Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Since the early 1990s, Chevron and its predecessor Texaco, Inc., have defended litigation concerning Texaco's operations in Ecuador and the environmental contamination it allegedly produced. This litigation started in the Southern District of New York but eventually found its way to Ecuadorian courts. In 2011, the court in Lago Agrio entered an $18.2 billion judgment against Chevron, which Chevron appealed. In this case, Chevron appealed the United States district court's order granting a motion to compel production of documents pursuant to subpoenas issued under 28 U.S.C. 1782. Chevron sought relief from that judgment pursuant to investment treaty arbitration under United Nations' rules. Finding no error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's order. View "The Republic of Ecuador, et al v. Bjorkman" on Justia Law

Jose Hernandez, Jr., and Salvador Hernandez were killed by a motorist while they were performing road construction in Oklahoma. Their representative sued their employer, Duit Construction Company, and the motorist and alleged a substantive due process claims against multiple Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) employees. All ODOT employees (except the director and the resident engineer on the construction project) were dismissed by the district court. The question before the Tenth Circuit in this case was whether the two remaining employees were entitled to qualified immunity. The district judge said no; but because the alleged facts revealed no constitutional violation, the Tenth Circuit reversed. View "Hernandez v. Ridley, et al" on Justia Law

Defendants-Appellants William Pickard and Clyde Apperson appealed the district court’s decision to deny their motion to unseal the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”)’s file on one of its confidential informants. Upon review of the matter, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court erred in the manner in which it denied Defendants’ motion to unseal the file: (1) by failing to require the United States to articulate a significant interest in continuing to keep the DEA records sealed; (2) by not applying the presumption that judicial records should be open to the public; and (3) by not considering whether unsealing a redacted version of the DEA records would adequately serve the as yet unarticulated government interest in keeping the records sealed. For these three reasons, the Court reversed the district court’s decision to deny Defendants’ motion to unseal the records and remanded the case for the district court’s further consideration of that motion. View "United States v. Pickard" on Justia Law

George Roberts said IBM fired him because of his age. He argued an instant message exchange between two of the company’s human resources managers referencing his "shelf life" played a direct role in his eventual discharge. The Tenth Circuit concluded that after its review of the evidence presented at trial, the term "shelf life" had nothing to do with Roberts’s age and everything to do with his workload. "Once its euphemisms and acronyms are translated into English, the instant message conversation unmistakably suggests that 'shelf life' was nothing worse than an inartful reference to Mr. Roberts’s queue of billable work. And that is more than enough to preclude it from amounting to direct evidence of discrimination in violation of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act." View "Roberts v. IBM" on Justia Law

Michael Lobato was a probationary employee at the New Mexico Environmental Department (NMED). Before completing his probationary period, Lobato was fired. Lobato, who is Hispanic and of Mexican ancestry, alleged that the proffered rationales were pretextual and that NMED was in fact motivated by racial and national origin prejudice. He also alleged NMED wanted to punish him for whistleblowing. The district court granted summary judgment to NMED on all claims, and the Tenth Circuit agreed with that decision. Lobato failed to raise a genuine dispute that NMED’s decision to terminate him was motivated by anything other than the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons NMED offered in its termination letter. View "Lobato v. State of NM Environment Dept., et al" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Michael Lynn Cash was pulled over after police observed him commit a traffic violation. During the stop, police saw in plain view an artificial bladder device. He also learned that defendant was on the way to take a drug test for his federal probation officer. Suspecting that defendant was planning on using the device to defeat a urine drug test, police detained him until another officer arrived at the scene. Shortly after the second officer arrived, police observed a firearm in plain view in the back seat of defendant's car. A scuffle ensued in an effort to take defendant into custody and to render the firearm safe. Defendant was eventually subdued and placed in the back of the police cruiser. He was not given Miranda warnings. Officers conducted an inventory search of defendant's vehicle and found methamphetamine, Lortab, and used syringes. A federal grand jury ultimately indicted defendant on three counts: possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and as a felon in possession of firearm. Defendant moved to suppress both (1) the physical evidence obtained from the search and (2) his statements to the officers while he was seated in the back of the police cruiser. The district court denied both motions, holding that neither defendant's Fourth nor Fifth Amendment rights were violated. A jury convicted defendant on all counts. He appealed the district court's denial of both motions to suppress. Finding no error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Cash" on Justia Law

