Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

An adjunct clinical professor at a university dental school supervised students in a clinic that, during the summer of 2022, required faculty and students to wear heavy protective equipment as part of its COVID-19 response. Ongoing building renovations left the clinic without adequate air conditioning, making the protective gear uncomfortable and allegedly hazardous due to heat. The professor expressed his opposition to the policy through mass emails, a formal health complaint to the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MiOSHA), and remarks at a school meeting. Some colleagues agreed with his concerns, while others found his communications unprofessional. After an internal investigation found his behavior violated university policies, the professor was asked to complete educational modules on workplace conduct. When he refused, he was terminated.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan reviewed the professor’s First Amendment retaliation claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various dental school administrators. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, ruling that neither the MiOSHA complaint nor the professor’s statements at the meeting addressed matters of public concern and that his meeting remarks were made in his capacity as a public employee.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The appellate court held that neither the MiOSHA complaint nor the meeting speech involved matters of public concern as required for First Amendment protection in the public employment context. The court emphasized that the professor’s speech focused on workplace conditions and employee grievances rather than broader issues of public import or patient safety. Because the professor failed to show he spoke on a matter of public concern, the court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants. View "Stanalajczo v. Perry" on Justia Law

The case concerns a defendant who, in 2017, was charged with multiple felonies, including attempted murder, after stabbing his romantic partner 17 times while she was hospitalized. He pleaded guilty to willfully inflicting traumatic injury on a partner, having a prior conviction for the same offense, and the prosecution dismissed the other counts. The sentencing judge imposed the upper term of five years for this conviction, doubled it due to a prior strike, and added enhancements for prior convictions and weapon use, resulting in a 17-year prison sentence.Following legislative changes in 2021 that invalidated enhancements for prior prison terms and required full resentencing in affected cases, the defendant sought resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75. During resentencing in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, the court struck the one-year enhancements for the prior prison term and weapon use but otherwise maintained the upper-term sentence for the underlying offense. The court justified the upper term based on the admitted prior conviction and weapon use, which were acknowledged in the defendant’s original plea.On appeal, the defendant argued that the resentencing court exceeded its authority by reimposing the upper term without a jury finding, or his stipulation to, the aggravating factors, citing Sixth Amendment concerns. The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, considered whether Penal Code section 1172.75 required new factfinding for upper-term sentences at resentencing when the upper term had already been imposed in compliance with constitutional requirements.The Court of Appeal held that when a defendant was originally sentenced to the upper term, the resentencing court may reimpose that term without requiring a jury finding or a stipulation to the aggravating factors. The court concluded this result is consistent with the statutory language and constitutional requirements. The judgment was affirmed. View "People v. Moss" on Justia Law

A high school student in Wyoming was repeatedly suspended and eventually arrested for refusing to comply with her school district’s indoor mask mandate, which was implemented during a local COVID-19 surge. The student and her parents sued the school district, various trustees, the superintendent, and the principal, alleging violations of their federal and state rights. Their federal claims asserted that the mask mandate compelled speech and resulted in unlawful retaliation against the student for protesting, both under the First Amendment, and that she was deprived of her property interest in a public education without due process, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.The case was initially filed in Wyoming state court and then removed to the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming. That court first dismissed the federal claims for lack of standing, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed, finding that the plaintiffs had alleged sufficient injury. On remand, the district court dismissed the federal claims for failure to state a claim and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the supplemental state-law claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Tenth Circuit held that the plaintiffs did not adequately allege that the mask mandate compelled any specific message and thus failed to state a compelled-speech claim. The court also found that the student’s refusal to wear a mask was not expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment and that her participation in protest activities was not plausibly alleged to be the but-for cause of her discipline, defeating the retaliation claim. Regarding due process, the Tenth Circuit ruled that the student received sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard before her suspensions, satisfying procedural due process. The court also concluded that no substantive due process violation occurred. Finally, the Tenth Circuit found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to dismiss the state-law claims. View "Smith v. Albany County School District No. 1" on Justia Law

