Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

On November 18, 2020, Officer Matthew Ibbotson and his partner stopped a silver Honda with heavily tinted windows in a high-crime area of Philadelphia for traffic violations. The driver, Omar Saunders, made suspicious movements, and Officer Ibbotson saw the handle of a gun under the driver’s seat. Saunders admitted he did not have a permit for the gun, which was later found to be stolen. Saunders was arrested, and the gun was seized.The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County denied Saunders’s motion to suppress the gun, ruling that the seizure was justified under the plain view doctrine and the automobile exception, which requires both probable cause and exigent circumstances. Saunders was convicted of firearms offenses and sentenced to three and a half to seven years in prison. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the seizure was lawful under the plain view doctrine.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case to determine the legality of the warrantless seizure. The court held that the seizure was constitutional under the plain view doctrine. It found that the police had a lawful vantage point, the incriminating nature of the gun was immediately apparent, and the police had a lawful right of access to the gun. The court emphasized that the unexpected development of probable cause during a lawful traffic stop justified the seizure without a warrant. Consequently, the court affirmed the Superior Court’s order upholding the denial of suppression of the firearm. View "Commonwealth v. Saunders" on Justia Law

The case involves a group of appellants, including individual citizens, CeaseFirePA, and the City of Philadelphia, who challenged two Pennsylvania statutes that prevent local governments from enacting their own firearms regulations. The appellants argue that these statutes, Section 6120 of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act and Section 2962(g) of the Home Rule Charter and Optional Plans Law, hinder their ability to address gun violence effectively at the local level.The Commonwealth Court previously reviewed the case and dismissed the appellants' petition, sustaining preliminary objections for failure to state a claim. The court found that the appellants did not sufficiently allege violations of substantive due process under Article I, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, the state-created danger doctrine, or improper interference with Philadelphia's delegated duties under the Local Health Administration Law and the Disease Prevention and Control Law of 1955.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and affirmed the Commonwealth Court's decision. The court held that the appellants failed to identify a constitutionally protected right that the statutes infringed upon, thus failing to establish a substantive due process claim. The court also concluded that the appellants did not meet the elements required to establish a state-created danger claim, particularly the requirement that the harm caused was foreseeable and fairly direct. Lastly, the court determined that the statutes did not interfere with Philadelphia's delegated public health responsibilities, as the relevant laws did not implicitly or explicitly authorize local firearm regulation.In summary, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the dismissal of the appellants' petition, upholding the statutes that preempt local firearm regulations. View "Crawford v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. (Alcatel) challenged the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's 2014 cap on net-loss carryover (NLC) deductions for corporate net income (CNI) tax. The cap allowed corporations to carry forward net operating losses up to the greater of $4 million or 25% of the company's 2014 net income. Alcatel, with a net income of $27,332,333 and accumulated losses exceeding that amount, could only carry over $6,833,083 due to the cap, resulting in a taxable income of around $20 million and a tax liability of approximately $2 million. Alcatel paid the tax and sought a refund, arguing the cap violated the Uniformity Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution.The Department of Revenue's Board of Appeals and the Board of Finance and Revenue denied Alcatel's refund request, citing lack of authority to decide constitutional issues. Alcatel then appealed to the Commonwealth Court, which initially affirmed the Board's decision, applying the Chevron test and concluding that the Nextel decision should not apply retroactively. However, after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision in General Motors Corp. v. Commonwealth, which held that Nextel applies retroactively, an en banc panel of the Commonwealth Court reversed the earlier decision, sustaining Alcatel's exceptions and ordering a refund.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and concluded that the General Motors decision was erroneous. The Court held that Nextel should apply only prospectively, not retroactively, as it established a new principle of law. The Court applied the Chevron test, determining that retroactive application would not further the operation of the rule and would cause significant financial harm to the Commonwealth. Consequently, the Court reversed the Commonwealth Court's decision, ruling that due process does not require the Commonwealth to refund the taxes paid by Alcatel in 2014. View "Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Michael Jones was convicted of attempted murder and related charges after an incident where he and his codefendants, Syheed Wilson and Keirsten Carroll, were involved in a shooting of a cab driver, Alex Destin. Jones directed the cab driver and then shot him, while Wilson also shot the driver. The three were identified through surveillance footage and arrested. Wilson gave a statement to the police implicating Jones as the shooter.At trial, Jones objected to the admission of Wilson’s statement, arguing it violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause as established in Bruton v. United States. The trial court overruled the objection, and the jury was instructed to consider each defendant’s statement only against the one who made it. Jones was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to twenty to forty years in prison. The Superior Court affirmed the conviction, reasoning that the redacted statement, which referred to Jones as “my friend,” did not violate the Confrontation Clause because it did not explicitly name him and required linkage with other evidence to be incriminating.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case, focusing on whether the admission of Wilson’s redacted statement violated Bruton. The court noted that the statement, though redacted to refer to Jones as “my friend,” still directly incriminated him by describing him in a way that the jury could easily identify him, especially since the jury was shown surveillance footage and still images identifying Jones. The court concluded that the statement violated Bruton’s prohibition against admitting a non-testifying codefendant’s confession that directly implicates the defendant.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania vacated the Superior Court’s order and remanded the case for the Superior Court to determine whether the Bruton violation amounted to harmless error. View "Commonwealth v. Jones" on Justia Law