This matter arose from efforts by Wasatch Wind Intermountain, LLC to establish two wind energy projects. These efforts drew the ire of the Northern Laramie Range Alliance, which objected to Wasatch’s certification to sell the energy. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) rejected the objections, and the Alliance appealed FERC’s decision. The threshold issue for the Tenth Circuit was whether the Alliance has established standing, which requires traceability and redressability. For both, the Alliance relied on increases in electricity rates. But the wind projects had not been completed, Wasatch had not found a buyer for the anticipated wind power, and it was unknown whether sales of wind energy would increase or decrease Northern Laramie's costs. With the uncertainties surrounding the effect of Wasatch’s certification or decertification on electricity rates, the Court concluded the Alliance did not show either traceability or redressability. The Court therefore dismissed the petition for lack of standing. View "N. Laramie Range Alliance v. FERC" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, appellant Bill Melot was convicted of one count of endeavoring to impede the administration of the Internal Revenue Code, one count of attempting to evade or defeat tax, six counts of willful failure to file, and seven counts of making false statements to the Department of Agriculture. He was sentenced to sixty months' imprisonment, which represented a significant downward variance from the advisory guidelines range of 210-262 months. He was also ordered to pay restitution to the IRS. On appeal, Melot argued the Government presented insufficient evidence of willfulness to support his convictions and erred in the calculating the tax loss and the amount of restitution. Upon careful consideration of the record of this case, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Melot's convictions, but reversed his sentence for recalculation. View "United States v. Melot" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Kent LeBere was convicted for second-degree murder and second-degree arson. He received a 60-year sentence. He applied for habeas relief, arguing the State relied on perjured testimony and withheld potentially exculpatory evidence material to his defense. The only question presented to the Tenth Circuit on appeal was whether federal courts could consider his claim. After LeBere began serving his sentence and while his direct appeal was pending, Ronnie Archuleta, a key witness against him, recanted his testimony. LeBere promptly moved for a new trial based upon that newly discovered evidence. His new trial motion became a collateral part of his direct appeal and, after a hearing, it was denied. LeBere then brought this habeas petition expressly claiming, for the first time, a "Brady" violation based on the undisclosed acts of a detective who allegedly encouraged Archuleta to lie at the trial. The district judge abated these habeas proceedings to permit LeBere to exhaust his new claim in the state courts. He then filed a petition for post-conviction relief with the Colorado trial court asserting his "Brady" claim. The petition was not decided on the merits; post-conviction relief was denied because the Brady claim was, sub silento, part of his newly discovered evidence claim, which was addressed and decided on direct appeal. Furthermore, the Brady issue was not considered to have been procedurally barred because it was not timely raised, it was considered to have been subsumed in the new trial motion and, in effect, decided when the new trial motion was denied. Under Colorado procedures it could not be revisited in post-conviction proceedings (successive bar). LeBere returned to federal court with the Brady claim; the district judge concluded it was procedurally barred by Colorado's successive bar rule. LeBere contended on appeal to the Tenth Circuit that Colorado's successive bar has no effect on the availability of habeas review of his particular claims. The Tenth Circuit concluded LeBere was correct and reversed. View "Lebere v. Abbott, et al" on Justia Law

At a joint trial, a jury acquitted Defendant-Appellant Olalekan Rufai and Adedayo Adegboye of one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, and convicted them of five counts of aiding and abetting health care fraud. The government and defendant agreed that an unindicted third party knowingly filed fraudulent claims on behalf of a medical equipment company set up by defendants. Defendant Rufai argued on appeal that the trial evidence was insufficient to show that he knowingly and willfully participated in the fraud. Upon careful consideration of the trial court record, the Tenth Circuit agreed with defendant and reversed his convictions on all counts. View "United States v. Rufai" on Justia Law