Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

James R. Kalita was convicted in county court of second-degree criminal trespass and refusal to obey a lawful order after he brought a flagpole into the Nebraska State Capitol Building, which was against the building's regulations. Despite being informed by Capitol security and Nebraska State Patrol officers that poles were not permitted, Kalita refused to remove the flagpole or leave the premises, leading to his arrest.Kalita appealed to the District Court for Lancaster County, arguing that the statutes and regulations under which he was convicted were unconstitutional as applied to him and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. The district court affirmed the county court's judgment, finding the evidence sufficient and rejecting the constitutional challenge.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that Kalita forfeited his constitutional challenge by failing to raise it in the county court. The court emphasized that constitutional issues must be specifically raised at the trial court level to be considered on appeal. The court also found that the evidence was sufficient to support Kalita's convictions, as he had clearly refused to obey a lawful order from the Nebraska State Patrol and remained in the Capitol building despite being informed that he was trespassing.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding Kalita's convictions for second-degree criminal trespass and refusal to obey a lawful order. View "State v. Kalita" on Justia Law

In the summer of 2024, the Nebraska Secretary of State announced he would not implement recent statutory amendments allowing individuals convicted of felonies to vote upon completing their sentences, deeming the amendments unconstitutional. In response, individuals who had completed their sentences filed for a writ of mandamus to compel the Secretary and county election commissioners to implement the amendments and allow them to register to vote.The case was brought directly to the Nebraska Supreme Court. The relators argued that the amendments provided a clear right to vote and imposed a clear duty on the respondents to allow voter registration. The Secretary, supported by an Attorney General's opinion, argued that the amendments were unconstitutional, asserting that the power to restore voting rights lies with the Board of Pardons, not the Legislature.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case, noting that fewer than five judges found the amendments unconstitutional, as required by the Nebraska Constitution to invalidate a legislative act. Consequently, the court determined that the relators had established the prerequisites for mandamus relief. The court issued a peremptory writ directing the Secretary and election commissioners to use voter registration forms required by the amendments and to register the individual relators upon receipt of complete applications. The court also ordered the Secretary to remove any disqualification on registration not contained within the amendments and to comply fully with the new statutory provisions. View "State ex rel. Spung v. Evnen" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with obstructing the administration of law in violation of a municipal ordinance. The incident occurred when law enforcement officers attempted to arrest the defendant's son, who had a felony warrant. The defendant, holding a large dog, approached the officers, yelled at them, and did not comply with their commands to step back. This behavior continued until the officers threatened to shoot the dog. The defendant also picked up his son's backpack despite orders to leave it, further interfering with the officers' duties.The County Court for Douglas County found the defendant guilty, concluding that his actions constituted willful and defiant refusals to comply with lawful commands, thereby obstructing the officers. The court relied on the language of the ordinance and referenced a similar case, State v. Ferrin, to support its findings. The defendant was fined $250 and ordered to pay court costs.On appeal, the District Court for Douglas County affirmed the conviction. The defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove intent, that the trial court improperly applied a different statute, and that his conviction violated due process and his First Amendment rights. The district court found that the evidence supported the conviction and that the trial court had not erred in its application of the law.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, as the defendant's actions interfered with the officers' duties and demonstrated intent to obstruct. The court also found no merit in the defendant's arguments regarding the application of a different statute and constitutional violations, noting that these issues were not properly raised in the lower courts. View "State v. Yah" on Justia Law

A group of 29 physicians challenged a proposed ballot initiative in Nebraska that sought to add a new section to the state constitution, protecting unborn children from abortion in the second and third trimesters, except in cases of medical emergency, sexual assault, or incest. The physicians argued that the initiative violated the single subject rule and would create voter confusion.The Nebraska Supreme Court had previously reviewed a similar initiative titled "Protect the Right to Abortion" and found it did not violate the single subject rule. The physicians conceded that if the first initiative was allowed, the second should be as well, given their structural similarities. They filed for a writ of mandamus to prevent the second initiative from appearing on the ballot, arguing it should be withheld based on the same principles applied to the first initiative.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that the second initiative did not violate the single subject rule. The court applied the "natural and necessary" test and found that all parts of the initiative related to the same subject. The court also noted that arguments about potential voter confusion were not separate requirements for determining the legal sufficiency of the measure. Additionally, the court found that other arguments presented by the physicians were not ripe for review, as they were based on contingent future events.Ultimately, the Nebraska Supreme Court denied the writ of mandamus, allowing the second initiative to appear on the ballot. The court dissolved the alternative writ and concluded that the Secretary of State did not have a duty to withhold the initiative from the general election ballot. View "State ex rel. Constance v. Evnen" on Justia Law