The case involves a petition challenging the public release of a grand jury report by the 30th County Investigating Grand Jury. The petitioner argued that the report did not meet the statutory definition of an "investigatory grand jury report" under the Investigatory Grand Jury Act (IGJA) and that the supervising judge erred in ordering its release. The petitioner also contended that the report's criticism of named, unindicted individuals violated their due process rights and the fundamental right to reputation under the Pennsylvania Constitution.The Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas initially accepted the report and ordered its public release. The supervising judge provided notice and an opportunity to respond to some, but not all, named, unindicted individuals criticized in the report. The petitioner, along with others, sought to have the report permanently sealed or redacted. The supervising judge made some redactions but ultimately ordered the report to be unsealed.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and concluded that the report did not satisfy the IGJA's definition of an "investigatory grand jury report" because it neither related to organized crime or public corruption nor proposed recommendations for legislative, executive, or administrative action in the public interest. The court found that the report focused on punishing specific individuals and providing answers to the deceased-accused's family, rather than addressing broader public concerns.The court also determined that due process requires notice and an opportunity to respond for all named, unindicted individuals criticized in a grand jury report. The supervising judge's failure to provide such notice to all criticized individuals was deemed an error. Consequently, the Supreme Court vacated the supervising judge's order and remanded the case with instructions to permanently seal the report. View "In Re: The Thirtieth County Investigating Grand Jury" on Justia Law

In 2016, voters in Donegal Township, Washington County, Pennsylvania, decided to increase the number of members on the township’s board of supervisors from three to five. Subsequently, in 2020, the voters opted to reduce the number back to three. This led to a legal dispute involving Richard Martin, Jr., Richard Fidler, and Tammy Iams, who were elected to the five-member board but faced shortened terms due to the reduction.The Court of Common Pleas of Washington County initially dismissed the action brought by Martin, Fidler, and Iams, who challenged the constitutionality of Section 402(e) of the Second Class Township Code. The Commonwealth Court partially reversed this decision, ruling that Section 402(e) was unconstitutional as applied to Martin and Fidler, as it effectively removed them from office before their terms expired, contrary to Article VI, Section 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and focused on whether Section 402(e) was unconstitutionally applied. The Court held that Section 402(e) did not result in the removal of Martin and Fidler from office but rather modified their terms due to the reduction in the number of supervisors. The Court emphasized that Article VI, Section 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which provides the exclusive method for removing elected officials, was not applicable because the statute did not involve removal but rather a lawful modification of legislative office terms.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Commonwealth Court's decision, upholding the application of Section 402(e) and concluding that it did not violate the Pennsylvania Constitution. The Court found that the reduction in the number of supervisors and the subsequent election for the new three-member board were constitutionally permissible actions by the legislature. View "Martin v. Donegal Township" on Justia Law

In August 2021, Michael Yard’s infant son died from blunt-force trauma to the head while Yard was the sole caregiver. The child had also suffered broken ribs weeks earlier. Yard was charged with first-degree murder and other offenses in April 2022 and was denied bail by a Magisterial District Judge. At a preliminary hearing, evidence including an autopsy report and a 911 call was presented, and all charges were bound over to the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas.Yard petitioned for bail, citing a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision, Commonwealth v. Talley, which established a unique standard of proof for denying bail under the state Constitution. The bail court initially set bail at $200,000 with conditions but later vacated this decision, interpreting Talley to require live testimony rather than a "cold record." The Superior Court vacated the bail order and remanded for further proceedings. Yard then filed for nominal bail under Rule 600, which was granted by the bail court, setting bail at $1.00 with conditions.The Commonwealth appealed, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction. The Court held that the proof/presumption limitation in Article I, Section 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution does not apply to the life-offense exception to the right to bail. Therefore, when a defendant is charged with an offense carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, the Constitution categorically precludes release on bail. The Court vacated the bail court’s order granting nominal bail and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Commonwealth v. Yard" on Justia Law

