Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Philadelphia officers stopped and frisked men they believed to be engaged in an illegal drug transaction. One of the men, Artis, accused the officers of stealing money. When the officers returned to headquarters, they learned that a complaint had been made to the Internal Affairs Bureau, and were taken to an office. They did not feel free to leave.They were joined by other superior officers and instructed to stay in the office and not use their cell phones. The officers obeyed instructions to remove their jackets and to pull out their pockets, pull up their pant legs and pull down their socks, and open their wallets, because they feared discipline and possible loss of employment. Internal Affairs officers questioned them for 15-20 minutes, then spoke to Artis, then stated that they believed Artis and told the officers that they were not needed for anything further. When they opened their lockers, it appeared that they had been searched. About 14 months later, the officers sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The Third Circuit affirmed. When police administrators undertake employment-related, non-criminal detentions, there is no Fourth Amendment seizure; the searches were reasonable. View "Gwynn v. City of Philadelphia" on Justia Law

Brittany and Emily Morrow were subjected to threats and physical assaults by Anderson, a fellow student at Blackhawk High School. After Anderson physically attacked Brittany in the lunch room, the school suspended both girls. Brittany’s mother reported Anderson to the police at the recommendation of administration. Anderson was charged with simple assault, terroristic threats, and harassment. Anderson continued to bully Brittany and Emily. A state court placed Anderson on probation and ordered her to have no contact with Brittany. Five months later, Anderson was adjudicated delinquent and was again given a “no contact” order, which was provided to the school. Anderson subsequently boarded Brittany’s school bus and threatened Brittany, even though that bus did not service Anderson’s home. School officials told the Morrows that they could not guarantee their daughters’ safety and advised the Morrows to consider another school. The Morrows filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violation of their substantive due process rights. The district court dismissed, reasoning that the school did not have a “special relationship” with students that would create a constitutional duty to protect them from other students and that the Morrows’ injury was not the result of any affirmative action by the defendants, under the “state-created danger” doctrine. The Third Circuit affirmed. View "Morrow v. Balaski" on Justia Law

The NLRB certified a union and ordered an election. The union won a majority. The company refused to bargain. The union claimed unfair labor practices. A three-member NLRB delegee group granted the union summary judgment. The NLRB is composed of up to five members, appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, 29 U.S.C. 153(a) and may delegate its authority to any group of three or more members. Delegee groups must maintain a membership of three.The company unsuccessfully moved for reconsideration, arguing that the group’s order was not issued until it was mailed, by which time one member had resigned and the panel had only two members. The company then argued that the reconsideration order group was improperly constituted because one panelist was a recess appointee whose term concluded at the end of the Senate‘s 2011 session, which, it contended, was 13 days before the order issued. The NLRB denied the second motion. The company next argued that the group that issued the second order included two members that were invalidly appointed under the Recess Appointments Clause while the Senate was not in recess, reasoning that if the Senate‘s session ended when it began using pro forma sessions, the term of one member had expired; if the session did not end then, the president‘s recess appointments were invalidly made while the Senate was not in recess. The NLRB denied the motion. The Third Circuit vacated, holding that the Recess of the Senate in the Recess Appointments Clause refers to only intersession breaks; the panel lacked the requisite number of members because one panel member was invalidly appointed during an intrasession break. View "New Vista Nursing & Rehab. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd." on Justia Law

Since 1976, NAI has operated a flea market on 65.4 acres purchased from the Borough of Palmyra. In 2002, Palmyra began considering redevelopment, including NAI’s parcel. A site inspection uncovered the possible presence of unexploded munitions from a weapons-testing facility used by the Army during World War II. The parties entered into an access agreement, pursuant to which NAI could operate the Market on the weekends, while contractors conducted inspections and remedial work during the week. In 2008, however, an unexploded artillery shell was discovered flush with the surface of the Market’s parking lot. Because vendors often drove stakes into the ground to secure tents, this raised concerns of accidental detonation. After NAI refused to comply voluntarily, the police chief issued an emergency order, restricting access to the property. Hundreds of munitions were found on the property, both explosive and inert. NAI filed suit, claiming that the order was arbitrary under New Jersey law; violated procedural due process; and constituted a “taking” without just compensation. The Market was closed for five months before the parties entered a consent order that allowed the Market to reopen on weekends with barriers and security guards to prohibit public access to hazardous areas. The district court entered summary judgment for the borough and denied NAI attorney’s fees for its claimed victory with respect to the consent order. The Third Circuit affirmed. View "Nat'l Amusements, Inc. v. Borough of Palmyra" on Justia Law

