Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

A juvenile was found delinquent on firearm charges and guilty on a youthful offender indictment for one of the offenses. At the trial, the juvenile was nineteen years old, and the Commonwealth called his mother to testify about events that occurred when he was seventeen. The juvenile argued that the parent-child witness disqualification statute, which prohibits testimony by a parent against their minor child, should have precluded his mother's testimony even though he was no longer a minor at the time of trial. He also claimed that the trial judge made several errors in admitting other evidence and that his sentence was unlawful and unconstitutional.The juvenile was charged in a delinquency complaint with possession of a firearm without a firearm identification card, unlawful possession of a large capacity feeding device, and improper storage of a firearm. He was subsequently indicted as a youthful offender for the large capacity feeding device charge. The juvenile filed a motion to prevent the Commonwealth from calling his mother as a witness, invoking the parent-child witness disqualification statute. The motion judge denied the motion, reasoning that the statute applied only to testimony against a minor child, and the juvenile was no longer a minor.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and agreed with the trial judge's interpretation that the statutory prohibition of testimony by a parent against their minor child does not apply once the child has reached the age of eighteen. The court found no prejudicial error in the admission of other evidence, although it concluded that the judge should not have admitted a detective's testimony that a firearm depicted in still images was "identical" to the firearm admitted in evidence, nor two hearsay statements. Regarding the juvenile's sentence, the court agreed that the judge erred in not issuing written findings explaining the sentence but concluded that this error did not prejudice the juvenile. The court affirmed the juvenile's delinquency and youthful offender adjudications and declined to vacate his sentence. View "Commonwealth v. Rajiv R." on Justia Law

Carlos and Ana Carachure filed a lawsuit against the City of Azusa, claiming the City violated article XIII D of the California Constitution by charging sewer and trash franchise fees that exceeded the cost of providing those services and using the fees to fund general city services. The City argued that the Carachures failed to exhaust their administrative remedies because they did not follow the statutory procedures for a refund, which require paying the fees under protest and filing a claim for a refund. The trial court agreed with the City and entered judgment in its favor.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County ruled that the Carachures were required to file a claim for a refund with the City before seeking judicial relief, as they claimed the fees were illegally collected or assessed. The court denied the Carachures' petition for a writ of mandate and entered judgment for the City. The Carachures filed a motion for a new trial and to vacate the judgment, arguing the trial court relied on inapplicable property tax cases and the current version of the Revenue and Taxation Code. The trial court denied the motion.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reviewed the case and reversed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court held that the Carachures' constitutional challenge to the City's collection and use of franchise fees seeks relief outside the scope of the statutory claims procedure for refunds. The court concluded that the Carachures did not have to file a claim for a refund before bringing this action, as their challenge was not an action for a refund governed by section 5472 and Article 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. The judgment was reversed, allowing the Carachures to proceed with their constitutional claims. View "Carachure v. City of Azusa" on Justia Law

In 2015, the Missouri General Assembly enacted sections 67.287 and 479.359.2, which imposed certain standards and revenue caps on municipalities, specifically targeting St. Louis County. The City of Normandy and other municipalities challenged these statutes, claiming they violated the Missouri Constitution's prohibition against local or special laws. In 2016, the Circuit Court of Cole County declared these sections unconstitutional and issued a permanent injunction against their enforcement. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed this decision in City of Normandy v. Greitens.Following a shift in legal analysis in City of Aurora v. Spectra Communications Group, LLC, the state sought relief from the 2016 injunction, arguing that the statutes would have survived under the new rational basis review. The circuit court initially granted this relief, but the Missouri Supreme Court vacated that judgment in City of Normandy v. Parson, remanding the case for further proceedings. On remand, the circuit court overruled the state's motion for partial relief from the judgment.The Missouri Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court's decision. The court held that the change in legal analysis from City of Aurora did not automatically warrant relief from the permanent injunction under Rule 74.06(b)(5). The court emphasized the importance of finality in judgments and found that the state did not demonstrate sufficient inequity to justify lifting the injunction. The court also noted that the state had not sought relief from the declaratory judgment that the statutes were unconstitutional, which remained in effect. Therefore, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the state's motion for relief. View "City of Normandy v. Kehoe" on Justia Law

