Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

In 2002, after buying crack cocaine from Liles, Cunningham and his brother, went to rob Liles at his Lima home. After visiting with the occupants, Cunningham produced a gun. Several adults and children were gathered in the kitchen. Cunningham held the group at gunpoint while Jackson used a second gun to force Liles upstairs, where he robbed him of drugs and money. They returned to the kitchen. The group was ordered to hand over their valuables. Jackson and Cunningham shot every occupant of the house. Liles and five others survived. Two children died of their wounds. The police did not recover either gun. Based on an accomplice-liability theory, a jury found Cunningham guilty of two counts of aggravated murder with death-penalty specifications: committing murder during an aggravated robbery and engaging in conduct involving the purposeful killing of multiple people. He was sentenced to death. The Ohio Supreme Court rejected a direct appeal. In an unsuccessful state petition for post-conviction relief he claimed that a juror obtained negative information about him from colleagues where she worked. The federal district court denied Cunningham’s habeas petition, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, juror bias, voir dire error, erroneous jury instructions, a Brady violation, and prosecutorial misconduct. The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded a claim that the jury foreperson had a relationship with the victims’ families that impacted her impartiality. The claim was not exhausted nor procedurally defaulted and is “not plainly meritless.” View "Cunningham v. Hudson" on Justia Law

The Dirty World website enables users to anonymously upload comments, photographs, and video, which Richie selects and publishes along with his own editorial comments. Jones is a Kentucky high school teacher and a member of the cheerleading squad for the Cincinnati Bengals football team. She was the subject of several submissions posted by anonymous users and of editorial remarks posted by Richie, including photographs of Jones and a statement that she “slept with every other Bengal Football player.” Jones requested that the post be removed. Richie declined. A subsequent post alleged that her former boyfriend “tested positive for Chlamydia Infection and Gonorrhea ... sure Sarah also has both ... he brags about doing sarah in … her class room at the school she teaches at DIXIE Heights." Richie's responded to the post: “Why are all high school teachers freaks in the sack?” Jones brought claims of defamation, libel per se, false light, and intentional inflection of emotional distress. The district court rejected arguments that the claims were barred by the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), 47 U.S.C. 230. A second trial resulted in a verdict for $38,000 in compensatory damages and $300,000 in punitive damages. The Sixth Circuit reversed. Under the CDA, Richie and Dirty World were neither creators nor developers of the challenged content. Jones’s tort claims are grounded on the statements of another content provider, but sought to impose liability on Dirty World and Richie as if they were the publishers or speakers of those statements. Section 230(c)(1) bars those claims. View "Jones v. Dirty World Entm't" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs are non-profit entities affiliated with the Catholic Church who have religious objections to certain preventive care standards under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C. 300gg-13, particularly the requirement that their employer-based health insurance plans cover all FDA-approved contraception, sterilization methods, and counseling. All are eligible for either an exemption from the requirement or an accommodation to the requirement, through which the entities will not pay for the contraceptive products and services and the coverage will be independently administered by an insurance issuer or third-party administrator. Nonetheless, they alleged that the contraceptive-coverage requirement violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act; the Free Speech, Free Exercise, and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment; and the Administrative Procedure Act. Two district courts denied the appellants’ motions for a preliminary injunction. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a strong likelihood of success on the merits of any of their properly raised claims; because they did not demonstrate a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their claims, they also do not demonstrate that they will suffer irreparable injury without the injunction. View "MI Catholic Conference v. Sebelius" on Justia Law

In 2002, Freeze was hired by the Decherd Police Department. He became Chief of Police in 2007. Colvin, Freeze’s brother-in-law, was hired as a patrolman in 2007. The Board of Aldermen is responsible for hiring and firing. During a February 2009 meeting, the Aldermen told Freeze that they “might need to just let [him] resign as the Chief and put [him] in as a sergeant at $15 an hour.” Freeze stated that “if it’s going to keep my job, yes, I will take a demotion.” After several confrontations during a March meeting, the Board terminated the employment of Colvin and Freeze. The city did not provide notice that terminations would be considered at the meeting, but claims that it provided oral notice that “general job performance may be discussed.” Neither officer was allowed to present witnesses or evidence. The separation notice regarding Freeze reads: “No reason given.” The city’s 1999 Personnel Resolution designates every city worker as an at-will employee with no property right in employment, but a 2000 Police Resolution states that “discipline shall be for cause and shall follow the basic concepts of due process.” The district court dismissed, finding that the officers possessed no property interest in continued employment. The Sixth Circuit reversed, based on the unequivocal language of the Police Resolution. View "Freeze v. City of Decherd" on Justia Law

The Gallia County (Ohio) Public Defender Commission contracted with the non-profit Corporation for defense attorneys to represent indigent criminal defendants. The Corporation hired Bright, who represented R.G. before Evans, the county’s only trial judge. Bright negotiated a plea agreement, but R.G. hesitated during the plea colloquy. “Mere seconds” later, R.G. informed Bright and Evans that he would take the deal after all. Evans refused. Bright and the prosecutor met with Evans to convince the judge to accept R.G.’s plea. He refused. In pleadings, Bright criticized Evans’s policies as “an abuse of discretion,” “unreasonable,” “arbitrary … unconscionable.” Bright’s language did not include profanity and did not claim ethical impropriety. Evans subsequently contacted the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and filed a grievance against Bright and filed a public journal entry stating that Bright’s motion, although not amounting to misconduct or contempt, had created a conflict. He ordered that Bright be removed from the R.G. case. He then filed entries removing Bright from 70 other felony cases. The Corporation terminated Bright’s employment, allegedly without a hearing or other due process. Bright sued Evans, the Board, the Corporation, and the Commission. The district court concluded that Evans was “not entitled to absolute judicial immunity because his actions were completely outside of his jurisdiction.” The court held that Bright failed to sufficiently plead that the Board or the Commission retaliated against him for exercising his constitutional rights or that liability attached under the Monell doctrine, then dismissed claims against the Corporation. The Sixth Circuit reversed with respect to Evans. While Evans’s conduct was worthy of censure, it does not fit within any exception to absolute judicial immunity. The court affirmed dismissal of claims against the Board and Corporation; the First Amendment offers no protection to an attorney for his speech in court.View "Bright v. Gallia Cnty." on Justia Law

