Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

In 1983, David Santana was convicted of rape in New York. At the time, neither New York nor Pennsylvania had enacted a sex offender registration scheme. However, as time passed, states began enacting statutory schemes aimed at monitoring sexual offenders by requiring them to comply with strict registration and notification requirements. In 1995, New York passed the “Sex Offender Registration Act” (“SORA”), which became effective in January 1996. Pennsylvania followed suit, enacting the first version of Megan’s Law in 1995. In this case, the issue presented for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's review centered on whether its decision in Commonwealth v. Muniz (holding that SORNA constituted a punitive regulatory scheme that, when imposed retroactively to sex offenders who committed their offenses prior to SORNA’s enactment, amounted to an unconstitutional ex post-facto law) applied with equal force to offenders whose triggering offenses occurred in another state. The Supreme Court concluded that it did, thereby affirming the Superior Court. View "Pennsylvania v. Santana" on Justia Law

General Motors was a Delaware corporation engaged in the sale of motor vehicles in Pennsylvania, and subject to Pennsylvania’s corporate income tax. GM contested the calculation of its 2001 Tax Year corporate income tax, after filing a report of change in its federal taxable income in March 2010. In February 2012, GM timely filed a petition for refund with the Department of Revenue’s (“Department”) Board of Appeals. It claimed that the cap on the net loss carryover (NLC) resulted in a “progressive effective tax rate” which violated the Uniformity Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution. It explained that “a taxpayer conducting business on a larger scale in Pennsylvania pays a higher effective tax rate than a similarly situated taxpayer conducting business on a smaller scale.” In Nextel Communications of the Mid-Atlantic, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Department of Revenue, 171 A.3d 682 (Pa. 2017), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the NLC deduction applicable to corporate income tax for the tax year ending December 31, 2007 (“2007 Tax Year”), violated the Uniformity Clause. Here, the Court applied Nextel and considered GM's constitutional challenges to the NLC provisions applicable to corporate income tax in the tax year ending December 31, 2001 (“2001 Tax Year”). The Supreme Court agreed with the Commonwealth Court that Nextel applied retroactively to this case, however, it reversed the Commonwealth Court to the extent it remedied the violation of the Uniformity Clause by severing the $2 million NLC deduction cap, which would have resulted in an unlimited NLC deduction. Instead, the Supreme Court severed the NLC deduction provision in its entirety, resulting in no NLC deduction for the 2001 Tax Year. The Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s order to the extent it directed the Department to recalculate GM’s corporate income tax without capping the NLC deduction and issue a refund for the 2001 Tax Year, which the Court concluded was required to remedy the due process violation of GM’s rights pursuant to McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Department of Business Regulation of Florida, 496 U.S. 18 (1990). View "General Motors Corp. v. Pennsylvania" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from the prosecution of two defendants in connection with alleged hazing rituals at Penn State University in 2016 and 2017 that led to the death of Timothy Piazza. The prosecutions proceeded at multiple docket numbers for each defendant, and although the common pleas court consolidated the docket numbers for trial, the docket numbers were not consolidated for all purposes. Defense suppression motions were granted in part and the Commonwealth filed two interlocutory appeals, one for each defendant. The notice of appeal for each defendant contained all docket numbers pertaining to that defendant. The Superior Court determined separate notices of appeal should have been filed for each docket number and quashed the appeals pursuant to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling in Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969, 976 (Pa. 2018). The Supreme Court granted review to examine whether the intermediate court correctly applied the holding in Walker considering the Commonwealth’s position the matter was more properly controlled by Always Busy Consulting, LLC v. Babford & Co., Inc., 247 A.3d 1033 (Pa. 2021) The Supreme Court concluded the exception to the Walker rule enunciated in "ABC" was not broad enough to encompass this appeal. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court remanded to the Superior Court to determine, in its discretion, whether the Commonwealth should have been granted relief through application of the safe harbor provision of Pa.R.A.P. 902. View "Pennsylvania v. Young" on Justia Law