The State of Oklahoma moved to terminate a mother's parental rights due to her methamphetamine addiction and failure to provide a stable environment for her child. The child was placed in emergency custody in May 2022, and the mother entered and left multiple inpatient treatment programs without completing them. The State filed a motion to terminate her parental rights in April 2023, and a jury trial was set for August 2023. The mother failed to appear for the trial, and her attorney requested a continuance, which was denied. The trial court held a nonjury trial and terminated her parental rights.The mother appealed the decision, and the Court of Civil Appeals, Division III, affirmed the trial court's ruling. The mother argued that the statute allowing the trial court to deem her failure to appear as a waiver of her right to a jury trial was unconstitutional. The Court of Civil Appeals did not substantively address this constitutional claim.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case and found that the statute in question is constitutional. However, the court emphasized that due process requires that the record must reflect that the parent received notice of the possible consequences of failing to appear for the jury trial. The court vacated the Court of Civil Appeals' opinion and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the mother had received sufficient notice. The trial court is to hold the hearing within 30 days and submit findings of fact and conclusions of law to the Supreme Court within 15 days after the hearing. View "IN THE MATTER OF FB v STATE OF OKLAHOMA" on Justia Law

A class of incarcerated juvenile offenders in Florida, all sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole under a now-defunct sentencing scheme, sued the Commissioners of the Florida Commission on Offender Review. They claimed that the parole system violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourteenth Amendment's due process rights. The plaintiffs argued that the parole system did not provide a meaningful opportunity for release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted summary judgment to the Commissioners, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims. The court found that Florida's parole system did not violate the Eighth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The plaintiffs appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Florida's parole system does not violate the Eighth Amendment for either homicide or non-homicide juvenile offenders. For homicide offenders, the system is not a sham and provides a genuine possibility of parole, satisfying the requirements set forth in Miller v. Alabama. For non-homicide offenders, the system offers a meaningful opportunity for release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation, as required by Graham v. Florida.Regarding the due process claim, the court concluded that the plaintiffs did not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in parole under either state law or the Eighth Amendment. Therefore, their procedural due process claim failed. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Commissioners. View "Howard v. Coonrod" on Justia Law

Matthew Morrison was convicted of a sexually violent offense and sentenced to prison. Before his release, the Santa Clara County District Attorney filed a petition to commit him as a sexually violent predator under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). The trial court found the petition true, declared Morrison a sexually violent predator, and committed him to the State Department of State Hospitals for an indeterminate term.Morrison appealed, arguing that the trial court violated his constitutional rights by not personally advising him of his right to a jury trial and securing a personal waiver of that right. He claimed that the SVPA’s failure to require a personal jury trial advisement and waiver, unlike other civil commitment statutes, violated the constitutional equal protection guarantee.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court determined that Morrison’s equal protection challenge was subject to rational basis review. Since Morrison did not raise the issue in the trial court, the appellate court conditionally affirmed the commitment order and remanded the matter to allow Morrison to raise his equal protection claim before the trial court. The appellate court provided guidance on the principles the trial court should apply when resolving Morrison’s constitutional claim. View "P. v. Morrison" on Justia Law

