Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Deandre Arnold, an indigent pro se litigant, attempted to file a civil complaint with an affidavit of indigence through the Fulton County Superior Court’s mandatory e-filing system. His complaint was rejected because it lacked an order authorizing him to file using a waiver payment account. The Clerk’s office informed him that he needed to obtain an order authorizing indigent status by presenting the complaint in person before a superior court judge. Arnold, unable to travel the 25 miles to the Clerk’s office, argued that the Clerk’s policy violated OCGA § 9-15-2 and his constitutional rights.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case after Arnold filed a petition for a writ of mandamus against the Clerk. Arnold contended that he had no adequate remedy other than filing an original petition in the Supreme Court because he could not appear in person to present a writ of mandanus and affidavit of indigence, and the Clerk would not accept such a filing by mail.The Supreme Court of Georgia concluded that it lacked original jurisdiction to grant the relief Arnold sought, as its authority to issue writs of mandamus is limited to matters related to its appellate jurisdiction. The Court determined that the case did not fall within its appellate jurisdiction and transferred the petition to the Court of Appeals for resolution. The Court of Appeals has the authority to grant writs of mandamus in aid of its jurisdiction and will decide whether to require the Clerk to accept Arnold’s affidavit of indigence and civil complaint by mail. View "Arnold v. Alexander" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Nike, Inc., alleging gender discrimination and hostile workplace claims. During discovery, a collection of internal workplace complaints, known as the Starfish complaints, was produced under a protective order. Three media organizations, including The Oregonian, intervened in the case to gain access to these documents. Plaintiffs' attorney inadvertently sent confidential documents to a reporter from The Oregonian, who refused to return or destroy them upon request.The United States District Court for the District of Oregon initially granted a motion to intervene by the media organizations. However, when the inadvertent disclosure occurred, the magistrate judge ordered The Oregonian to return or destroy the documents. The district court vacated this order, reasoning that it lacked authority to compel a non-party to return the documents. The magistrate judge then denied the motion, and the district court affirmed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the district court had the inherent authority to order The Oregonian, as an intervenor and thus a party to the case, to return or destroy the confidential documents. The court determined that The Oregonian did not have a First Amendment right to withhold the documents because pretrial discovery proceedings are not public components of the judicial process. The court applied relaxed First Amendment scrutiny and concluded that the district court's exercise of its inherent authority over discovery furthered a substantial government interest unrelated to the suppression of expression. The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "CAHILL V. NIKE, INC." on Justia Law

Over a five-year period, Robert Michael Tafoya stalked and harassed E.R. in various ways. He frequently appeared at her workplace, left flowers on her car, followed her while shopping, made numerous Facebook posts claiming to be involved with her and the father of her children, and fraudulently applied for custody and visitation orders. Despite restraining orders, his behavior continued unabated, including attempts to pick up her children from school.Following a jury trial in the Superior Court of Riverside County, Tafoya was convicted of stalking, perjury, attempted child abduction, and filing false documents. He was sentenced to 25 years and eight months in prison. Tafoya appealed the convictions, arguing that his Facebook posts were protected by the First Amendment, there was insufficient evidence for the attempted child abduction conviction, and the perjury and false document convictions lacked false statements. He also appealed the restitution order, claiming the court used the wrong standard and lacked proper verification.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court held that Tafoya’s Facebook posts were not protected activity as they were part of a pattern of conduct that constituted a credible threat. The court found substantial evidence supporting the attempted child abduction conviction, noting that the visitation order was obtained by fraud and thus void. The court affirmed the convictions for stalking, attempted child abduction, and filing false documents. However, the court reversed the perjury conviction related to the restraining order (count 10) due to the lack of a false statement under penalty of perjury and remanded for resentencing. The restitution order was upheld, as the need for relocation expenses was justified by the record. View "People v. Tafoya" on Justia Law

