Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

This appeal concerned the implementation of a federally-assisted Medicaid program by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, represented by its Secretary of Health. This was the sixth time the First Circuit Court of Appeals considered issues related to a dispute between the Commonwealth and several federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). The FQHCs here took to federal courts their claims for reimbursement payments owed to them under the Medicaid program. The district court, among other things, set a formula in place by way of a preliminary injunction that calculated payments the Commonwealth owed the FQHCs for providing Medicaid services. The First Circuit (1) concluded the formula that the district court endorsed in its preliminary injunction was not sufficiently supported by the factual record, and therefore, the Court remanded for further reformulation; (2) affirmed the district court's denial of the FQHCs' request for indemnification from debts owed to third party managed care organizations; and (3) affirmed the district court's determination that the Eleventh Amendment precludes a federal court from imposing a judgment for money damages upon the Commonwealth to make payments for periods predating the date of the district court's preliminary injunction.

Based on challenges of planting evidence and conducting illegal searches and seizures, officers in the Puerto Rico Police Department were convicted (in different combinations) of conspiring to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate persons in the town of Mayagüez in the free exercise or enjoyment of their constitutional rights, 18 U.S.C. 241, and conspiring to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) & 846. The First Circuit affirmed all convictions against challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence.

The federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. 2701-2721, establishes a cooperative federal-state-tribal regime for regulating gaming by federally recognized Indian tribes on Indian lands. The Massachusetts Gaming Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 23K, sect. 3(a), establishes a licensing scheme and other standards for gaming. KG, a potential applicant for a gaming license, argued that the state Act provides unauthorized preferences to Indian tribes and on that basis treats the southeast section of the state differently, and this constitutes a classification on the basis of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and is inconsistent with congressional intent in the federal Indian gaming statute. The district court dismissed. The First Circuit vacated with respect to the equal protection claim and otherwise affirmed. Whether the tribal provisions are "authorized" by the IGRA such that is subject to only rational basis review is far from clear, presents a difficult question of statutory interpretation, and implicates a practice of the Secretary of the Interior not challenged in this suit. There is apparently no judicial authority addressing the question of whether a state may negotiate a tribal-state compact with a federally recognized tribe that does not presently possess Indian lands.

DEA obtained permission to wiretap telephones. Symonevich arranged by phone to buy heroin at McDonald's off I-495. During a call, "Tony," asked Symonevich what kind of car he was driving; the answer was a green Subaru. Agents sent units to I-495; they observed what they thought was a meeting between Symonevich and a courier. Agents planned to stop Symonevich, but lost sight of the car. Later that day, unrelated to the DEA investigation, officer Sweeney stopped the car for a broken light, observed Symonevich, reaching under the seat and looking "scared." Officers smelled marijuana on Symonevich's clothing. The driver refused permission to search the car; Sweeney searched, fearing a safety threat. During the stop, Sweeney learned that Symonevich was the subject of a DEA investigation. Sweeney found a can of tire sealant under the seat. The weight was unexpected and he felt movement inside. The bottom of the can was separated; he unscrewed it and found bundles that he believed to be heroin. Convicted of conspiracy to distribute, and to possess with the intent to distribute, cocaine and heroin, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 846, Symonevich appealed denial of his motion to suppress. The First Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to sufficiency of the evidence, admission of certain testimony and charts, and the conspiracy instruction given to the jury.

Carta pled guilty to child pornography in 2002 and was sentenced to five years in prison and three years of supervised release. Prior to his scheduled release, the Bureau of Prisons certified that Carta was a "sexually dangerous person" and commenced civil commitment proceedings under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, 18 U.S.C. 4248(a). A "sexually dangerous person" is one "who has engaged or attempted to engage in sexually violent conduct or child molestation and is sexually dangerous to others." A determination that an individual is a sexually dangerous person requires proof by clear and convincing evidence that he "suffers from a serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder as a result of which he would have serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released." After a district judge ruled that the government had failed to establish that Carta's diagnosis of "paraphilia not otherwise specified characterized by hebephilia" was a "serious mental illness, abnormality or disorder" under the Act, the First Circuit reversed. A different district court judge subsequently ruled in the government's favor. The First Circuit affirmed.

