Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Arthur Firstenberg allegedly suffers from electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), which requires him to avoid exposure to sources of electromagnetic radiation. These sources include cell-phone towers which emit radio-frequency (RF) radiation. Petitioner filed suit against the City of Santa Fe, New Mexico, and AT&T Mobility Services, LLC (AT&T), asserting that signal upgrades at AT&T base stations in Santa Fe adversely affected his health and that the City is required to regulate those upgrades. The district court dismissed Petitioner's action against the City and AT&T for failing to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Petitioner appealed. After briefing, the Tenth Circuit noted a potential jurisdictional problem: Petitioner's complaint failed to satisfy the well-pleaded-complaint rule for purposes of federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331. All parties insisted that federal jurisdiction was proper. The Tenth Circuit disagreed, and reversed the district court's dismissal to remand the case to state court. View "Firstenberg v. City of Santa Fe, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner Efren Neri-Garcia sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his applications for restriction on removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and for relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (the CAT). Years ago he was mistreated by government actors because of his homosexuality. At issue was whether conditions in Mexico, with respect to the treatment of gay men, changed sufficiently to overcome the presumption that he would be at risk were he to return. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the BIA: the IJ determined there had been fundamental changes with respect to the treatment of gays in Mexico such that Petitioner's life or freedom would not be threatened if removed to that country. The BIA appropriately considered whether the evidence of new incidents of violence against gay men was sufficient to justify a remand. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner's motion to remand. View "Neri-Garcia v. Holder" on Justia Law

Denise Ann Vigil appealed a twelve-month prison sentence imposed she received earlier this year following a series of revocations of probation or supervised release. Appellant argued her sentence was unreasonable because, although she “remained unmotivated throughout her term of supervised release,” and had a “propensity to misstate the truth,” those characteristics do “not constitute ‘severe’ or ‘exceptional’ behavior.” The Tenth Circuit affirmed: "her argument conveniently fails to recognize how her behavior has compounded her circumstances - -a teaching moment apparently lost. . .The first judge used a carrot, encouraging her rehabilitation through participation in programs; her behavior remained unchanged. The second judge dangled another carrot, to no avail. He then used a stick, imposing incarceration followed by supervised release; still no change. The attempts to “provide the defendant with . . . correctional treatment in the most effective manner” utterly failed. . . All that was left was to impose 'just punishment' for her most recent breach of trust." View "United States v. Vigil" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Michael Storey brought civil rights claims against police officers after they arrested him at his home during an investigation of a report of a loud domestic argument. The question before the Tenth Circuit was whether the officers had probable cause to order Plaintiff to step outside his home and arrest him when he refused to do so, and if exigent circumstances or community safety concerns could support the seizure to facilitate further investigation. Upon review, the Court concluded the officers lacked probable cause and exigent circumstances to justify the arrest, and the community caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment did not apply. The Court therefore reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Storey v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Federal inmate Defendant Travis Denny sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to allow him to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255. The court ruled that his motion was time-barred under the one-year limitations period of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Most of Defendant’s challenges to that ruling were "routine," but he raised a novel claim based on the AEDPA provision that delays the start of the limitations period until "the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence." He argued that he should be given additional time because he discovered the pertinent facts only by exercising extraordinary diligence. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit granted a COA on the timeliness issue but affirmed the district court. View "United States v. Denny" on Justia Law

The Constitution Party of Kansas, Curt Engelbrecht, and Mark Pickens sued the Secretary of State of Kansas, in his official capacity, alleging that their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights are violated by the Secretary's refusal, consistent with Kansas law, to keep track of Kansas voters' affiliation with the Constitution Party because the Constitution Party is not a recognized political party under Kansas law. In the district court, the parties stipulated to a Joint Statement of Facts and filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court ruled for the Secretary, determining that Kansas's system of tracking party affiliation did not unconstitutionally burden the plaintiffs' rights. On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the district court misapplied controlling Tenth Circuit precedent in evaluating their claim, and that under the proper analytical criteria, reversal is warranted. The Constitution Party did not contend that summary judgment was improper due to a lack of evidence in the record to support the Secretary's legal argument. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found no merit to the Constitution Party's argument and affirmed the district court's decision.

Defendant-Appellant Justus Rosemond appealed his conviction for using a firearm during a federal drug-trafficking offense. The United States charged Defendant with that offense under alternate theories, alleging that he was the principal and, alternatively, that he aided and abetted a cohort who fired the weapon. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the trial court properly instructed the jury on these alternate theories and that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's guilty verdict.

Defendant-Appellant Tracy Harris was convicted under 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) of conspiracy to commit a racketeering offense in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), and sentenced to 188 months in prison. On appeal, he challenged the substantive correctness of the jury instructions on the elements of section 1962(d) conspiracy; the sufficiency of the evidence to convict him of that crime; the failure of the district court to issue a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of withdrawal; and the substantive and procedural reasonableness of his sentence. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded: (1) that the existence of an enterprise is not a required element of section 1962(d) conspiracy; (2) alternatively, even if the Government was required to prove the existence of an enterprise, there was sufficient evidence to show that the various gang sets in this case constituted an association-in-fact enterprise under :Boyle v. United States," (556 U.S. 938 (2009)); and (3) that Defendant failed to present evidence that he had withdrawn from the alleged conspiracy sufficient to warrant a jury instruction on that defense.

Defendant-Appellant Corey Cornelius was charged with four counts of federal racketeering- and drug-related offenses in 2008 in the District of Kansas along with nineteen codefendants in a thirty-count indictment. A jury convicted Cornelius in 2009 of one count of conspiracy to commit a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), one count of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine, and one count of conspiracy to distribute marijuana. The jury could not reach a verdict on the fourth count against Cornelius, charging racketeering under RICO. The district court sentenced Cornelius to 210 months' imprisonment in 2010. Both Cornelius and the Government appealed aspects of the district court's order. Cornelius argued that (1) the evidence at trial was insufficient to support a conviction on any of the counts under which he was convicted; (2) the district court erred by instructing the jury pertaining to the RICO charges; (3) the district court erred by giving the jury an 'Allen' instruction after the jury advised the court that it was deadlocked on certain counts; (4) the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of duress; (5) Cornelius was denied his right to trial by an impartial jury, in light of an allegedly bias-indicating letter that a juror handed to the prosecution after trial; and (6) Cornelius's sentence was unconstitutional, contrary to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, and based upon an improperly considered prior conviction. The Government cross-appealed with regard to Cornelius's sentence, arguing that the district court erred by failing to impose the statutorily applicable twenty-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment required for his crack-cocaine conviction. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit rejected Defendant's arguments on appeal and affirmed his conviction. The Court agreed with the Government that the district court erred by failing to impose the statutory mandatory minimum sentence in this case, and therefore vacated Defendant's sentence and remanded the case for resentencing.

Federal prisoner Rufus Shines sought authorization from the Tenth Circuit to file a second or successive 2255 motion to challenge his sentence. On appeal, he argued that the Supreme Court's recent decision in "Dorsey v. United States" (132 S.Ct. 2321 (2012)) and its application of the Fair Sentencing Act's lower mandatory minimums for sentences like his applied to pre-Act offenders. In relevant part, the FSA eliminated the mandatory minimum five-year sentence that was applied to Mr. Shines. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit denied to authorize the successive motion: "Mr. Shines relies on 2255(h)(2), claiming that 'Dorsey' announced a new rule of law. However Dorsey did not announce a new rule of constitutional law."