Annette Gaylene Batten, who was convicted of first-degree murder in 1996 and sentenced to life in prison, was released on parole in August 2017. In December 2023, she admitted to two parole violations: driving under the influence and failing to inform her parole agent of her arrest. Consequently, the trial court revoked her parole and remanded her to the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the jurisdiction of the Board of Parole Hearings for future parole consideration.The trial court's decision was based on Penal Code section 3000.08, subdivision (h), which mandates remand to the CDCR for parolees who violate conditions of lifetime parole. Batten argued that a statute enacted in 2020, which limits parole to three years for those released after July 2020, should apply to her, and that the disparity in treatment violates equal protection principles. The trial court, however, followed the existing law applicable to her case.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that rational basis review, rather than strict scrutiny, applies to Batten's equal protection challenge. The court found that there is a rational basis for treating inmates released before July 2020 differently from those released after that date. The Legislature could have reasonably decided that changing the terms of parole retroactively would undermine the Board's parole determinations. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial court's decision to remand Batten to the CDCR. View "People v. Batten" on Justia Law

In December 2015, sixteen-year-old Isaiah Taylor was stopped by Milwaukee police officers Justin Schwarzhuber and Jasen Rydzewski while running through his neighborhood to deliver a turkey. The officers frisked him, searched his bag, and detained him in their police car to check for outstanding warrants and recent robberies. Taylor later sued the officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment and racial profiling in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted qualified immunity and summary judgment to the officers on Taylor’s Fourteenth Amendment claim and on the Fourth Amendment claim regarding the initial stop and frisk. However, the court denied qualified immunity on the issue of Taylor’s continued detention, sending it to trial. The jury found the officers not liable, and the court denied Taylor’s motion for post-trial relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment on Taylor’s Fourteenth Amendment claim, finding insufficient evidence of racial profiling. However, it vacated the summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claims related to the initial stop and frisk, concluding that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop and frisk based on clearly established law. The court also vacated the jury verdict on the continued detention issue, as it was intertwined with the initial stop's constitutionality, and remanded the case for a new trial on all Fourth Amendment claims. View "Taylor v. Schwarzhuber" on Justia Law

Jessie Hoffman was convicted of first-degree murder for the kidnapping, rape, and murder of Mary "Molly" Elliot in 1998 and sentenced to death. After exhausting all state and federal post-conviction remedies, his execution was delayed due to the unavailability of lethal injection drugs. In 2024, Louisiana adopted nitrogen hypoxia as a method of execution. Hoffman challenged this new method, arguing it violated the Eighth Amendment.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana granted Hoffman's motion for a preliminary injunction, preventing his execution by nitrogen hypoxia. The court concluded that Hoffman had exhausted his administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and found that nitrogen hypoxia posed a substantial risk of superadding pain and suffering. The court suggested that execution by firing squad would be a reasonable alternative that would reduce the risk of severe pain.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that Hoffman had indeed exhausted his administrative remedies. However, it disagreed with the district court's conclusion regarding the Eighth Amendment. The Fifth Circuit held that nitrogen hypoxia is painless and that the district court erred in suggesting that the Eighth Amendment requires a more painful method of execution, such as a firing squad. The court emphasized that the Eighth Amendment does not guarantee a painless death and that Hoffman failed to show that nitrogen hypoxia presented a substantial risk of severe pain compared to other methods.The Fifth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction, allowing Louisiana to proceed with Hoffman's execution by nitrogen hypoxia. View "Hoffman v. Westcott" on Justia Law

John Doe was found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) for an offense in Arlington County, Virginia, in 2014 and was committed to a state hospital in 2015. After his first job offer was rescinded due to his arrest and commitment, he changed his legal name and moved to Texas in 2020. In 2022, he was arrested based on a Virginia bench warrant for failure to appear but was released when Virginia declined extradition. In 2023, Doe received a job offer from Charter Communications, pending a background check by HireRight. HireRight reported that Doe had a criminal record and an active warrant, leading Charter to rescind the job offer.Doe filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Charter, HireRight, and Paul Ferguson, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Arlington County, Virginia, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Fourteenth Amendment. The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed Doe’s claims, finding that his FCRA claim against Charter was barred as there is no private right of action against users of consumer reports, and his Fourteenth Amendment claim against Ferguson was duplicative of a previously litigated case in Virginia.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court agreed that Doe’s constitutional claims against Ferguson were duplicative and therefore frivolous. It also upheld the dismissal of Doe’s FCRA claim against Charter, interpreting 15 U.S.C. § 1681m(h)(8) to bar private enforcement of section 1681m in its entirety. The court found that Doe’s FCRA claim against HireRight and ADA claim against Charter were based on the allegation that the warrant was unlawful or inaccurate, which had already been addressed in the Virginia litigation. View "Doe v. Charter Communications" on Justia Law

