Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

John Labriola, a media aide for the Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners, wrote an inflammatory opinion piece criticizing the Equality Act, using derogatory language towards the LGBT community. Following public backlash and internal complaints, the County suspended him without pay, mandated anti-discrimination training, and eventually terminated him for not completing the training.Labriola sued Miami-Dade County in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights, compelled speech, and that the County's anti-discrimination policy was unconstitutionally overbroad. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the County on all counts, applying the Pickering-Connick test to Labriola's free speech and free exercise claims, and ruling that his free-press claim was invalid because he was not a journalist.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Labriola's free speech and free exercise claims failed the Pickering-Connick balancing test, as his speech impeded the County's ability to perform its duties efficiently and disrupted workplace harmony. The court also rejected Labriola's free-press claim, noting that even though the district court erred in stating he couldn't bring the claim as a non-journalist, his claim failed on the merits. Additionally, the court found no evidence to support Labriola's compelled speech claim, as the required training did not compel him to express views he disagreed with. Lastly, the court dismissed Labriola's overbreadth challenge to the County's anti-discrimination policy, as he failed to demonstrate that the policy was substantially overbroad.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Miami-Dade County on all counts. View "Labriola v. Miami-Dade County" on Justia Law

A group of nine plaintiffs, led by Alexander Carter, filed a class action lawsuit against the Cook County Sheriff, challenging a policy at the Cook County Jail that destroys inmates' government-issued identification cards if left unclaimed after the inmate is transferred to the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC). The plaintiffs argued that this policy violated the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. The district court dismissed the case, finding that precedent foreclosed each of the plaintiffs' claims.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted the Sheriff’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claim was foreclosed by the precedent set in Lee v. City of Chicago. The court also found that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment claims were indistinguishable from those rejected in Conyers v. City of Chicago and Kelley-Lomax v. City of Chicago. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claims but did not appeal the procedural due process claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the Fourth Amendment claim was foreclosed by Lee, which rejected the notion of a "continuing seizure" of lawfully seized property. The court also found that the Fifth Amendment takings claim failed because the plaintiffs had abandoned their property by not following the jail's property retrieval procedures. Finally, the court concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim failed because the plaintiffs did not show the inadequacy of state law remedies or an independent constitutional violation. View "Carter v. Cook County Sheriff" on Justia Law

A three-year-old child, C.V., died in February 2019 while in the care of his mother’s domestic partner, Uraquio Arredondo, in Ulysses, Kansas. On the day of the incident, C.V. was behaving normally until left alone with Arredondo. Later that day, Arredondo called 911, reporting that C.V. had been in an accident. Emergency responders found C.V. unresponsive with extensive bruising. Medical examinations revealed that C.V. died from multiple blunt force injuries, including a fresh skull fracture and internal bleeding, with evidence of both recent and older injuries. Testimony from the daycare provider and C.V.’s father indicated prior signs of abuse, with C.V. attributing some injuries to Arredondo.The State charged Arredondo with felony murder and child abuse. He waived his right to a jury trial, and the Grant District Court judge found him guilty on both counts, imposing a life sentence for murder and a consecutive sentence for child abuse. During the investigation, law enforcement entered Arredondo’s residence three times without a warrant. Arredondo challenged the admissibility of evidence from the second and third entries, arguing lack of valid consent and coercion. He also sought to suppress his statements to law enforcement, claiming they were involuntary and made without Miranda warnings, but he had not objected to their admission at trial.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reviewed the case. It held that the second and third entries into the residence were lawful because Arredondo voluntarily consented to both searches, and the police lawfully secured the home based on probable cause. The court also found that Arredondo failed to preserve his challenge to the admissibility of his statements for appellate review. Finding no error, the court affirmed Arredondo’s convictions. View "State v. Arredondo " on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute within the Unification Church, also known as the Unification Movement, following a schism and succession conflict. The plaintiffs, including the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification International, filed a complaint in 2011 against defendants, including Unification Church International (UCI) and its president, Hyun Jin (Preston) Moon. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants engaged in actions contrary to the church's mission, including amending UCI's articles of incorporation and transferring assets to entities like the Kingdom Investments Foundation (KIF) and the Global Peace Foundation (GPF).The Superior Court of the District of Columbia initially granted partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the defendants' actions were inconsistent with UCI's original purposes. However, the court's decision was reversed on appeal in Moon III, where it was held that resolving the plaintiffs' claims would require deciding disputed religious questions, making them nonjusticiable under the First Amendment's religious abstention doctrine. The case was remanded for further proceedings.On remand, the trial court dismissed the remaining claims with prejudice. The court found that the plaintiffs lacked special interest standing to pursue their self-dealing claims against Preston Moon after Moon III, as the claims no longer involved extraordinary measures threatening UCI's existence. The court also determined that the contract claims were nonjusticiable under the religious abstention doctrine, as resolving them would require interpreting religious terms and doctrines. The court declined to apply the potential fraud or collusion exception to the religious abstention doctrine, finding no evidence of bad faith for secular purposes.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's orders, agreeing that the plaintiffs' claims were nonjusticiable and that they lacked special interest standing. The court also upheld the trial court's decision to deny the plaintiffs' motion to reopen discovery, finding no abuse of discretion. The litigation, which spanned over a decade, was thereby brought to a close. View "Family Federation for World Peace and Unification International v. Moon" on Justia Law

