Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

To help defendants resist child-pornography charges, technology expert and lawyer Boland downloaded images of children from a stock photography website and digitally imposed the children’s faces onto the bodies of adults performing sex acts. Boland’s aim was to show that the defendants may not have known they were viewing child pornography. When the parents of the children involved found out about the images, they sued Boland under 18 U.S.C. 2252A(f) and 2255. Section 2252A(f) provides a civil remedy to “[a]ny person aggrieved” by child pornography, while 2255 provides a civil remedy of at least $150,000 in damages to minor victims who suffer a “personal injury” from various sex crimes. The district court granted summary judgment to the parents and awarded $300,000 in damages. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. If Boland felt compelled to make his point with pornography, he could have used images of adults or virtual children. Instead, he chose an option Congress explicitly forbade: the choice was not protected by the First Amendment. View "Doe v. Boland" on Justia Law

American Freedom Defense Initiative is a nonprofit corporation that wanted to place an advertisement on the side of city buses in Michigan. The advertisement read: “Fatwa on your head? Is your family or community threatening you? Leaving Islam? Got Questions? Get Answers! RefugefromIslam.com”. Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART), refused to display the advertisement. AFDI sued, claiming a First Amendment violation. The district court granted a preliminary injunction, holding that plaintiffs likely could show that SMART’s decision was arbitrary. The Sixth Circuit reversed. SMART’s policy prohibits: political or political campaign advertising; advertising promoting the sale of alcohol or tobacco; advertising that is false, misleading, or deceptive; advertising that is clearly defamatory or likely to hold up to scorn or ridicule any person or group of persons; and advertising that is obscene or pornographic; or in advocacy of imminent lawlessness or unlawful violent action. The restrictions, which concern a nonpublic forum are reasonable, viewpoint-neutral limits that do not deny AFDI’s First Amendment rights. The injunction would cause substantial harm to others, compelling SMART to post on its buses messages that have strong potential to alienate people and decrease ridership; the public interest would not be served by this preliminary injunction. View "Am. Freedom Def. Initiative v. Suburban Mobility Auth. for Reg'l Transp." on Justia Law

In 2004 a jury convicted Middlebrook of assault with intent to murder, felony firearm possession, and unlawful driving away of a motor vehicle in connection with the shooting of his former girlfriend. On appeal, Middlebrook argued that he was denied a fair trial when the jury was exposed to extraneous influences and engaged in premature deliberations. The Michigan Court of Appeals determined that there were no extraneous influences; the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. The district court denied federal habeas relief without addressing the issue of premature deliberations. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The trial court conducted the necessary inquiry into the allegation of extraneous influences on the jury and the Supreme Court has not entertained a case involving premature deliberations. This is not a case where the state court unreasonably refused to extend a legal principle to a new context in which it should apply. View "Middlebrook v. Napel" on Justia Law

On October 29, 1994, people, including Gover, congregated at a house from which Ratliff and Hunter sold marijuana to discuss a robbery. Ratliff believed that “Ricky” and the stolen items could be found nearby. Ratliff and Hunter got in the front seat of a vehicle. Witnesses testified that the backseat occupants were Catchings and Gover. The car traveled to a house where people on the porch said that Ricky was not there. As the car left, a gun fired from the rear passenger window. Two people sustained non-fatal injuries, but a bullet killed nine-year-old Michelle. Witnesses testified that Gover said that he shot because someone laughed at him. The Lannette house was later fired upon. Officers detained Hunter and Ratliff. Ratliff implicated Gover. Officer Johnson testified to Ratliff’s statement. Officer Jamison testified to what he observed and what occupants told him about the shooting. Gover was sentenced to 60-100 years and unsuccessfully appealed and challenged rulings in Michigan courts. He filed a 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas petition. The district court held that, while its introduction violated Gover’s Sixth Amendment rights, Johnson’s testimony relaying Ratliff’s statement was harmless and that Jamison’s testimony did not violate the Sixth Amendment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "Gover v. Perry" on Justia Law

Following a 2000 shooting death in Nashville, Robins was convicted of first-degree, premeditated murder in state trial court. The appellate court affirmed. Robins filed a habeas corpus petition, claiming ineffective assistance. The state trial court found that counsel’s representation was not deficient or prejudicial, and the state appellate court affirmed. Robins filed a pro se habeas corpus petition in the district court, which was amended and then dismissed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, concluding that Robins did not demonstrate that the state appellate court’s decision was unreasonable or improper under Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 deference. View "Robins v. Fortner" on Justia Law