Two plaintiffs, Todd Yukutake and David Kikukawa, challenged two provisions of Hawaii's firearms laws, arguing they violated the Second Amendment. The first provision, Hawaii Revised Statutes § 134-2(e), required that a handgun be acquired within a narrow time window (originally 10 days, later amended to 30 days) after obtaining a permit. The second provision, § 134-3, mandated that gun owners physically bring their firearms to a police station for inspection within five days of acquisition as part of the registration process.The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, ruling that both provisions were facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The court permanently enjoined the enforcement of these provisions. The State of Hawaii appealed, arguing that recent legislative amendments to the challenged provisions rendered the case moot. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the State's motion to dismiss the appeal as moot, finding that the amended versions of the provisions were sufficiently similar to the previous versions.The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that the short timeframe for completing a firearms purchase after obtaining a permit was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The court reasoned that the purchase and acquisition of firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, and the State failed to justify the short temporal limit on firearms acquisition permits. The court also affirmed the district court's conclusion that the in-person inspection requirement violated the Second Amendment, noting that the government did not provide sufficient evidence that the requirement materially advanced the objectives of the registration system. The case was remanded to the district court to revise its permanent injunction in light of the recent amendments to the challenged provisions. View "Yukutake v. Lopez" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, who are California residents and cardroom operators, challenged the constitutionality of California Business and Professions Code §§ 19858(a) and 19858.5. These statutes make a person ineligible for a California cardroom license if they own more than a 1% financial interest in a business that engages in casino-style gambling or if they have control over such a business. Plaintiffs argued that these provisions violate the dormant Commerce Clause by discriminating against interstate commerce, regulating extraterritorially, and unduly burdening interstate commerce.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California initially dismissed the complaint as untimely, but the Ninth Circuit reversed that decision. On remand, the district court rejected plaintiffs' dormant Commerce Clause claims, concluding that the statutes did not discriminate against interstate commerce, did not regulate extraterritorially, and did not unduly burden interstate commerce. Plaintiffs appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that the cardroom licensing restrictions do not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. The court found that the statutes are not facially discriminatory, do not have a discriminatory purpose or effect, and do not favor in-state economic interests. The court also concluded that the statutes do not regulate extraterritorially because they condition a state license for conducting in-state activities on plaintiffs foregoing certain business interests, whether within or outside the state. Finally, the court determined that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a significant or substantial burden on interstate commerce under the Pike balancing test. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of the California officials. View "Flynt v. Bonta" on Justia Law

A school principal used the school's printer after hours to create a coaster as a retirement gift for a friend. The coaster design contained the School District's official logo but altered the District's motto in a disrespectful manner. A custodian took pictures of the coaster, which were shared on social media, leading to public outrage. The principal left the community the next day. The District proposed to terminate him for incompetence and violating anti-harassment policies. After a brief pretermination hearing, the District terminated the principal. The principal appealed, and the Board upheld the termination following an additional hearing.The principal then appealed to the superior court, which also affirmed his termination. The court found that the District had grounds to terminate the principal due to substantial noncompliance with District rules and regulations and that the community's reaction to the coaster was reasonable. The court also rejected the principal's free speech arguments, stating that his speech was not protected under the First Amendment. The court acknowledged that the pretermination hearing process was flawed but deemed the error harmless due to the subsequent post-termination hearing.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case. The court held that the Board had a reasonable basis to terminate the principal for incompetency under AS 14.20.170(a)(1) due to his inability to perform his duties effectively after the incident. The court also concluded that the principal's termination did not violate his free speech rights under AS 14.20.095 or the First Amendment. However, the court found that the pretermination hearing process did not provide sufficient due process, as the principal was not informed of his right to call witnesses. The court affirmed the termination but reversed the superior court's decision denying back pay, awarding back pay through the date of the Board's post-termination hearing decision. View "Stirling v. North Slope Borough School District" on Justia Law