Crooker was charged with possession of firearms and ammunition by an unlawful user of a controlled substance, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), and possession of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. 844. He was convicted of possession of marijuana and fined $4000. The First Circuit affirmed, upholding the district court's denial of a motion to suppress statements and evidence recovered during the search of the residence where he lived with his parents and brothers. Given the familiarity of the surroundings in which Crooker was questioned, the calm and peaceable nature of the conversations, and the lack of physical restraint or show of force during questioning, Crooker was not in custody for Miranda purposes. In light of secretive conversations between Crooker’s father and uncle about the biological toxin ricin, their discussion about moving the uncle’s possessions while the uncle was incarcerated, and information provided by confidential informants, including information that the uncle had buried ricin in Crooker's backyard, there was probable cause to believe that evidence of the enumerated crimes would be found at Crooker's house.

Police received a tip that Howard, a suspected gang member with an outstanding arrest warrant for armed assault with intent to murder, was at a specific house. Officers knocked, announcing themselves as police, and demanded entry. The door was opened by Knowles, who lived with her son, a friend of Howard’s. Howard was spotted by officers in the yard, peering out a bathroom window. They found Howard in the basement. Once he was arrested, Knowles signed consent to search. In the bathroom where Howard had been spotted, officers found a cell phone containing pictures of Howard; a burning cigarette, with Howard's DNA; and, in the toilet tank, a loaded semiautomatic handgun and a bag of individually wrapped crack cocaine rocks. In the kitchen, officers discovered another bag of cocaine rocks and digital scales. After denial of a motion to suppress, Howard was convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A). He was sentenced to 13 years and three months. The First Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to the search, sufficiency of the evidence, and jury instructions.

In 1998, Holmes pled guilty to second-degree murder and received a sentence of life in prison, the mandatory sentence. Mass. G.L. ch. 265, 2. Holmes claims that he pled guilty because his attorney, Graham, told him that the prosecutor had proposed that if Holmes entered the plea and if the prosecutor wanted information from Holmes, Holmes would be able to reduce his sentence by filing a Motion to Revise or Revoke. Holmes filed the Rule 29 motion, but did not identify any grounds. The motion was futile; the trial judge had no discretion in sentencing. In 2000, Holmes filed pro se a motion to withdraw the plea, alleging that Graham was constitutionally ineffective. Graham stated that he had advised Holmes to accept the plea because there was significant risk of a first degree murder conviction. In 2004, Holmes filed an amended motion, claiming that he would not have pled guilty had he known that the Rule 29 Motion would have been futile. After successive denials Holmes filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court dismissed the petition as untimely. The First Circuit remanded for consideration of whether the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled.

Officers searched a home inhabited by Clark and her adult son, Matthew. The warrant, issued the previous day, authorized a search for evidence of animal cruelty and unlicensed operation of a breeding kennel. Officers entered the Matthew's bedroom. Near a computer work station, they saw a list of web sites with titles suggestive of child pornography and nude photographs appearing to depict underage males. The officers immediately halted their search and obtained a supplementary warrant that authorized a search for child pornography. Officers seized evidence that formed the basis for indictment of Matthew for possessing child pornography, 18 U.S.C. 2252A (a)(5)(B). The trial judge rejected an argument that the first warrant was defective because the affidavit submitted with the application did not make out probable cause to believe that evidence of animal cruelty or an unlicensed kennel would be found and that the second search would not have occurred but for the evidence uncovered during the initial (illegal) search. The court relied on defendant's two prior convictions for indecent acts involving children as a basis for an offense-level enhancement and sentenced him to a 210-month term (the bottom of the guideline sentencing range). The First Circuit affirmed the conviction and the sentence.

Plaintiff, a former trust employee of the Metropolitan Bus Authority of Puerto Rico, sued public officials under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that a decision not to install him in a career attorney position in the MBA was politically motivated and was effected without due process of law, in violation of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court dismissed. The First Circuit affirmed dismissal of the due process claim as to all defendants, finding that plaintiff was afforded adequate process, and affirmed dismissal of the First Amendment claim as to all defendants, save for defendant Delgado. Plaintiff's allegations of participation in the decision were speculative and inadequate with respect to all of the defendants except Delgado.