Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Officer arrested Plaintiff for telephone harassment after she witnessed Plaintiff call in false complaints about her neighbors’ supposedly loud music. The harassment charges were dropped, however. Plaintiff then sued Defendant for false arrest under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Her claim was dismissed based on qualified immunity. On appeal, Plaintiff argued the magistrate judge erred by (A) concluding Defendant reasonably believed she had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff for telephone harassment and (B) determining no issue of material fact existed precluding summary judgment.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that it is undisputed that, before arresting Plaintiff, Defendant called the district attorney’s office to ensure that a telephone harassment charge was proper. The court wrote that as the magistrate judge observed, nothing about the circumstances taints Defendant’s beliefs as unreasonable: (1) Plaintiff called multiple times to report loud music that day; (2) other officers found no loud music playing when they arrived; (3) the alleged noisemakers claimed they were not playing loud music; (4) no music was playing during the several hours Defendant was on the scene; and (5) while Defendant stood behind the neighbors’ fence hearing no noise, she received reports Plaintiff was still calling in complaints. Thus the court wrote that it sees no error in the magistrate judge’s conclusion that Defendant reasonably believed probable cause supported Plaintiff’s arrest. View "Perry v. Mendoza" on Justia Law

Carafem provides abortion care, birth control, and STD testing in several states. One clinic was in a medical office building in a Nashville suburb. Carafem filed suit under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, 18 U.S.C. 248, alleging that on July 26, 2022, the OSA defendants refused to move from the building's front doors and blocked the entrance for several minutes before police ordered them to move to the sidewalk. The defendants allegedly stated that they would return each day and ‘escalate’ activities. During an alleged incident on July 28, approximately 60 people associated with OSA attempted to enter Carafem’s clinic by pretending to seek services. After being denied entry, one stated that “either they [are] gonna let us in or we take this whole building down.”The district court granted a temporary restraining order and, later, a preliminary injunction under the Act. The defendants filed an interlocutory appeal and later moved the court to take judicial notice of Carafem’s announcement that it was pausing in-person services at the clinic due to Tennessee’s new abortion ban. The Sixth Circuit dismissed and remanded, The issue of whether the court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction has been overtaken by a dispute over whether intervening events warranted modifying or dissolving that injunction, raising new factual and legal issues that the district court is best positioned to resolve. View "FemHealth USA, Inc. v. Williams" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of attempted illegal entry pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1325 and attempted illegal reentry pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1326. On appeal, he argued that the district court violated his rights to a fair trial and sentence.The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The panel held that the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress a statement he made to a Border Patrol agent about coming to the United States to find work. Defendant argued that the statement, which he made while between border fences, should have been suppressed because he was “in custody” and was not given a Miranda warning prior to his admission. The panel held that the stop here met the requirements of Terry, and the agent’s question about Defendant’s purpose for being in the United States did not exceed the scope of allowable inquiry during such a stop. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 403, the testimony of Defendant’s only proposed witness, a Tijuana immigration attorney, whom Defendant intended to call as a lay witness to testify about the “factual situation in Tijuana in November 2019”. The panel wrote that neither the record nor the witness’s testimony could establish that Defendant knew of the long lines, and the district court’s concern about distracting the jury was reasonable. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in formulating the jury instructions on the requisite intent for a Section 1326 conviction. View "USA V. JUAN CABRERA" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, husband and wife, filed a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 action against several officers of the Tucson Police Department. Two officers (collectively, “Defendants”) are the only remaining defendants. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged First Amendment retaliation claims arising from Defendants’ investigation of two arsons that occurred at properties connected to the husband. Defendants appealed from the district court’s order denying without prejudice their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.   The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of summary judgment as to the First Amendment claims. The panel concluded that Plaintiffs failed to show that Defendants’ conduct violated clearly established law. It was not clearly established that Plaintiff has a First Amendment right to remain silent when questioned by the police. Nor was it clearly established that a retaliatory investigation per se violates the First Amendment. Defendants were therefore entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claims based on the husband's silence and Plaintiffs’ lawsuits and requests for public disclosures. View "GREG MOORE, ET AL V. SEAN GARNAND, ET AL" on Justia Law

Parents Defending Education, an association of parents, brought this action to challenge a policy adopted by the Linn Mar Community School District in Iowa. The disputed policy is entitled “Administrative Regulations Regarding Transgender and Students Nonconforming to Gender Role Stereotypes.” The policy sets forth regulations for the District that “address the needs of transgender students, gender-expansive students, nonbinary, gender nonconforming students, and students questioning their gender to ensure a safe, affirming, and healthy school environment where every student can learn effectively.” The parents who seek to participate in this case are anonymous; the pleadings identify them by a letter of the alphabet. The district court determined that Parents Defending failed to establish Article III standing because the organization did not show injury, causation, or redressability on its claims.   The Eighth Circuit dismissed the appeal in part as moot and reversed on one claim. The court concluded that at least Parent G has alleged an injury in fact sufficient to confer Article III standing. Parent G asserts that her son wants to “state his belief that biological sex is immutable.” Because of the policy, however, Parent G states that her son remains silent in school “when gender identity topics arise” to avoid violating the policy. This student’s proposed activity “concerns political speech” and is “arguably affected with a constitutional interest.” Thus, Parent G has standing to bring a claim challenging the policy based on the First Amendment. Therefore, Parents Defending has standing as an association to pursue the claim on behalf of a member. View "Parents Defending Education v. LinnMar Community School Dist., et al" on Justia Law

