Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Raul Roger Orona, Jr., appealed his conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Orona was sentenced to 198 months' imprisonment under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). He argued on appeal to the Tenth Circuit that the use of a juvenile adjudication as a predicate offense for ACCA purposes violated his Eighth Amendment rights. The Tenth Circuit concluded after review that Orona did not establish his constitutional rights were violated by the sentence. Accordingly, the Court affirmed. View "United States v. Orona" on Justia Law

The Tenth Circuit found no error in the district court's rejection of Defendant Francisco Chavez's request to serve his federal and state sentences for methamphetamine smuggling concurrently instead of consecutively. View "United States v. Chavez" on Justia Law

In consolidated cases for review, petitioners challenged a rule by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act. Petitioners argued that the EPA impermissibly rejected Oklahoma’s plan to limit the emissions of sulfur dioxide at Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company power plants and replaced it with its own more stringent regulations, which petitioners contended usurped the state’s authority and would require sizable expenditures on unnecessary technology. The Tenth Circuit concluded the EPA has authority to review the state’s plan and that it lawfully exercised that authority in rejecting it and promulgating its own. Accordingly, the Court denied the petitions. View "Oklahoma v. EPA" on Justia Law

Plaintiff David Newsome, a litigation trustee appointed by the bankruptcy court, administered the legal claims of Mahalo Energy (USA), Inc. He brought suit against the corporation's former directors and officers for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. All defendants are Canadian citizens. The defendants moved to have the case dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court granted that motion. At issue before the Tenth Circuit was whether or not the district court erred in granting that motion. The Tenth Circuit concluded that defendants cultivated sufficient contacts with the US (specifically, Oklahoma) to justify getting sued there. Furthermore, the Court held that the "fiduciary shield doctrine" did not apply in this case. The Court reversed as to individual defendants, and remanded the case for further proceedings. However, the Court affirmed dismissal with regard to the company's law firm: as an out-of-state firm that performed all of its relevant services out-of-state on an out-of-state transaction, it did not meet the minimum threshold of contact with the forum state to justify personal jurisdiction there. View "Newsome, et al v. Gallacher, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Jason Courtney brought a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against an Oklahoma State Trooper and the State of Oklahoma based on a traffic stop. He was arrested for being a felon in possession of a firearm as a result of that stop. Plaintiff alleged the trooper violated his constitutional rights by unreasonably extending the scope of the stop and arresting him without probable cause. The district court ruled in favor of the State and the trooper; on appeal, the Tenth Circuit concluded the trooper was entitled to qualified immunity from suit with regard to extending the scope of the traffic stop. However, the Court reversed the grant of immunity with regard to Plaintiff's claims of unlawful arrest without probable cause. Furthermore, the Court reversed the grant of summary judgment to the State on Plaintiff's claims for false arrest, conversion, assault and battery. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Courtney v. Oklahoma" on Justia Law

The issue before the Tenth Circuit in this case was whether a settlement agreement between the parties waived the State's "Eleventh Amendment" right not to be sued in federal court. After review of the settlement agreement, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the language of the settlement was not explicit, its reference to bringing suit in federal court had no other reasonable construction except as a waiver. Therefore, the settlement contained a waiver of that right. View "Pettigrew v.Oklahoma" on Justia Law

The issue on appeal before the Tenth Circuit in this case was whether the district court's decision at the original sentencing for Defendant Travis Boyd granting a downward departure of his criminal-history category was an "application decision" that remained "unaffected" with regard to the federal sentencing guidelines, or whether the departure should have been disregarded in calculating the ultimate sentence. Upon review, the Court held it should have been disregarded. View "United States v. Boyd" on Justia Law

Robert Clifton Tanner was charged with four counts of mail fraud. He entered into an agreement where he agreed to plead guilty to one count for which he would receive a stipulated sentence of 30 months' imprisonment. The district court accepted the plea and sentenced Tanner to the agreed 30 months. As part of the agreement, Tanner waived his right to appeal unless the punishment imposed was greater than the parties had agreed. Despite this waiver and the imposition of the agreed sentence, Tanner appealed, claiming his sentence was illegal. The government moved to enforce the appeal waiver. The Tenth Circuit granted the government's motion. View "United States v. Tanner" on Justia Law

Deputy defendant Johnny Barrientos of the Dona Ana County Sheriff's Department appealed a district court's denial of his motion for summary judgment in a 28 U.S.C. 1983 action brought by Lucia Fancher, individually and on behalf of the estate of her son, Nick Dominguez. Fancher alleges Barrientos used excessive force when he shot Dominguez seven times following a confrontation. Dominguez died as a result of one or more gunshot wounds. Barrientos argued he was entitled to qualified immunity because his use of deadly force was objectively reasonable and did not violate clearly established law. The district court granted Barrientos's motion for summary judgment to the extent Fancher's claim arose from the firing of the initial shot, but denied the motion to the extent the claim arose from the subsequent six. The Tenth Circuit concluded after its review that it lacked jurisdiction to hear two of the three arguments Barrientos raised on appeal. The Court was unpersuaded by Barrientos' third argument. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the denial of his motion for summary judgment. View "Fancher v. Barrientos, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant Jesse Nicholson appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. He entered a conditional guilty plea to three drug and weapons-related charges. Defendant was pulled over by Roswell police for being "insufficiently cautious" in making a left turn into a business' parking lot. Defendant argued that the officer lacked probable cause to pull him over, and therefore the drugs, drug paraphernalia and weapons police recovered from a search of his vehicle were obtained illegally. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's ruling on defendant's motion to suppress, and remanded the case with directions to vacated defendant's convictions. View "United States v. Nicholson" on Justia Law