In March 2016, Christa Nesbitt was working as a server at the Whistle Stop diner in Oreland, Pennsylvania, when she first met Daniel Talley. Over the next several months, their friendly chats led to mutual affection, which then evolved into an intimate and physical relationship. In September 2016, Talley asked Nesbitt and her minor daughter, R.N., to move into his home. Nesbitt agreed. She and R.N. lived with Talley until the spring of 2017. At the end of May 2017, Nesbitt and R.N. moved out of Talley’s house. The next day, Nesbitt began receiving threatening and harassing messages on her mobile phone from unfamiliar email addresses. Nesbitt ultimately reported the threats to police, by August, Talley was arrested for aggravated assault, stalking, harassment and related offenses. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review of this matter to resolve two distinct legal issues: (1) the Commonwealth’s burden of proof when it seeks to deprive the accused of his or her state constitutional right to bail; and (2) whether the best-evidence rule allows a party to introduce printed photographs of text messages as they appeared on a cellphone’s interface—i.e., “screenshots.” The Supreme Court found that while the trial court committed an error of law in denying Talley’s motion for release on nominal bail, Talley was due no relief because he failed to prove that the error affected the outcome of his trial. Nor was a new trial warranted on his best-evidence claim, since the lower courts concluded correctly that the screenshots of the text messages were admissible duplicates. View "Pennsylvania v. Talley" on Justia Law

Appellant Joseph McCabe was arrested on charges of theft by unlawful taking and receiving stolen property in connection with the April 2015 taking of a collection of gold coins from the home of Thomas and Kathy Mohn, with whom Appellant had been staying. Montgomery County had instituted a Veterans Treatment Court (VTC) Program in 2011; Appellant applied for participation in the VTC and was accepted into the program. As a condition thereof, he entered an open plea to the theft charge graded as a third-degree felony. The VTC’s order accepting the plea noted that sentence would be deferred and, as a condition, that a restitution hearing would be scheduled. Appellant successfully completed the requirements and conditions of the VTC program. The court reviewed the sentencing guidelines and acknowledged Appellant’s success in the VTC program, and sentenced Appellant to a two-year term of probation. Appellant moved for reconsideration of the sentence, which was ultimately denied. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted certiorari review in this case to determine whether a problem-solving court like the VTC, was subject to to Chapter 3 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure (the Rules) governing Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD). The Court also considered whether Appellant, due to his inability to fully pay restitution, was denied the full benefit of the problem-solving court in contravention of his rights to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court found positive sentencing consideration, including dismissal of charges, could accompany a successful completion of the program, but the program did not create guarantees, procedures, or discretion not already authorized under the Rules. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s determination that the trial court’s sentencing order regarding restitution was not governed by Chapter 3 of the Rules. The Court also affirmed the judgments of the lower courts, finding no as-applied constitutional infirmities to have been established in Appellant’s claim. View "Pennsylvania v. McCabe" on Justia Law

During the investigation, officers obtained a warrant to search for evidence of possession and distribution of child pornography on the electronic devices in the home of Appellant, Eric Green. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review in this matter to address whether that search warrant was overbroad. After careful consideration, the Court found no reversible error with the lower courts' determinations that the warrant was not overbroad because it described the physical devices and digital data for which there was probable cause as nearly as may be under the circumstances. Accordingly, the Superior Court judgment was affirmed. View "Pennsylvania v. Green" on Justia Law

In February 2017, Caleb Zweig died after a brief but tragic interaction with his college fraternity brother, appellant Brady DiStefano. Appellant initially was charged with aggravated assault and criminal homicide due to this encounter; however, the criminal homicide charge later was dismissed as the Commonwealth failed to produce prima facie evidence to support it. In response to Appellant’s subsequent pretrial motion, the trial court entered an order precluding the Commonwealth from presenting at Appellant’s trial any evidence suggesting that Appellant caused Zweig’s death. The Commonwealth appealed that order to the Superior Court, which reversed the trial court’s order. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allowance of appeal to determine whether the Superior Court misapplied the appellate court standard for reviewing trial court evidentiary rulings. After careful consideration, the Supreme Court concluded the Superior Court misapplied the relevant standard of review in reversing the trial court’s order. Thus, it vacated the Superior Court’s judgment, reinstated the trial court’s order, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Pennsylvania v. Distefano" on Justia Law