Two relators challenged a ballot initiative proposing to amend the Nebraska Constitution to include a right to abortion. The initiative sought to establish a fundamental right to abortion until fetal viability or when necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient, without state interference. The relators argued that the initiative violated the single subject rule of the Nebraska Constitution and contained confusing language.In the lower courts, the relators presented their objections to the Nebraska Secretary of State, who decided to certify the initiative for the ballot. The relators then filed petitions for writs of mandamus to compel the Secretary of State to remove the initiative from the ballot. The Nebraska Supreme Court granted leave to file the actions and issued alternative writs of mandamus, ordering the Secretary of State to show cause why the initiative should not be removed.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that the initiative did not violate the single subject rule. The court found that the initiative's provisions were naturally and necessarily related to the general subject of creating a constitutional right to abortion. The court also rejected the argument that the initiative's language was confusing and misleading. Consequently, the court denied the writs of mandamus and dissolved the alternative writs by operation of law. View "State ex rel. Brooks v. Evnen" on Justia Law

A self-described "lay midwife" was charged by the State of Nebraska with practicing a profession without a credential after being ordered to cease and desist. The midwife, who did not hold a state-issued credential, provided prenatal and postnatal care and assisted with childbirth. The charges were based on her alleged violation of the Uniform Credentialing Act (UCA).In Madison County, the district court sustained the midwife's plea in abatement, finding that "nurse midwives" were not required to hold credentials under the UCA. The court also suggested that the UCA would be unconstitutionally vague if it required a credential for practicing "nurse midwifery." Similarly, in Douglas County, the district court sustained a plea in abatement on the same grounds, dismissing the charges against the midwife.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the district courts had misconstrued the UCA. The court held that the UCA requires individuals to hold a credential to engage in practices such as attending childbirth and providing related care, which fall under the scope of medicine and surgery, advanced practice registered nursing, and certified nurse midwifery. The court also found that the evidence presented was sufficient to show probable cause that the midwife had committed the charged crime.The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the district courts' orders sustaining the pleas in abatement and dismissing the charges. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, including consideration of the midwife's motions to quash and demurrers. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

Sandra K. Nieveen owned property in Lincoln, Nebraska, which was free of encumbrances. After failing to pay property taxes, TAX 106 purchased a tax certificate for the delinquent taxes. TAX 106 later transferred its interest to Vintage Management, LLC, which obtained a tax deed for the property. Nieveen alleged that the property was worth significantly more than the tax debt and claimed that the issuance of the tax deed violated her constitutional rights.The District Court for Lancaster County dismissed Nieveen’s constitutional claims for failure to state a claim and later granted summary judgment in favor of the county on her remaining claim. The court found that Nieveen was not entitled to an extended redemption period due to a mental disorder. Nieveen appealed, and the Nebraska Supreme Court initially affirmed the district court’s decision.The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Nebraska Supreme Court’s judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Tyler v. Hennepin County, which recognized a plausible takings claim when a property was sold for more than the tax debt. Upon reconsideration, the Nebraska Supreme Court concluded that Nieveen had alleged a plausible takings claim against Vintage Management, LLC, as the issuance of the tax deed deprived her of property value exceeding her tax debt. The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against other defendants and declined to reconsider the Excessive Fines Clause claim, as just compensation under the Takings Clause would provide complete relief.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings regarding the takings claim against Vintage Management, LLC. View "Nieveen v. TAX 106" on Justia Law