In 2000, Briley Piper and two others committed the murder of Chester Allan Poage in South Dakota, resulting in Piper being charged with multiple offenses, including first-degree felony murder. Prior to trial, Piper pled guilty to five crimes and was sentenced to death by the state circuit court. Over the years, Piper’s case returned to the South Dakota Supreme Court several times, both on direct appeal and in habeas proceedings. The South Dakota Supreme Court initially affirmed his conviction and sentence, later vacated the death sentence due to an invalid jury waiver, and remanded for jury resentencing. The jury again imposed a death sentence, which was affirmed. Piper then filed successive state habeas applications, challenging the validity of his guilty pleas and the effectiveness of his counsel, all of which were ultimately denied.After exhausting state remedies, Piper filed a federal habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, advancing thirteen claims; the district court denied relief on all, granting a certificate of appealability for several. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit expanded the certificate to include six claims. The court reviewed issues including the constitutionality of AEDPA deference after Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, South Dakota’s application of res judicata to preclude Piper’s challenge to his guilty pleas, the denial of an evidentiary hearing regarding alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, the adequacy of impeachment of a key witness, alleged failures to rebut a prosecution assertion about a defense witness, and cumulative prejudice.The Eighth Circuit held that AEDPA’s deference requirement remains constitutional and applicable after Loper Bright. It found Piper’s challenge to his guilty pleas procedurally defaulted under South Dakota’s consistently applied res judicata rules. The court concluded the district court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing, found no prejudice in counsel’s performance regarding impeachment or rebuttal evidence, and reaffirmed that cumulative error does not warrant habeas relief in this circuit. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief. View "Piper v. A.G." on Justia Law

Police officers discovered the appellant in possession of an unregistered semiautomatic firearm that was equipped with a magazine capable of holding thirty rounds. He was indicted for possessing a “large capacity ammunition feeding device,” possession of an unregistered firearm, carrying a pistol without a license, and unlawful possession of ammunition. The facts were largely undisputed; the firearm had a thirty-round magazine, was unregistered, and the appellant did not have a license to carry it.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia, presided over by a judge, denied the appellant’s motion to suppress evidence and his motion to dismiss, which had argued that the District’s firearm statutes violated the Second Amendment, focusing in part on the magazine capacity ban and the District’s registration and licensure schemes. The court reasoned that Supreme Court precedent, particularly New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, did not invalidate the District’s gun laws. The case proceeded to a bench trial on stipulated facts, and the appellant was convicted on all four counts.On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case. The United States conceded the ban’s unconstitutionality, while the District continued to defend it. The court held that magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds are arms in common and ubiquitous use by law-abiding citizens, and there is no historical tradition of banning such arms. The court concluded that the District’s ban on these magazines violated the Second Amendment. It reversed all of the appellant’s convictions, holding that the unconstitutionality of the magazine ban also invalidated his convictions for possession of an unregistered firearm, carrying a pistol without a license, and unlawful possession of ammunition, since those charges depended on the magazine prohibition. View "Benson v. United States" on Justia Law

The case concerns an incident in which the defendant unlawfully entered a West Hartford residence where several individuals were present, including his ex-girlfriend and her new partner. The defendant shot the new partner in the face and threatened others before fleeing. He was apprehended shortly afterward, and gunshot residue was found on his hand. The prosecution charged him with multiple counts, including first-degree assault with a firearm, home invasion, criminal possession of a firearm, threatening, and risk of injury to a child. At trial, the defense argued that a third party was responsible for the shooting, but the jury found the defendant guilty on all counts.Prior to this appeal, the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford presided over the trial and delivered the conviction. The operative information charged the defendant with home invasion under the general statute but described conduct that aligned with committing a felony (assault) during the invasion. However, the trial court instructed the jury using a different statutory subdivision, focusing on whether the defendant was armed with a deadly weapon during the home invasion. The defense did not object to the home invasion instruction at trial.On direct appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court, the defendant argued that his Sixth Amendment right to notice was violated because the jury was instructed on a statutory theory not specifically charged, and that his convictions for both home invasion and first-degree assault violated the double jeopardy clause. The Connecticut Supreme Court held that there was no plain error in the jury instruction, finding the information provided adequate notice for conviction under either statutory subdivision, and that the defense was not prejudiced. The Court further held that the convictions did not violate double jeopardy, as each offense required proof of an element the other did not. The judgment of conviction was affirmed. View "State v. Christon M." on Justia Law

Steven Clark Lefemine participated in an anti-abortion protest at a reproductive healthcare facility in Columbia, South Carolina, where he intentionally blocked the entrance by sitting in front of the doorway, preventing patients and staff from entering. After refusing requests to move, the police were called, and Lefemine was arrested. He was initially charged with trespassing under state law, for which he was fined, and subsequently indicted by a federal grand jury for violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act) under 18 U.S.C. § 248.In the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Lefemine was first charged under a provision of the FACE Act carrying a maximum penalty of one year in prison. However, the government amended the penalty sheet—an auxiliary document to the indictment—to reflect a lower maximum penalty: six months’ imprisonment and/or a fine of $10,000. The indictment was also amended to conform to this reduced penalty. Lefemine’s counsel acknowledged and consented to these amendments. The district court denied Lefemine’s request for a jury trial, finding that the charged offense was a “petty” offense not subject to the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, and proceeded with a bench trial that resulted in Lefemine’s conviction.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Lefemine argued that he was entitled to a jury trial both because of the original indictment and because Congress intended all FACE Act violations to require a jury trial. The Fourth Circuit held that the amendments did not require resubmission to a grand jury and that the maximum penalty Lefemine faced rendered the offense “petty” under Supreme Court precedent. The court affirmed that the first-time, nonviolent exception under the FACE Act does not require a jury trial, joining the Second, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits, and affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Lefemine" on Justia Law

