Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Bryan and Ami Hauxwell, farmers using ground and surface water for irrigation, submitted a request to pool ground water from several registered wells for the 2023-2027 allocation period. The Middle Republican Natural Resources District (NRD) denied their application, citing a rule that allows denial for any reason, including rule violations. The denial was communicated through a letter and a marked application. The Hauxwells challenged this denial, alleging it violated their constitutional rights and was arbitrary and capricious.The Hauxwells filed a petition for review with the district court for Frontier County, Nebraska, under the Nebraska Ground Water Management and Protection Act (NGWMPA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). They argued that the denial was contrary to a court order staying penalties previously imposed by the NRD. The NRD moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that the letter was not a final agency action or an order in a contested case, and thus not subject to judicial review under the APA. The district court dismissed the petition, finding that the letter did not arise from a contested case and was not a final order of the decision-making body.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The court held that the letter denying the Hauxwells' pooling application was not an "order" as defined under the NGWMPA. The court explained that the term "order" in the NGWMPA includes orders required by the act, a rule or regulation, or a decision adopted by the board of directors of a natural resources district. However, the letter in question did not meet these criteria, as it was not issued as part of any case or proceeding and was not required by any specific authority. Consequently, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. View "Hauxwell v. Middle Republican NRD" on Justia Law

An inmate, Trever Ballheim, appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus by the district court. Ballheim was originally sentenced to two different terms: 2 to 2 years for possession of a controlled substance and 10 to 11 years for being a habitual criminal. The district court later issued an order nunc pro tunc, changing the sentence for possession to 10 to 11 years, which Ballheim argued was void as it was issued without his presence and beyond the court's term.The district court dismissed Ballheim's petition without a hearing, citing that habeas corpus is not available for mere errors in judgment. Ballheim contended that the nunc pro tunc order was a nullity and that his sentence for being a habitual criminal was void, as it is not a crime. He argued that he had already served the valid sentence for possession.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and found that the nunc pro tunc order was void because it improperly changed the original sentence beyond correcting a clerical error. The court held that the original sentence for being a habitual criminal was void, as habitual criminality is not a separate crime but an enhancement. Since Ballheim had served the valid sentence for possession, he was entitled to habeas relief.The court reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case with directions to issue the writ of habeas corpus and hold a hearing to determine if Ballheim should be discharged from custody. View "Ballheim v. Settles" on Justia Law

John G. Strawn entered a plea agreement to plead no contest to two counts of third-degree assault. The State agreed not to mention any sexual contact in the factual basis for the charges. However, the county court found that Strawn had subjected a victim to sexual contact based on information in the presentence investigation report (PSR) and ordered him to register as a sex offender under Nebraska’s Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA).Strawn appealed to the district court, arguing that the county court erred in requiring him to register as a sex offender because the factual basis provided by the State did not include any evidence of sexual contact. He also contended that the county court should have made a specific credibility finding and that he was denied procedural due process. Additionally, Strawn challenged the county court's advisement that his conviction might result in a federal firearms prohibition. The district court rejected Strawn's arguments and affirmed the county court's judgment.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and found no merit in Strawn's arguments. The court held that SORA does not require evidence of sexual contact to be present in both the factual basis and the PSR; it is sufficient if such evidence is found in the record, which includes both the factual basis and the PSR. The court also determined that the county court was not required to make an express credibility finding and that there was sufficient evidence in the PSR to support the finding of sexual contact. The court concluded that Strawn was afforded procedural due process, as he was given notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding SORA registration. Finally, the court noted that the county court's advisement about the potential federal firearms prohibition did not impose any prohibition itself. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "State v. Strawn" on Justia Law

A business owner and his company, which provides non-emergency medical transportation, challenged the constitutionality of a Nebraska statute requiring a showing of "public convenience and necessity" to obtain a certificate to operate such services. They argued that the statute violated the Nebraska Constitution's due process, special legislation, and special privileges and immunities clauses. They claimed the requirement protected existing providers from competition and harmed the public by reducing service quality.The district court for Lancaster County rejected their constitutional challenges and dismissed their complaint. The court applied a rational basis test to the due process claim, finding the statute rationally related to a legitimate state interest in preventing destructive competition and ensuring reliable transportation services. The court also found the statute did not create an arbitrary or unreasonable classification or a closed class, thus rejecting the special legislation claim. Finally, the court determined the statute did not grant irrevocable special privileges or immunities, dismissing the special privileges and immunities claim.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's rejection of the facial constitutional challenges, agreeing that the statute was rationally related to a legitimate state interest and did not violate the special legislation or special privileges and immunities clauses. However, the Supreme Court vacated the district court's order to the extent it ruled on as-applied challenges, determining that such challenges should be raised in an application for certification and an appeal from any denial by the Public Service Commission. View "N'Da v. Golden" on Justia Law

Chad R. Clausen was charged with violating Nebraska’s Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) after an investigation revealed he had been intermittently staying at his fiancé’s house without notifying authorities. Clausen was registered under SORA at an address in Douglas County, Nebraska, but law enforcement received an anonymous tip that he was residing at a Washington County address. Evidence showed that Clausen had been staying at his fiancé’s residence in Washington County for several months. Clausen admitted to staying there for three days and then returning to his registered address for three days. The district court found Clausen guilty of violating SORA, determining that he had established a habitual living location and temporary domicile at his fiancé’s house without registering.Clausen appealed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals, arguing that the State failed to prove he established a habitual living location or temporary domicile and that the definitions of these terms were unconstitutionally vague. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, interpreting the definitions in line with a federal district court decision in Doe v. Nebraska, which required a person to stay at a location for three consecutive weekdays to establish a temporary domicile. The Court of Appeals found that Clausen’s admission of staying at the Washington County residence “most nights” allowed a rational trier of fact to conclude he stayed there for three consecutive weekdays.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and disagreed with the Court of Appeals’ interpretation. The Supreme Court held that “working days” in the context of SORA refers to Mondays through Fridays, excluding legal holidays. The Court found that there was insufficient evidence to prove Clausen stayed at the Washington County residence for three consecutive weekdays or more than three consecutive days. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed Clausen’s conviction and vacated his sentence, concluding that the State failed to prove he violated SORA’s registration requirements. View "State v. Clausen" on Justia Law

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