After the immigration judge’s decision, the individual filed a petition for review with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He did not challenge the original expedited removal order or the reinstated removal order, but instead sought review solely of the denial of CAT relief. The government did not argue that the petition was untimely, but the court requested additional briefing after the Supreme Court’s decision in Riley v. Bondi, which addressed jurisdiction over such petitions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review a petition challenging only an order denying CAT relief when the petitioner did not also seek review of a final order of removal. The court concluded that, under current statutes and Supreme Court precedent, only final orders of removal are reviewable, and an order denying CAT relief does not qualify as a final order of removal nor does it merge into such an order. The court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction and denied the petitioner’s request to amend his petition to add a nominal challenge to the removal order, as any such challenge would be baseless and futile. View "NAVARRETE V. BONDI" on Justia Law

Intuit, Inc., the seller of TurboTax tax-preparation software, advertised its “Free Edition” as available at no cost for “simple tax returns.” However, the majority of taxpayers did not qualify due to various exclusions, and those individuals were prompted during the tax preparation process to upgrade to paid products. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought an administrative complaint in 2022, alleging that these advertisements were deceptive under Section 5 of the FTC Act. After an initial federal court suit for a preliminary injunction was denied, the FTC pursued the matter through its internal adjudicative process instead.An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that Intuit’s advertisements were likely to mislead a significant minority of consumers. The FTC Commissioners affirmed this decision, issuing a broad cease-and-desist order that barred Intuit from advertising “any goods or services” as free unless it met stringent requirements. This order was not limited to tax-preparation products. Intuit petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for review, asserting, among other arguments, that the FTC’s adjudication of deceptive advertising claims through an ALJ, rather than an Article III court, was unconstitutional.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that deceptive advertising claims under Section 5 of the FTC Act are akin to traditional actions at law or equity, such as fraud and deceit, and thus involve private rights. According to recent Supreme Court precedent in SEC v. Jarkesy, such claims must be adjudicated in Article III courts, not by agency ALJs. The Fifth Circuit granted Intuit’s petition, vacated the FTC’s order, and remanded the case to the agency for further proceedings consistent with its holding. View "Intuit v. Federal Trade Commission" on Justia Law

Late at night, police officers responded to a 911 call reporting a man with a gun in an area known for gang activity. The caller provided a description and stated that the man put a gun in a white Kia parked nearby. An officer recognized someone matching the description—later identified as Perez—who entered a nearby apartment. Officers, without a warrant or exigent circumstances, approached the residence, saw Perez inside through the screen door, and ordered him to come out at gunpoint. Perez initially did not comply but eventually exited and was detained outside. A witness identified Perez as the suspect, and a subsequent search of the Kia and Perez’s person uncovered a firearm, drugs, and related evidence.Perez moved to suppress the evidence in the Superior Court of Orange County, arguing that his seizure inside the apartment violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked probable cause and a warrant. The prosecution argued that the initial detention was justified by reasonable suspicion and that no warrant was necessary since officers did not physically enter the residence. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the detention was proper, and Perez ultimately pleaded guilty and was sentenced.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. It held that Perez was seized while still inside the residence and that, under the Fourth Amendment, such a seizure requires both probable cause and a warrant or exigent circumstances. The court rejected the prosecution’s arguments that the officers’ conduct was permissible as a mere detention or as a warrantless arrest effected from outside the home. The judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded with instructions to allow Perez to withdraw his plea and to grant suppression of the evidence and identification derived from the unlawful seizure. View "People v. Perez" on Justia Law

The case involves parents of two children with disabilities, both of whom attend private religious schools in Massachusetts. State law entitles all students with disabilities, including those in private schools, to publicly funded special education services. However, a state regulation requires that while public school students can receive these services at their school of enrollment, private school students may only receive them at a public school or another public or neutral location. The parents, who observe Jewish law and prefer their children’s education be informed by Judaism, found it burdensome and disruptive to transport their children to and from different locations for services and chose to forgo the publicly funded services.The parents sued the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, individual board members, and the commissioner in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. They alleged that the regulation violated the Due Process, Equal Protection, and Privileges or Immunities Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment by interfering with their fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of their children. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The Court held that while parents have a fundamental right to choose private schooling, the regulation does not restrict that right but merely defines the terms under which the state provides public benefits. The regulation does not ban or penalize private schooling or deprive meaningful access to it. Instead, it survives rational basis review because it is rationally related to the legitimate state interest of providing special education services while complying with the Massachusetts Constitution’s prohibition on aiding private schools. The court also rejected the Equal Protection and Privileges or Immunities claims. View "Hellman v. Department of Elementary and Secondary Education" on Justia Law