Darrell Robinson was convicted of being a felon in possession of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), after law enforcement officers found six firearms in his vehicle during a search. Robinson pled guilty to the charge and was sentenced to 50 months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release. The district court also imposed a special condition of supervised release that allowed for the search of Robinson’s electronic devices upon reasonable suspicion of a violation of a condition of supervision.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York adopted the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) without modification and imposed the special search condition as recommended in the PSR. Robinson did not object to the PSR or the special condition during sentencing but later moved to correct the judgment, arguing that the electronic search condition was not orally pronounced at sentencing. The district court denied the motion, finding that it had met its obligation by referencing the PSR.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed Robinson’s appeal, where he argued that the electronic search condition was not orally pronounced, was procedurally unreasonable, and violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The court found that the district court’s reference to the PSR was sufficient to impose the special condition, and the need for the condition was self-evident given Robinson’s extensive criminal history and dishonesty with law enforcement. The court also held that the condition, which required reasonable suspicion, did not violate Robinson’s Fourth Amendment rights due to his diminished expectation of privacy while on supervised release.The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court, upholding the special condition of supervised release allowing for the search of Robinson’s electronic devices. View "United States v. Robinson" on Justia Law

David Knellinger and Robert Storey discovered that the state of Colorado had taken possession of their property under the Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (RUUPA). They filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that Colorado's unclaimed property scheme violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The plaintiffs alleged that Colorado took their property for public use without just compensation and did not provide them with notice or compensation.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for lack of standing. The court found that Knellinger and Storey failed to sufficiently allege ownership of the property at issue, partly because they did not file an administrative claim to establish ownership as required by RUUPA. The district court also dismissed the plaintiffs' equitable claims, concluding that § 1983 provided an adequate basis for obtaining just compensation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the district court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs' claims for monetary relief. The appellate court held that Knellinger and Storey had plausibly alleged that Colorado took their property for public use without just compensation, which is sufficient to confer standing. The court emphasized that property owners need not file administrative claims with Colorado before suing for just compensation under the Takings Clause. However, the appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' equitable claims, as § 1983 provides an adequate remedy for obtaining just compensation.The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' damages claims and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Knellinger v. Young" on Justia Law

Andrew Czarnecki and Montario Taylor were convicted of first-degree premeditated murder in separate cases. Czarnecki was 19 years old at the time of his crime, while Taylor was 20 years old. Both were sentenced to mandatory life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOP) as required by Michigan law. They argued that their sentences were unconstitutional under Michigan’s prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment.Czarnecki’s conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, which reasoned that the precedent set in People v Hall, which upheld mandatory LWOP for felony murder, remained binding. Taylor’s conviction and sentence were similarly affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, which also relied on Hall and other binding decisions. Both defendants sought leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court.The Michigan Supreme Court extended its decision in People v Parks, which held that mandatory LWOP for 18-year-olds was unconstitutional, to include individuals who were 19 or 20 years old at the time of their crime. The Court held that mandatory LWOP for 19- and 20-year-olds violates the principle of proportionality and constitutes cruel punishment under the Michigan Constitution. The Court ruled that Czarnecki and Taylor are entitled to individualized sentencing procedures before LWOP can be imposed. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decisions, vacated the defendants’ sentences, and remanded the cases for resentencing in accordance with the new ruling. This decision applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. View "People v. Czarnecki" on Justia Law

Several college volleyball players accused their coach of physical, verbal, psychological, and sexual abuse. The players alleged that the coach engaged in a pattern of sexual harassment and abuse, including inappropriate touching and forcing players to engage in uncomfortable physical interactions. They also claimed that the coach's misconduct was reported to various university administrators and assistant coaches, who either witnessed or were informed of the abuse.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama dismissed the players' Title IX and § 1983 claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The court found that the players had abandoned their breach-of-contract claims and dismissed those with prejudice. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The court held that the players failed to state a Title IX claim because only certain university administrators were "appropriate persons" to receive notice of the misconduct, and the players did not provide sufficient actual notice of sexual harassment to those individuals. The court also found that the university did not act with deliberate indifference upon receiving the notice.Regarding the § 1983 claims, the court held that the players did not show that the university employees' conduct violated clearly established substantive-due-process principles. The court concluded that the employees were entitled to qualified immunity because the players did not provide case law with indistinguishable facts, a broad statement of principle, or conduct so egregious that it clearly violated constitutional rights.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's order dismissing the players' Title IX and § 1983 claims. View "DeMarcus v. University of South Alabama" on Justia Law