Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff-Appellant Regina Daniels, a former United Parcel Service (UPS) dispatcher who worked in UPS's Kansas City, Kansas facility, brought suit against the company alleging discrimination based on her sex and age. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of UPS, and Plaintiff appealed. Upon review of the district court's decision, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court did not err in finding: (1) most of Plaintiff's discrimination claims were untimely; and (2) the claims of discrimination and retaliation that remained failed as a matter of law. View "Daniels v. United Parcel Service, Inc." on Justia Law

In August 2010, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) commenced "regular" removal proceedings against Petitioner Antonio Aguilar-Aguilar, a citizen of Mexico. In response to the Notice to Appear (NTA), Petitioner conceded his removal as "[a]n alien present in the United States without being admitted." Petitioner informed the immigration judge (IJ), however, that he was in the process of seeking discretionary relief in the form of adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident as provided for in 8 U.S.C. 1255(i). Over Petitioner's objection, DHS then moved to dismiss the NTA as improvidently issued and to terminate Petitioner's proceedings without prejudice. As an alien without lawful residency who had been convicted of an aggravated felony, Petitioner was deportable and thus amenable to "expedited" removal proceedings. After the IJ granted DHS's motion, DHS commenced proceedings against Petitioner and issued a Final Administrative Removal Order (FARO) directing his removal to Mexico. The FARO found Petitioner "ineligible for any relief from removal that [DHS] may grant in an exercise of discretion." Petitioner now asks us to review a FARO he claims DHS issued in violation of his Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process. The Tenth Circuit denied review: "Petitioner simply 'has no liberty or property interest in obtaining purely discretionary relief." And that is all Petitioner [sought]" on appeal. View "Aguilar-Aguilar v. Holder" on Justia Law

This case concerned the construction of a new Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) rail/truck terminal outside Kansas City, Kansas. Because the preferred site contained streams and wetlands protected under federal law, several groups (collectively, "Hillsdale") brought challenges to a dredge and fill permit issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under the Clean Water Act. The district court denied Hillsdale's motion for an injunction and granted summary judgment for the Corps and BNSF. On appeal, Hillsdale requested that the Tenth Circuit set aside the Corps's decision to grant the permit because the Corps inadequately considered alternatives to the selected site under the Clean Water Act and violated the National Environmental Policy Act by preparing an inadequate environmental assessment and failing to prepare a full environmental impact statement. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the Corps's decision was supported by the record, and was not an arbitrary and capricious exercise of its approval powers under federal law. View "Hillside Environmental Loss, et al v. United States Army Corps, et al" on Justia Law

Pro se Appellant Charles Buchheit appealed a district court's sua sponte dismissal of his complaint against certain Defendant Kansas State officials. Clerk of the Kansas appellate courts Carol Green cross-appealed the district court's denial of her motion to review the magistrate judge's order granting Appellant in forma pauperis status (IFP). Appellant filed his "Petition for Injunctive Relief Under the Fourteenth Amendment, As Well As, the Equal Access to Justice Act" naming as defendants Ms. Green and Shawnee County Court Judge Daniel Mitchell. He alleged that the Kansas state appellate courts had denied his request to proceed IFP and had refused to docket his state appeals. Ms. Green objected on the grounds that the magistrate judge failed to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). The district court overruled the objection but dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that Appellant sought retrospective relief against the state that was barred by sovereign immunity. Because he was seeking to address alleged past harms rather than prevent prospective violations of federal law, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the request did not fall into the "Ex Parte Young" exception to state sovereign immunity, and accordingly affirmed the district court's dismissal of Appellant's complaint. With regard to Ms. Green's cross-appeal, the Tenth Circuit agreed that "[t]hough screening might be a good practice and more efficient," the Court found that nothing in the language of 28 U.S.C. 1915 (e)(2) requires an assigned magistrate judge to screen a case for merit or to make a recommendation for dismissal to the district court before granting IFP status. "But the language of the present rule also provides needed flexibility, even if it sometimes requires defendants like Ms. Green and Judge Mitchell to respond to complaints that may soon be dismissed as without merit. It simply does not require district courts to review the merits of every claim that comes before them in an IFP motion, and we decline to read in such an extensive duty absent statutory language to that effect." View "Buchheit v. Green" on Justia Law