A defendant with a prior felony conviction was found with a firearm while on supervised release, in violation of federal law prohibiting felons from possessing firearms. The conduct leading to the indictment included absconding from supervision and being discovered with a gun, which also violated the terms of his supervised release. He moved to dismiss the federal indictment, arguing that the statute was unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to him, relying on recent Supreme Court decisions concerning the Second Amendment.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted the motion to dismiss, finding the relevant federal statute unconstitutional as applied to the defendant. The district court placed the burden on the government to justify the restriction, considered only the defendant's felony convictions (not his entire criminal record), and did not account for his supervised release status. The government appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.While the appeal was pending, the Sixth Circuit issued new precedent clarifying the proper standard for reviewing Second Amendment challenges. This precedent shifted the burden to the defendant to show he is not dangerous and required courts to consider the full criminal history and supervised release status. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit determined that the district court had not applied the correct legal standard and that the existing record was insufficient for an individualized dangerousness determination. The appellate court vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded for reconsideration of the motion to dismiss, instructing the district court to apply the correct legal standard consistent with current circuit precedent and to provide the defendant an opportunity to demonstrate he is not dangerous. View "United States v. Hostettler" on Justia Law

A confidential informant alerted Springfield, Missouri police in March 2020 that Jimmy Timberlake was dealing heroin and fentanyl and carrying a gun. Officers surveilled Timberlake, tracking his movements and interactions, including suspected drug activity and frequent use of rental vehicles. Police eventually executed a search warrant at the home of Timberlake’s girlfriend, where they found fentanyl, firearms, cash, drug paraphernalia, and other items. Timberlake admitted some items belonged to him but denied ownership of the firearms and knowledge of the drugs. He was arrested and later made statements at the county jail regarding drug dealers and the drugs found.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri presided over Timberlake’s jury trial. The jury convicted him of being a felon in possession of a firearm, possession with intent to distribute fentanyl, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. The district court sentenced Timberlake to a total of 180 months imprisonment. Prior to trial, the government notified its intent to introduce Timberlake’s 2008 drug-trafficking conviction. Timberlake objected at a pretrial conference, but when the conviction was introduced at trial, he stated “no objection.” He also objected to testimony regarding a non-testifying witness’s statement, but the district court overruled it.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed Timberlake’s appeal. The court held that admission of the girlfriend’s testimonial statement did not violate the Confrontation Clause because it was not offered for its truth, but for context regarding police investigation, and thus was not hearsay. The court also held Timberlake waived objection to the admission of his prior conviction by expressly stating “no objection” at trial. Finally, the court rejected Timberlake’s claim of cumulative error, finding no constitutional deprivation. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Timberlake" on Justia Law

Gabriel Olivier, a street preacher in Mississippi, was convicted in 2021 for violating a city ordinance that restricted expressive activities near a public amphitheater. The ordinance required individuals engaging in protests or demonstrations during event times to remain within a designated protest area. Olivier found the area too remote to reach his audience and, after returning to a more visible location, was arrested. He later pleaded no contest in municipal court, received a fine, probation, and a suspended jail sentence, and did not appeal his conviction.Following his conviction, Olivier filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against the City and its police chief, claiming the ordinance violated the First Amendment. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent future enforcement of the ordinance, but not to overturn his prior conviction or seek damages. The City argued, based on Heck v. Humphrey, that his suit was barred because success would imply the invalidity of his conviction. The District Court agreed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that a §1983 suit implying a prior conviction’s invalidity is not allowed, regardless of the relief sought.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and unanimously held that Heck v. Humphrey does not bar a §1983 suit seeking only prospective relief, such as an injunction against future enforcement of a law, even if the plaintiff was previously convicted under that law. The Court reasoned that Olivier’s suit did not challenge his prior conviction or seek damages for it, but merely sought to avoid future prosecutions. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Fifth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Olivier v. City of Brandon" on Justia Law