In a direct appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed the Commonwealth Court’s entry of a permanent injunction blocking the Secretary of the Commonwealth from certifying the results of the November 5, 2019 election in which the voters of the Commonwealth were asked to approve a proposed “victim’s rights amendment” (“Marsy’s Law”) which would be added as a new provision of Article I of the Pennsylvania Constitution – Section 9.1 (“Victim’s Rights Amendment”). The Commonwealth Court entered its injunction on the basis that the Victim’s Rights Amendment violated the requirement of Article XI, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution that, “[w]hen two or more amendments shall be submitted they shall be voted upon separately.” After careful consideration, the Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court, because the Supreme Court determined the Victim’s Rights Amendment was, in actuality, a collection of amendments which added a multiplicity of new rights to the Pennsylvania Constitution, and, because those new rights were not interrelated in purpose and function, "the manner in which it was presented to the voters denied them their right to consider and vote on each change separately, as Article XI, section 1 mandates." View "League of Women Voters of PA v. Degraffenreid" on Justia Law

Some time between mid-January and the early part of February 2018, K.S., a 14- year-old student at West Side Career and Technology Center (“WSCTS”), a vocational high school, heard appellant, a 15-year-old student at the school, say he “doesn’t think people deserve to live and everyone should just die.” Appellant’s second statement was made on February 20, 2018, six days after 17 high school students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida were fatally shot. M.W., a 15-year-old classmate of appellant’s, overheard appellant say “[h]e wanted to beat the record of 19.” M.W. heard this statement from only two or three feet away while in the hallway between classes. Although appellant’s remark was not directed at her, M.W. was unsure whether he was “talking to someone [else], or [if] he just said it” aloud. K.S.,after learning of appellant’s “beat the record” statement secondhand, followed suit and reported what she had heard. The Commonwealth later charged appellant with terroristic threats pursuant to Section 2706(a)(1) and (3) of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code, and disorderly conduct. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court observed it “remains an open question” whether the First Amendment to the United States Constitution permitted States to criminalize threats made in reckless disregard of the risk of causing fear. In this opinion, the Court resolved that issue, holding that the First Amendment tolerates a conviction — in this case, under Pennsylvania’s terroristic threats statute, for making a threatening statement even where the speaker did not intend to cause terror. However, after its de novo review of the record, the Court felt constrained to conclude the statements underlying appellant's adjudication, "though perhaps concerning to some because they were uttered in a school hallway only days after a deadly high school shooting," did not cross the constitutional threshold from protected speech to an unprotected true threat. The Court therefore vacated appellant’s adjudication of delinquency. View "In the Interest of: J.J.M." on Justia Law

In consolidated appeals, the issue presented for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's review centered on the Commonwealth Court’s holding that, to be held liable for damages under Pennsylvania’s inverse condemnation statute, an entity had to be "clothed with the power of eminent domain" to the property at issue. In 2009, Appellee, UGI Storage Company filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the “Commission” or “FERC”), seeking a certificate of public convenience and necessity to enable it to acquire and operate certain natural gas facilities. Appellee wished to acquire and operate underground natural gas storage facilities, which the company referred to as the Meeker storage field. Appellee also sought to include within the certificated facilities a 2,980-acre proposed "buffer zone." FERC ultimately granted the application for Appellee to acquire and assume the operation of the Meeker storage field, but denied Appellee’s request to certificate the buffer zone. Appellants petitioned for the appointment of a board of viewers to assess damages for an alleged de facto condemnation of their property, alleging that though their properties had been excluded by FERC from the certificated buffer zone, they interpreted Appellee’s response to the Commission’s order as signaling its intention to apply for additional certifications to obtain property rights relative to the entire buffer zone. The common pleas court initially found that a de facto taking had occurred and appointed a board of viewers to assess damages. Appellee lodged preliminary objections asserting Appellants’ petition was insufficient to support a de facto taking claim. The Supreme Court reversed the Commonwealth Court: "we do not presently discern a constitutional requirement that a quasi-public entity alleged to have invoked governmental power to deprive landowners of the use and enjoyment of their property for a public purpose must be invested with a power of eminent domain in order to be held to account for a de facto condemnation. ... a public or quasi-public entity need not possess a property-specific power of eminent domain in order to implicate inverse condemnation principles." The case was remanded for the Commonwealth Court to address Appellants’ challenge to the common pleas court’s alternative disposition (based upon the landowners’ purported off-the-record waiver of any entitlement to an evidentiary hearing), which had been obviated by the intermediate court’s initial remand decision and that court’s ensuing affirmance of the re-dismissal of Appellants’ petitions. View "Albrecht, et al. v. UGI Storage Co. et al." on Justia Law