Williams was convicted on two counts of possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute and one count of maintaining a drug-involved premises and was sentenced as a career offender to a total of 360 months in prison. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that an almost two-year delay between his first indictment and the commencement of his trial violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. Williams did not demonstrate that the delay was caused by bad faith or negligence on the part of the government, or that he was prejudiced by it. The court did not abuse its discretion in allowing his attorney a continuance, despite the absence of Williams’ signature on the motion. The court also rejected claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and that he was wrongly classified as a career offender, rendering his sentence procedurally unreasonable. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

Hoven, a licensed pharmacist and a former at-will employee of Walgreen, is also the holder of a Michigan license to carry a concealed weapon. He experienced an armed robbery at work in 2007. Walgreen did not comply with his subsequent requests for additional security devices. In May, 2011, gun-wielding robbers entered Walgreen while Hoven was working the overnight shift. After one of the masked individuals pointed a gun at Hoven, Hoven drew his concealed weapon and fired it multiple times. No one was shot or injured during this incident. Eight days later, Hoven was terminated for violation of Walgreen’s non-escalation policy. Hoven brought suit alleging that he was terminated in violation of public policy for exercising his rights of self-defense, defense of others, and to carry a concealed weapon. The district court granted Walgreen’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, stating that Hoven failed to identify a public-policy source that supports his claimView "Hoven v. Walgreen Co." on Justia Law

At Harris's state court trial, the court accepted the prosecution’s rationale that Juror 49 was struck “because she had difficulty following questions ... was joking with a neighboring juror who was subsequently struck for cause, and had a grandson who was convicted for his involvement in a shooting.” It was later discovered that a videotape system, reactivated during a trial recess, had recorded a conversation during which a prosecutor commented, “We’ve got ... 49, she’s the old lady, the black lady. The other one is already off.” The Kentucky Supreme Court rejected a direct appeal. Sixth Circuit remanded Harris’s 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for a hearing to determine whether the prosecutors at his state trial had exercised peremptory strikes in a racially discriminatory manner. The district court held a reconstructed Batson hearing and concluded that the strikes at issue were not motivated by purposeful racial discrimination. Harris appealed with respect to the strike of Juror 49. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the district court erred in concluding that it could hold a meaningful Batson hearing more than 11 years after his state trial and that the prosecution’s strike of Juror 49 was not improperly motivated by racial considerations. View "Harris v. Haeberlin" on Justia Law

An investigation of the Mansfield, Ohio, drug trade involved the Richland County Sheriff’s Office (RCSO) using a confidential informant it had used once before (Bray) to make controlled buys. In 2005, the U.S. DEA joined the Investigation. Bray was registered as a DEA informant. All targets of the Mansfield controlled buys were selected either by Bray or RCSO. The controlled buys resulted in numerous arrests and indictments. The case agent who testified before the grand jury identified multiple corroborative measures generally used to substantiate Bray’s information and to supervise controlled purchases, including: criminal history and driver’s license checks; searches of Bray’s person and vehicle prior to and after a controlled purchase; tape-recorded phone calls to the suspects; copies of serial numbers of buy money; audio and visual surveillance; and, in certain cases, undercover participation by agents. Corruption pervaded the Investigation. Bray, in jail for an unrelated homicide, disclosed that he had framed innocent individuals, stolen money and drugs, and dealt drugs on side. There was evidence that, as to some arrestees, law enforcement knew of, and participated in, Bray’s misdeeds. The investigation fell apart. Bray pled guilty to perjury and deprivation of civil rights. Agents were also indicted. The district court rejected claims by the Investigation’s targets under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and “Bivens,” citing qualified immunity; held that judicial estoppel barred false arrest claims; and held that because the named individuals had not committed constitutional violations, plaintiffs could not prevail on their Monell claims. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "Spires v. Lucas" on Justia Law

A video recording taken from Ohio Trooper Kline’s cruiser shows Kinlan's Nissan move into a narrow space between cars in the left lane of the four-lane street. Kline followed for about 30 seconds until its driver signaled a turn. Kline activated his lights and siren and pulled the Nissan over. Kline approached and informed Kinlin that he had nearly cut off the car behind him and had “cut left of center” before the intersection. Kline asked how much alcohol Kinlin had consumed. Kinlin answered: “two beers.” Kinlin exited the car and appeared disheveled, but not off-balance. Kline ushered Kinlin out of camera range for a field sobriety test. Kinlin said: “I’m not doing a test…. I’m not drunk.” Kline informed Kinlin that he was under arrest. Kinlin replied: “You’re kidding.” Kline said: “One more chance … take my test?” Kinlin again refused. Kline responded that he could smell alcohol and that Kinlin’s eyes were glassy. While Kline was patting him down, Kinlin agreed to submit to a test. The test, administered later, indicated a blood-alcohol content of .012%, below Ohio’s limit of .08%. Kinlin sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court found that Kline had probable cause to stop Kinlin and probable cause for arrest. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "Kinlin v. Kline" on Justia Law