The case involves the District Attorney (DA) of Philadelphia, who challenged articles of impeachment passed by the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. The articles were transmitted to the Senate on the last day of the 206th General Assembly session. The DA argued that the articles became null and void upon the session's expiration, and the new Senate could not conduct a trial based on them.The Commonwealth Court initially denied the DA's request for summary relief, ruling that the impeachment articles did not expire with the session's end. The court also found that the DA, as a local official, could be impeached under the Pennsylvania Constitution. However, the court agreed with the DA that some articles of impeachment did not allege conduct amounting to "misbehavior in office" and that certain articles intruded on the judiciary's exclusive authority to govern attorney conduct.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case. The court first addressed the justiciability of the issue, concluding that it had the authority to determine whether the impeachment articles expired with the session's end. The court emphasized that the Constitution must be read as an integrated whole, and the General Assembly's powers, including impeachment, are limited to the duration of its session.The court held that the articles of impeachment became null and void upon the expiration of the 206th General Assembly session. Consequently, the Senate of the 207th General Assembly could not conduct a trial based on those articles. The court reversed the Commonwealth Court's order denying the DA's request for summary relief on this issue. View "Krasner v. Ward" on Justia Law

In this case, the appellants, Dr. Simon and Toby Galapo, placed signs with anti-hate and anti-racist messages on their property after a neighbor, Denise Oberholzer, called Dr. Galapo an anti-Semitic slur. The signs were visible from the Oberholzers' property and other neighbors' homes. The Oberholzers filed a civil complaint seeking to enjoin the signs, claiming they constituted a private nuisance, intrusion upon seclusion, defamation, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.The Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas granted a permanent injunction, ordering the Galapos to reposition the signs so they did not face the Oberholzers' property. The court found the signs severely impacted the Oberholzers' well-being and quiet enjoyment of their home. The court also determined the injunction was a permissible time, place, and manner restriction on speech.The Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated the injunction, holding that the trial court applied the incorrect legal standard. The Superior Court concluded the injunction was content-neutral but remanded the case for the trial court to apply the more rigorous standard from Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc., which requires that the injunction burden no more speech than necessary to serve a significant government interest.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Superior Court's decision, holding that the injunction constituted an impermissible prior restraint under Article I, Section 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The Court emphasized that the signs were pure speech on matters of public concern and that the trial court lacked the power to enjoin such speech. The Court also held that the publication of language giving rise to tort claims other than defamation cannot be enjoined under Article I, Section 7. The Court concluded that the signs did not invade the Oberholzers' substantial privacy interests in an essentially intolerable manner. View "Oberholzer v. Galapo" on Justia Law

Gary and Mary Wolfe own property in Muhlenberg Township, which includes a roofing business and several rental homes. Reading Blue Mountain and Northern Railroad Company (RBMN) sought to condemn a portion of the Wolfes' property to reestablish a rail siding to serve Russell Standard, an asphalt company. The Wolfes objected, arguing the taking was for a private benefit rather than a public purpose.The Berks County Court of Common Pleas sustained the Wolfes' objections, finding the condemnation was intended solely to benefit Russell Standard and not the public. The court noted that the rail siding would disrupt the Wolfes' property and existing businesses, and that Russell Standard could use its own property for the rail connection. RBMN's refusal to consider alternative routes further indicated a private benefit.The Commonwealth Court reversed, relying on older case law that generally supported railroad takings for public use. The panel presumed RBMN's taking was for a public purpose, emphasizing the historical importance of railroads in serving public needs.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Commonwealth Court's decision. The Court held that the taking did not serve a public purpose as required by the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the public must be the primary and paramount beneficiary of the taking, which was not demonstrated in this case. The evidence showed the taking primarily benefited Russell Standard, with no significant public advantage. The Court remanded the case for reinstatement of the trial court's order dismissing the condemnation action. View "Wolfe v. Reading Blue Mountain" on Justia Law