A woman was indicted for first degree murder and obstruction of justice following the death of her two-year-old son. She pleaded not guilty, and after the state withdrew its intent to seek the death penalty, she moved for expert funding to support a change of venue motion, arguing that expert analysis was necessary to present her case. Her requests for funding from the Office of the State Public Defender were denied, prompting her to seek judicial intervention. The district court found that the expert was necessary under the prevailing legal standard but determined it was barred by La. R.S. 15:168(E)(3) from ordering payment of public defender funds for expert witnesses.After several hearings and testimony from the state public defender, the 32nd Judicial District Court declared La. R.S. 15:168(E)(3) unconstitutional. The court reasoned that the statute infringed upon its exclusive original jurisdiction over felony cases granted by the Louisiana Constitution and stripped indigent defendants of the ability to seek judicial review of funding decisions. Relying on precedents such as State v. Craig and State v. Citizen, the court concluded that the statute impermissibly impeded the judiciary’s inherent authority to ensure effective assistance of counsel for indigent defendants. The State of Louisiana appealed directly to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, as required when a statute is declared unconstitutional.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed the matter de novo and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that La. R.S. 15:168(E)(3), which bars courts from ordering payment of public defender funds for expert witnesses or other purposes, is unconstitutional. The statute impermissibly infringed on the courts’ constitutional jurisdiction and inherent power to ensure indigent defendants receive necessary resources for an effective defense. The matter was remanded for further proceedings. View "STATE OF LOUISIANA VS. JONES" on Justia Law

A sheriff in Jefferson County was placed on the local prosecutor’s Brady-Giglio list after a series of events involving a use-of-force incident and subsequent interactions about the department’s response. The prosecutor believed the sheriff’s conduct during the internal investigation, including delays in communication and reluctance to provide details about disciplinary actions, raised concerns about the sheriff’s credibility and truthfulness. After being placed on the list, which could affect his ability to testify in court and threaten his law enforcement career, the sheriff sought reconsideration but was unsuccessful. He then petitioned for judicial review under an Iowa statute that permits officers to challenge their placement on a Brady-Giglio list.The Iowa District Court for Jefferson County conducted an in camera review and found that while the sheriff’s actions were not fully transparent, they did not amount to deceit or dishonesty. The court ordered the sheriff’s removal from the Brady-Giglio list and rejected the county attorney’s arguments that the underlying statute was unconstitutional on due process and separation-of-powers grounds. The county attorney appealed, raising constitutional challenges to the statute rather than contesting the district court’s factual findings.The Supreme Court of Iowa reviewed the case and affirmed the district court. It held that the statutory scheme allowing judicial review of Brady-Giglio list placements does not interfere with a prosecutor’s due process obligations to defendants, since it does not prevent disclosure of exculpatory or impeachment material in individual cases. The court also concluded that the statute does not violate the separation-of-powers doctrine, since it does not invade core prosecutorial functions such as charging decisions or trial strategy. The court declined to address a void-for-vagueness challenge, finding it was not preserved. The judgment ordering the sheriff’s removal from the Brady-Giglio list was affirmed. View "Richmond v. Jefferson County Attorney" on Justia Law

Law enforcement officers pursued the defendant, Austin Lodge, after a traffic stop in Clarksburg, West Virginia. During the pursuit, Lodge attempted to place a camouflage backpack inside a residence where his children’s grandmother lived, but was turned away by the occupant. He then fled to the backyard and discarded the backpack next to a shed. Lodge was apprehended without the backpack. Later, officers searched the area, found the bag, and searched it without a warrant, uncovering controlled substances. Lodge admitted ownership of the backpack but argued that his actions were meant to conceal, not abandon, the bag because it was left on familiar, semi-private property.The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia first reviewed Lodge’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless search. The case was referred to a magistrate judge, who conducted an evidentiary hearing and found that Lodge had abandoned the bag, thus forfeiting any reasonable expectation of privacy in its contents. The district court adopted these findings and denied the suppression motion, concluding that Lodge’s conduct amounted to abandonment, relying on the Fourth Circuit’s precedent in United States v. Small.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s findings for clear error and the legal conclusions de novo. The appellate court emphasized that abandonment is a factual finding based on the objective circumstances known to officers at the time. The Fourth Circuit held that the district court’s finding—that Lodge abandoned the backpack when he discarded it after being denied entry at the residence—was not clearly erroneous. Because Lodge abandoned the backpack, he lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in it, and the denial of the motion to suppress was affirmed. The court declined to resolve whether a different result would obtain if the property had not been abandoned but was merely concealed on private property. View "US v. Lodge" on Justia Law