While on patrol, Deputy Sheriff Brock Katseanes discovered an unattended car parked in the parking lot of a public boat launch. The car was unlocked, and its trunk and front windows were open. Katseanes learned the car was registered to April Ramos. Katseanes was eventually joined by five additional officers and a canine to search the surrounding area for Ramos, but they were unsuccessful in locating her. Due to his previous encounters with Ramos, Katseanes believed the car likely contained illegal drugs. The canine conducted a drug sniff; the dog did not alert during its sniff of the car’s exterior. The officers subsequently impounded the car and then conducted an inventory search of it prior to having the car towed. During the inventory search, the officers found methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. Ramos was charged with possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. She moved to suppress all evidence found during the inventory search of the car. The district court denied her motion. Ramos conditionally pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance but retained her right to appeal the denial of her motion to suppress. As a result of the plea agreement, the State dismissed the possession of drug paraphernalia charge. Ramos timely appealed, and the Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed the district court's judgment. "Absent clear instruction from the United States Supreme Court, we decline to expand Opperman’s 'community caretaking' rationale to include potential theft or property damage to the vehicle as an acceptable reason to impound a vehicle. ... an officer’s concern that the car will be subject to theft or property damage if it is not impounded—no matter how well-founded the concern may be—is irrelevant to the analysis as to whether the decision to impound the car is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment." The case was remanded to the district court to determine whether the decision to impound Ramos’s car passed constitutional muster. View "Idaho v. Ramos" on Justia Law

Corey Brown was convicted by jury of conspiracy to commit grand larceny, armed robbery, and kidnapping. In a post-trial motion, Brown moved for a new trial on several grounds, including the State's failure to disclose its negotiations with Shadarron Evans, the State's key witness. The trial court granted the motion, and the State appealed. Agreeing with the State, the court of appeals reversed the grant of a new trial, concluding that no plea offer had been extended and remanded the case to the circuit court to make specific findings as to whether the evidence was material to Brown's guilt under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The South Carolina Supreme Court granted Brown's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the court of appeals. After that review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case to the circuit court for a new trial. View "South Carolina v. Brown" on Justia Law

A jury sentenced Stephen Powers to death for the attempted rape and murder of Elizabeth Lafferty. After the Mississippi Supreme Court denied post-conviction relief, Powers sought federal habeas relief at the federal district court. The district court stayed federal habeas proceedings to give the Mississippi courts an opportunity to rule on unexhausted claims. In general, Powers argued: (1) he was mentally incompetent; (2) he was denied his right to a fair, impartial jury; (3) trial counsel was ineffective during jury selection for not challenging the prosecution’s peremptory strikes based on Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); (4) as a matter of federal due process, the attempted-rape evidence was insufficient; (5) trial and post-conviction counsel were ineffective concerning the guilt phase; (6) trial counsel’s “total dereliction” at sentencing requires application of United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984), not Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); (7) even if Cronic was inapplicable, trial counsel was ineffective under Strickland; and (8) cumulative error. Taking each issue raised under careful consideration, the Mississippi Supreme Court denied Powers' request for postconviction relief. View "Powers v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

In 2018, the Plaintiffs each purchased real estate in Cleveland, planning to rehabilitate and redevelop the properties. Before those purchases, Cleveland declared the buildings on the properties public nuisances, condemned them, and ordered that they be demolished. Following the purchases, and after the Plaintiffs invested time and resources into renovating the buildings, Cleveland authorized private contractors to demolish them. After the demolition of the buildings, the Plaintiffs sued, arguing that the demolitions violated state laws and federal constitutional provisions. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment on the constitutional claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Each Plaintiff received “notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” After their purchases, Cleveland sent “new owner letters” via certified mail both to the property address and to each Plaintiff's statutory agent, including both the notice of condemnation and demolition order. Neither Plaintiff applied for required rehabilitation permits. View "First Floor Living LLC v. City of Cleveland, Ohio" on Justia Law

In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court “heed[ed] the Constitution and returned the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.” After Dobbs, Idaho, exercised that prerogative to enact abortion restrictions. In response, the federal government sued Idaho, claiming that a federal law unrelated to abortion preempts the will of the people of that state, through their elected representatives, to “protect fetal life,” as Dobbs described it.   The Ninth Circuit granted Idaho’s motion for a stay pending appeal. The court held that there is no preemption and the traditional stay factors favor granting the Legislature’s motion. The court explained that Dobbs triggered section 622, after which the federal government challenged Idaho’s law, arguing that it is preempted by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 1395dd (EMTALA).  The court reasoned that each of the four Nken factors favors issuing a stay here. The Legislature has made a strong showing that EMTALA does not preempt section 622. EMTALA does not require abortions, and even if it did in some circumstances, that requirement would not directly conflict with section 622. The federal government will not be injured by the stay of an order preliminarily enjoining enforcement of a state law that does not conflict with its own. Idaho, on the other hand, will be irreparably injured absent a stay because the preliminary injunction directly harms its sovereignty. The balance of the equities and the public interest also favors judicial action ensuring Idaho’s right to enforce its legitimately enacted laws during the pendency of the State’s appeal. View "USA V. STATE OF IDAHO" on Justia Law