Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

In this pre-enforcement challenge to a package of immigration laws known as Act 69, the district court preliminarily enjoined certain sections of the Act on preemption grounds. On the merits, the court concluded that the district court was correct to enjoin Sections 4(A) and (C) because they criminalized actions that Congress has, as a policy choice, decided were a civil matter. The court also concluded that Sections 4(B) and (D) created an obstacle to the smooth functioning of federal immigration law, improperly placed in the hands of state officials the nation's immigration policy, and stripped federal officials of the authority and discretion necessary in managing foreign affairs. Accordingly, the court concluded that these sections, along with Sections 5 and 6(B)(2), were all preempted by federal law and, therefore, the court affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction. View "United States v. State of South Carolina" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, current and former members of the armed forces, brought suit against defendants, two former Secretaries of Defense, alleging that they were victims of rape and sexual misconduct by fellow servicemembers during their military careers. Plaintiffs sought money damages pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. The court held that no Bivens action will lie where special factors counsel hesitation in creating an implied right of action and special factors clearly counsel hesitation in implying a cause of action for injuries arising out of military service. The court concluded that judicial abstention was the proper course in this case pursuant to Chappell v. Wallace, United States v. Stanley, and Feres v. United States. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint. View "Cioca v. Rumsfeld" on Justia Law

Defendant, a former CIA agent, was indicted for illegally disclosing classified information about a covert CIA operation regarding an Iranian nuclear weapons operation to the intervenor for publication in a book written by the intervenor. In the majority opinion written by Chief Judge Traxler, the court reversed the district court's order holding that the intervenor had a reporter's privilege that entitled him to refuse to testify at trial concerning the source and scope of the classified national defense information illegally disclosed to him. In a separate majority opinion written by Judge Gregory, the court reversed the district court's order suppressing the testimony of the two government witnesses, and affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA), 18 U.S.C. app. 3, ruling. View "United States v. Sterling" on Justia Law

In these two consolidated cases, at issue was whether the Board had a quorum at the time it issued its decisions in 2012. First, the court determined that Enterprise and Huntington did not prevail on their statutory challenges under the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq. The court denied the Board's applications for enforcement of its orders, concluding that the President's three January 4, 2012 appointments to the Board were constitutionally infirm because the appointments were not made during "the Recess of the Senate." View "NLRB v. Enterprise Leasing Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought a nuisance action against CTS because their well water contained solvents that had carcinogenic effects. The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), concluding that North Carolina's ten-year limitation on the accrual of real property claims barred the suit. The court reversed and remanded, holding that the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Liability, and Compensation Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675, preempted North Carolina's ten-year limitation. In so holding, the court furthered Congress's intent that victims of toxic waste not be hindered in their attempts to hold accountable those who have strewn such waste in their land. View "Waldburger v. CTS Corp." on Justia Law

SCV filed suit against the City and its officials alleging that Lexington City Code section 420-205(C) (the "Ordinance), which bans any private access to City-owned flag standards, contravenes the SCV's First Amendment rights and breached a consent decree resolving an earlier lawsuit between SCV and the City. The court concluded there was no legal support for requiring the City to relinquish its control over the flag standards because they are not a traditional public forum; inasmuch as the Ordinance was lawfully enacted to close a designated public forum, the court affirmed the dismissal of the SCV's free speech claim; in regards to the civil contempt claim relating to the Consent Decree, the court agreed with the district court's conclusion that, because there was no constitutional violation posed by the Ordinance, there could be no violation of the Decree; and, because the flag standards are no longer given over to private expression, their use is not governed by the Decree. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Sons of Confederate Veterans v. City of Lexington, VA" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the Secretary's determination that he had committed intentional and egregious violations of the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619, by discriminating on the basis of disability against Delores and Gregory Walker and ordered petitioner to pay a civil monetary penalty as well as damages for Ms. Walker's emotional distress. The Department alleged that petitioner violated the FHA by requiring Ms. Walker to provide a note from Mr. Walker's doctor, to obtain a renter's insurance policy with $1 million in liability coverage, and to assume responsibility for any damage Mr. Walker, who suffered from autism, might have caused to the property. The court rejected petitioner's contention that his conduct was justified under the circumstances, concluding that substantial evidence supported the Secretary's determination. View "Corey v. HUD" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, by and through her adoptive parents, brought this action challenging South Carolina's reduction of monthly adoption assistance benefits, claiming that the reduction violated the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, 42 U.S.C. 670 et seq. The court held in this case that section 673(a)(3) did set forth a privately enforceable right under 42 U.S.C. 1983, but that the parents have failed to plead any violation of that right by defendants. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Hensley v. Koller" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint against the State Board, alleging that it violated his First Amendment rights by causing him to self-censor certain speech on his website wherein he offered both free and fee-based dietary advice to website visitors. The court reversed the district court's holding that plaintiff did not have standing to bring these claims. The court concluded that the district court erred in not analyzing plaintiff's claims under the First Amendment standing framework where, under that analysis, plaintiff satisfied the injury-in-fact requirement by showing that the State Board's action had an objectively reasonable chilling effect on his speech. The court also concluded that plaintiff's claims were ripe for adjudication. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Cooksey v. Futrell" on Justia Law

The Fund filed this garnishment proceeding against the Department to collect monies owed to a debtor construction company. The district court denied the Department's motion to quash the writ of garnishment on grounds of sovereign immunity and Maryland public law. The court concluded that a federal proceeding that seeks to attach the property of a state to satisfy a debt, whether styled as a garnishment action or an analogous common law writ, violated the Eleventh Amendment. Because the Department was immune from suit, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to quash the writ of garnishment. View "Carpenters Pension Fund v. Maryland Dept. of Health" on Justia Law