From 1990 to 1995, Thomas directed an enterprise that transported marijuana from California to Pennsylvania. Thomas’ wife was murdered in 1995. He fled to Jamaica. In 1998, he was indicted on 33 counts, based on his marijuana enterprise. In 2001, Thomas was arrested in the United Kingdom. He contested a provisional extradition warrant until 2005. He was convicted and sentenced to 420 months imprisonment. The Third Circuit affirmed on direct appeal and, in 2009 the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari. As a federal prisoner, Thomas could move to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence within one year from denial of certiorari, 28 U.S.C. 2255(f), but during that period, Thomas was temporarily in state custody, convicted of murdering his wife. Three weeks before the section 2255 deadline, he moved (pro se) for an extension of time. The district court denied the motion. Thomas appealed, but never filed an actual 2255 motion. He sought a certificate of appealability (COA), restating that he had been in state custody without access to legal materials, and asserted “a Batson challenge … Prosecutorial Misconduct for knowingly withholding material evidence of Petitioner’s innocence … and Jury Misconduct.” The Third Circuit granted a COA, finding that the issues were worthy of review. View "United States v. Thomas" on Justia Law

In 2000, cab driver DeJesus suffered multiple fatal gunshot wounds during a robbery while his taxi was parked at a Harrisburg intersection. After a joint trial with Eiland and Mitchell Court, a Pennsylvania jury convicted Eley of second-degree murder, robbery, and conspiracy to commit robbery. Eley was unsuccessful in direct appeal and seeking post-conviction relief in state courts. The district court denied his petition for habeas relief under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. 2254. The Third Circuit reversed, finding that his non-testifying co-defendants’ confessions were admitted against him in violation of the Confrontation Clause under Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968). The court rejected an argument that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions in violation of the Due Process Clause. View "Eley v. Erickson" on Justia Law

In 2000 Ross was convicted of first degree murder in Franklin County, Pennsylvania, and sentenced to life imprisonment. Ross was unable to obtain a state appellate court review due to extraordinary circumstances attributable to his attorney’s extreme neglect of his case, including missing deadlines for filing document, failure to communicate with Ross, and the attorney’s misleading statements when he did communicate with Ross. The court denied his motion for appointment of a new attorney. Ross’s mental health issues, limited education, and limited cognitive ability magnified his problems and his status as an inmate placed structural obstacles in his path. Ross subsequently brought this habeas corpus case, charging that because his attorney wrongfully abandoned him, he lost his appellate rights in violation of the Sixth Amendment. Although the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. 2244(d), statute of limitations barred the action as untimely, the district court found that equitable tolling of the running of the statute was warranted because Ross had been diligent in pursuing his state court appellate remedies but that extraordinary circumstances beyond his control frustrated this attempt. The Third Circuit affirmed. View "Ross v. Varano" on Justia Law

K.A., a fifth-grade student, attempted to distribute, before the start of class, an invitation to a children’s Christmas party at her church. Students were normally allowed to distribute invitations to birthday parties, Halloween parties, and similar events during non-instructional time. The teacher told K.A. that the principal would have to approve the flyer. The principal later notified K.A.’s father that the superintendent had not approved the flyer, based on a policy concerning events not related to the school. Her father filed suit, alleging that the school district had violated K.A.’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court, applying the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), and finding no evidence that distribution of the invitations would threaten a “substantial disruption‖ of the school environment or interfere with the rights of others,” granted preliminary injunctive relief. The Third Circuit affirmed, stating that the original policy and subsequent revisions were broader than allowed under Tinker and its progeny, which state that student expression can be regulated only if it causes disruption or interferes with the rights of others, or if it falls into a narrow exception. View "K. A. v. Pocono Mountain Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Byrd, an inmate at SCI-Frackville, filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint against the prison’s Superintendent, Corrections Health Care Administrator, two nurses, and the Chief Grievance Officer, alleging that they showed deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs by failing to provide him with prescription eye drops for his glaucoma. Byrd proceeded in forma pauperis (IFP). The district court ruled in favor of all defendants. Byrd moved to proceed IFP on appeal. The clerk’s office notified Byrd that he had “three strikes” under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g) and had to show that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury in order to be eligible for IFP status. The Third Circuit denied his petition, noting that Byrd’s three potential strikes included two cases that were “clearly” dismissed for failure to state a claim and that the other was an appeal that was dismissed by the Third Circuit under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) as “without merit.” Byrd did not file a motion alleging imminent danger, but submitted a response arguing that the clerk’s office made a mistake in determining that he had three strikes. The court held that non-IFP dismissals can count as “strikes.” View "Byrd v. Shannon" on Justia Law

Montone was an officer with the Jersey City Police Department from 1981 until 2010, when she retired as a sergeant. Plaintiffs are present or former sergeants in the JCPD. The plaintiffs claim that retaliation for exercise of First Amendment rights and discrimination, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and New Jersey state law, was the basis of their failure to be promoted from the rank of sergeant to lieutenant during Healy’s tenure as mayor and Troy’s tenure as police chief. Healy’s mayoral campaign was heated and personal. Plaintiffs claim that all promotions from sergeant to lieutenant were halted by Healy and Troy to penalize Montone for her support of Healy’s opponent. Each plaintiff had passed the civil service examination required to be promoted to the rank of lieutenant. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The Third Circuit vacated, finding that genuine issues of material fact remained concerning defendants’ motivations for their decisions. View "Montone v. City of Jersey City" on Justia Law