Deangelus Thomas was indicted on two counts of being a felon in possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for his involvement in a shooting. Although his indictment indicated potential enhanced penalties due to his criminal history, he was not formally indicted as an armed career criminal. A jury found him guilty of both counts. During sentencing, Thomas argued that he could not be sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) because he had not been indicted for it, and the jury had not found that he had three prior violent-felony convictions committed on different occasions. The district judge disagreed and imposed an enhanced 432-month sentence based on Thomas's criminal history.The United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis followed then-binding Sixth Circuit precedent, which allowed the judge to find the necessary facts for the ACCA enhancement by a preponderance of the evidence. Thomas appealed, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed the sentence. However, the Supreme Court later decided Erlinger v. United States, which required a jury to find the three-occasions element of an ACCA conviction. The Supreme Court remanded Thomas's case for further consideration in light of Erlinger.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and determined that Erlinger errors are subject to harmless-error review. The court found that the error in Thomas's case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the Shepard documents and the Presentence Report provided clear evidence that Thomas's three prior violent felonies occurred on different occasions. The court also rejected Thomas's double jeopardy argument, concluding that the enhanced sentence did not violate his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit affirmed Thomas's enhanced sentence. View "United States v. Thomas" on Justia Law

Marissa Darlingh, a guidance counselor at an elementary school in the Milwaukee Public School District, attended a rally in April 2022 where she delivered a profanity-laden speech denouncing gender ideology and transgenderism. She identified herself as a school counselor and vowed that no student at her school would transition under her watch. After a video of her speech was posted on YouTube, school officials investigated and eventually fired her for violating employment policies, including using abusive language and undermining the district's mission to provide an equitable learning environment.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, with a magistrate judge presiding, applied the Pickering balancing test and concluded that the school district's interests as a public employer outweighed Darlingh's speech rights. The judge denied her request for a preliminary injunction and dismissed her First Amendment claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that while Darlingh spoke on a matter of public concern, her speech was incompatible with her role as a school counselor. The court emphasized that her extreme vulgarity and belligerent tone diminished her First Amendment interests. Additionally, her role required a high degree of public trust, and her speech conflicted with the school district's obligation to provide a supportive educational environment. The court concluded that the school district's interests outweighed Darlingh's free-speech rights, and her speech fell outside the scope of First Amendment protection in the public-employment context. View "Darlingh v Maddaleni" on Justia Law