Ohio requires that provisional ballots be cast in the correct precinct, with a completed voter affirmation, making no exception for wrong-precinct and deficient-affirmation ballots caused by poll-worker error, O.R.C. 3505.183(B)(4)(a)(ii)–(iii) and (B)(4)(b)(ii). A 2010 consent decree required the counting of certain wrong-precinct and deficient-affirmation provisional ballots where poll-worker error caused the nonconformity and the voters used the last four digits of their social security number for identification to cast their ballots. The ballot of a provisional voter using any other form of identification (e.g., current photo identification, current utility bill, paycheck) would not be counted.The district court denied a motion to vacate the decree and entered a preliminary injunction requiring the counting of all wrong-precinct and deficient-affirmation provisional ballots to remedy systemic exclusion of nonconforming ballots caused by poll-worker error. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the wrong-precinct remedy and reversed the deficient affirmation remedy and remanded for the district court to address the equal protection issue created by the consent decree’s provision for counting deficient-affirmation ballots by voters providing social security numbers, and a motion to modify the consent decree in light of the equal protection concerns raised by the consent decree’s differential treatment of provisional ballots. View "NE Coal. for the Homeless v. Husted" on Justia Law

A 1998 neighborhood shooting in Detroit resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male bystander and injury to two other bystanders, a 21-year-old male and a nine-year-old female. A year later, a Michigan state court convicted 22-year-old Blackmon of second-degree murder, using a firearm during the commission of a felony, and two assaults with intent to do great bodily harm. The court sentenced him to 40 to 60 years on the murder count, concurrent three-to-10 year terms on the assault counts, and a consecutive two-year term on the firearm count. Eleven years later, a federal district court on collateral review (28 U.S.C. 2254) held that Michigan had deprived Blackmon of a fair trial in violation of the Due Process Clause and granted a conditional writ of habeas corpus and told Michigan to retry him. The Sixth Circuit reversed. The prosecution’s elicitation of, and comment upon, testimony regarding Blackmon’s gang affiliation did not render his trial so unfair as to result in a denial of federal due process; it did not result in a decision that “involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” View "Blackmon v. Booker" on Justia Law

In July 2012, Obama for America, the Democratic National Committee, and the Ohio Democratic Party filed a complaint, alleging that Ohio Rev. Code 3509.03 was unconstitutional insofar as it imposed on non-military voters a deadline of 6:00 p.m. on the Friday before Election Day for in-person early voting. Military service associations were allowed to intervene. The district court entered a preliminary injunction, finding that the statute violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding the plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits. Neither of the state’s justifications was sufficient to justify the distinction imposed by the law. View "Obama for Am. v. Husted" on Justia Law

In 2004, Ohio passed a law criminalizing the distribution of mifepristone, also known as RU-486, unless the distribution complied with protocols and gestational time limits identified by the FDA when mifepristone was first approved in 2000. Ohio Rev. Code 2919.123. Mifepristone, in combination with misoprostol, was the only form of medical abortion offered by Planned Parenthood in Ohio. Planned Parenthood’s Ohio regional clinics and two of its doctors challenged the Ohio Act. The district court entered a preliminary injunction to cover the Act’s failure to make an exception for circumstances involving the health and life of the mother, but the Act has otherwise been in force since February 2011. Following resolution of certified questions by the Ohio Supreme Court, the district court entered summary judgment that: the Act was no longer unconstitutionally vague; did not violate a woman’s right to bodily integrity under the Fourteenth Amendment; and did not impose an undue burden on a woman’s Fourteenth Amendment right to choose abortion. Whether the Act unduly burdens a woman’s right to health and life under the Fourteenth Amendment was held for trial. The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on the vagueness and bodily-integrity claims. View "Planned Parenthood SW OH Region v. DeWine" on Justia Law

In 1994 Nathan was discovered in a hotel room, having suffered severe trauma to her head. Her jewelry was missing. Nathan died that afternoon. Police investigated three hotel employees who had prior criminal histories, eventually focusing on Jones. Police discovered that Jones had injured his hand on the day Nathan was killed and had filed a claim for workers’ compensation for an injury classified as a fist-to-mouth injury. Jones stated that he hurt his hand cleaning a banquet room. A search of Jones’s car produced Nathan’s pendant and a master key to the hotel. A jury convicted Jones on aggravated felony murder, aggravated burglary, and aggravated robbery, and recommended the death penalty. The Ohio Court of Appeals and Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and death sentence. Jones unsuccessfully sought state post-conviction relief and, in 2001, filed an unsuccessful habeas petition in federal district court. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting claims that the state trial court improperly admitted evidence that Jones exercised his right to counsel; that the prosecution failed to disclose exculpatory evidence, and counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to discover the withheld evidence; and that counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to investigate a history of crime at the hotel.View "Jones v. Bagley" on Justia Law