Kevin L. Fair and his wife owned property in Scotts Bluff County, Nebraska, but failed to pay property taxes. The county treasurer sold a tax certificate to Continental Resources for the unpaid taxes. After three years, Continental notified the Fairs that they needed to redeem the property by paying the total amount due, which they did not. Consequently, Continental requested and received a tax deed from the county treasurer, transferring title to the property free of any encumbrances.The District Court for Scotts Bluff County granted summary judgment in favor of Continental Resources, rejecting Fair’s constitutional claims, including those under the Takings Clauses of the U.S. and Nebraska Constitutions. Fair argued that the issuance of the tax deed constituted a taking without just compensation. The district court found no merit in Fair’s claims and ruled in favor of Continental. Fair appealed, and the Nebraska Supreme Court initially affirmed the district court’s decision.The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Nebraska Supreme Court’s judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Tyler v. Hennepin County. Upon reconsideration, the Nebraska Supreme Court concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Continental on Fair’s takings claim. The court found that Fair had a protected property interest in the value of his property exceeding the tax debt and that Continental’s acquisition of the tax deed constituted a taking without just compensation. The court determined that Continental, as a state actor, could be liable for the taking.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment in all other respects but reversed the summary judgment in favor of Continental on the takings claim, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "Continental Resources v. Fair" on Justia Law

The case involves William Zitterkopf, who was charged with unlawful distribution of an intimate image under Nebraska law. The charges stemmed from allegations that Zitterkopf recorded a sexual encounter with the victim, L.E., without her consent and later distributed a screenshot from the video to his ex-wife and L.E. The image showed L.E. nude from the waist down. Zitterkopf sent the image to L.E. with a message suggesting she confess to lying in an affidavit related to his divorce proceedings.The Scotts Bluff County District Court overruled Zitterkopf’s motion to quash the charge, in which he argued that the statute under which he was charged was unconstitutional. The court found that the statute was not overbroad and did not violate free speech protections because it targeted the nonconsensual nature of the disclosure rather than the content of the image. The court applied an intermediate level of scrutiny and concluded that the statute served an important governmental interest without burdening more speech than necessary.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and assumed for the sake of argument that the statute was content-based and subject to strict scrutiny. The court found that the statute served a compelling interest in protecting individual privacy and was narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The statute required a lack of consent both when the image was created and when it was distributed, and it required that the distribution be done knowingly and intentionally. The court concluded that the statute was not substantially overbroad and did not violate the First Amendment.The court also addressed Zitterkopf’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. It found that the record on direct appeal was sufficient to determine that Zitterkopf could not show prejudice from his counsel’s failure to object to certain testimony. However, the court found the record insufficient to review Zitterkopf’s claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to present certain testimony. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed Zitterkopf’s conviction. View "State v. Zitterkopf" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of a Nebraska legislative bill, L.B. 574, which regulates both abortion and gender-altering care. Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc., and its medical director, Sarah Traxler, M.D., argued that the bill violated the single subject requirement of the Nebraska Constitution, which mandates that no bill shall contain more than one subject. The bill, titled "Let Them Grow Act," was initially introduced to prohibit gender-altering procedures for minors but was later amended to include provisions from a stalled bill, L.B. 626, which restricted abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy.The District Court for Lancaster County ruled that Traxler lacked standing but found the single subject challenge justiciable. The court concluded that L.B. 574 did not violate the single subject requirement and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, including Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers. Planned Parenthood appealed, and Hilgers cross-appealed, arguing that the single subject challenge was a nonjusticiable political question.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that L.B. 574 did not violate the single subject requirement of the Nebraska Constitution. The court reasoned that the bill's title, "public health and welfare," was sufficiently broad to encompass both the regulation of abortion and gender-altering care. The court found that all provisions of the bill were germane to the subject of public health and welfare, thus meeting the constitutional requirement. The court also rejected Hilgers' argument that the single subject challenge was nonjusticiable, reaffirming its authority to review legislative acts for constitutional compliance. View "Planned Parenthood of the Heartland v. Hilgers" on Justia Law