State prisoner James Clayton filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus contending he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney ignored his repeated instructions to file an appeal after he pled guilty. The magistrate judge found that Mr. Clayton’s attorney disregarded his request to file an appeal and recommended that the district court conditionally grant the writ and order that Mr. Clayton be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea within 120 days. The district court agreed. On appeal, the State contended the district court’s finding was clearly erroneous. It argued alternatively that even if habeas relief was warranted, the district court should have only allowed Mr. Clayton an out of time direct appeal, rather than the right to withdraw his guilty plea. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that Mr. Clayton received ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal. The Court ordered a limited remand to the district court to allow it to supplement the record with its reasons for ordering as the remedy that Mr. Clayton be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea. The Court retained jurisdiction over the appeal while the district court supplemented the record. View "Clayton v. Jones" on Justia Law

Petitioner Hector Barrera–Quintero, a native and citizen of Mexico, faced removal from the United States. He sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision finding him ineligible for cancellation of removal. "Because Congress tightly constrains [the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals'] power to review discretionary aspects of the BIA’s orders of removal, we must dismiss in part his petition for lack of jurisdiction." The Court could, however, review constitutional claims and questions of law involving statutory construction. In this case, Petitioner's eligibility for cancellation of removal hinged on whether he maintained at least ten years of continuous physical presence in this country, as required by the terms of 8 U.S.C. sec. 1229b(b)(1)(A). Because the BIA relied on a reasonable statutory construction in finding Petitioner failed to satisfy the continuous-presence requirement, the Court denied the remainder of the petition for review. View "Barrera-Quintero v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Brian Luis Guardado entered a conditional plea of guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to 46 months' imprisonment and 36 months' supervised release. Defendant reserved his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence found during a Terry stop-and-frisk. Exercising that right, Defendant argued on appeal that the district court erred in holding the officers' stop was based upon reasonable suspicion. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed, finding that in this case, several factors - the most important of which was Defendant's own evasive behavior - converged to create an objectively reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. Therefore, the Court held that the seizure did not violate the Fourth Amendment. View "United States v. Guardado" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Christopher Michael Conner entered a conditional plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. He was sentenced to 28 months' imprisonment followed by three years' supervised release. On appeal, he argued that the officers who stopped and frisked him based upon an anonymous tip violated the Fourth Amendment. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that "[t]his [was] clearly not a case of police officers arbitrarily stopping an individual walking down the sidewalk during the middle of the afternoon. . . . nor [was] this a case of police officers arbitrarily stopping an individual walking down an alley late at night in a high-crime area. Here, the officers had a sufficiently reliable tip and a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity they believed Mr. Conner might have been involved in an armed confrontation. Reasonable suspicion requires a dose of reasonableness and simply does not require an officer to rule out every possible lawful explanation for suspicious circumstances before effecting a brief stop to investigate further." View "United States v. Conner" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of obstructing justice stemming from his disclosure of the existence of an ongoing undercover investigation to one of the targets of that investigation. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six months and one day, followed by six months of home confinement and a term of supervised release. Upon review of Defendant's arguments on appeal, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court’s conclusion that the government presented sufficient evidence from which the jury could find Defendant obstructed justice when he informed the target of the ongoing undercover investigation. Accordingly, Defendant's conviction and sentence were affirmed.View "United States v. Ahrensfield" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-Appellees Ann and Greg Elwell were in the process of adopting T.S., a young boy who had been in their care almost his entire life. But approximately one month after a complaint of emotional abuse of another child in the Elwells' care, state officials withdrew the license allowing the Elwells to care for T.S. and removed him from their home without any advance notice. Despite a state court's finding that the agency acted wrongfully in removing the boy, he was never returned to them. The Elwells brought suit against several state officials involved in the removal under 42 U.S.C. 1983. On a motion for summary judgment, the district court concluded that qualified immunity did not shield the state officials from liability. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court that the defendants violated the Elwells' Due Process rights when they removed T.S. without notice. However, despite the Court's sympathy for the Elwells' plight, the Court concluded that this violation was not clearly established in the case law at the time of T.S.'s removal. Accordingly, the Court reversed the district court's denial of summary judgment. View "Elwell, et al v. Byers, et al" on Justia Law