In 2021, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York implemented a policy requiring all employees to be vaccinated against Covid-19, with exemptions for religious or medical reasons. Lori Gardner-Alfred and Jeanette Diaz, employees of the Federal Reserve, applied for religious exemptions, claiming that the vaccine conflicted with their religious beliefs. The Federal Reserve denied their requests and subsequently terminated their employment for non-compliance with the vaccination policy. Gardner-Alfred and Diaz filed a lawsuit, alleging that the Federal Reserve's actions violated their religious liberties under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and various federal statutes.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of the Federal Reserve on all federal claims. The court found no genuine dispute of fact regarding the sincerity of Gardner-Alfred's religious objections and concluded that the vaccination policy did not conflict with Diaz's professed religious beliefs. Additionally, the district court imposed discovery sanctions on Gardner-Alfred and Diaz for repeatedly neglecting their discovery obligations, withholding relevant documents, and violating court orders.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment on Gardner-Alfred's claims, agreeing that she failed to provide sufficient evidence of sincerely held religious beliefs. However, the court vacated the summary judgment on Diaz's claims, finding that there were disputed issues of material fact regarding the sincerity of her religious beliefs and whether the vaccination policy burdened those beliefs. The court also upheld the district court's imposition of discovery sanctions, finding no abuse of discretion. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York" on Justia Law

The appellant was convicted of evading arrest with a prior conviction, making it a state-jail felony. He was present in person for the guilt-innocence phase but appeared remotely via videoconferencing for the punishment phase due to the COVID-19 pandemic. He did not object to this remote appearance during the trial but later argued on appeal that it violated his constitutional and statutory rights to be present at trial.The Thirteenth Court of Appeals reviewed the case and concluded that the appellant did not need to object at trial to preserve his complaint about the remote appearance for appeal. The court held that the right to be personally present at sentencing is a waivable-only right, meaning it must be affirmatively waived and is not subject to forfeiture by failing to object at trial. The court found no evidence of such a waiver and remanded the case for a new sentencing hearing.The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas reviewed the case on the State's petition for discretionary review. The court agreed with the lower court that the right to be personally present at the punishment phase is a waivable-only right. The court held that this right cannot be forfeited by inaction and must be affirmatively waived. The court rejected the State's argument that the appellant's failure to object constituted a waiver and affirmed the lower court's decision to remand for a new sentencing hearing. The court clarified that the statutory right to personal presence at trial and sentencing is fundamental and requires an explicit waiver to be relinquished. View "TATES v. STATE OF TEXAS" on Justia Law

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which held that the U.S. Constitution does not protect the right to abortion, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration that Wisconsin Statute § 940.04(1), which criminalizes the intentional destruction of an unborn child, does not ban abortion. The plaintiffs included the Attorney General, the Department of Safety and Professional Services, the Medical Examining Board, and three physicians. They argued that the statute either does not apply to abortion or has been impliedly repealed by subsequent legislation.The Dane County Circuit Court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, concluding that the plaintiffs stated a claim upon which relief could be granted because § 940.04 does not prohibit consensual medical abortions. The court later issued a declaratory judgment that the statute does not prohibit abortions.The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo. The central question was whether § 940.04(1) bans abortion. The court concluded that comprehensive legislation enacted over the last 50 years, which regulates various aspects of abortion, impliedly repealed the 19th-century near-total ban on abortion. The court held that the legislature's detailed regulation of abortion was meant as a substitute for the earlier statute, and therefore, § 940.04(1) does not ban abortion in Wisconsin.The court affirmed the circuit court's judgment and order, holding that the comprehensive legislative framework governing abortion impliedly repealed the near-total ban on abortion in § 940.04(1). View "Kaul v. Urmanski" on Justia Law

Katie Wood, a transgender woman teaching at a public high school in Florida, challenged the enforcement of Fla. Stat. § 1000.071(3), which prohibits her from using the honorific “Ms.” and the gendered pronouns “she,” “her,” and “hers” in exchanges with students during class time. Wood argued that this statute violated her First Amendment right to free speech and sought a preliminary injunction to prevent its enforcement.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida granted Wood a preliminary injunction, finding that she had shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of her First Amendment claim. The district court reasoned that Wood’s use of her preferred honorific and pronouns constituted speech as a private citizen on a matter of public concern, and that her interest in expressing her gender identity outweighed the state’s interest in promoting workplace efficiency.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and disagreed with the district court’s findings. The appellate court held that Wood had not demonstrated a substantial likelihood that Fla. Stat. § 1000.071(3) infringed her free speech rights. The court concluded that when Wood used her preferred honorific and pronouns in the classroom, she was speaking as a government employee, not as a private citizen. Consequently, her speech was not protected under the First Amendment in this context. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Wood v. Florida Department of Education" on Justia Law