Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The district court concluded that the State of Montana's contribution limits in Montana Code Annotated 13-37-216 were unconstitutional under the First Amendment and permanently enjoined the State from enforcing its campaign contribution limits. The State sought a stay of the district court's order, pending appeal. The court concluded that the state was likely to succeed on appeal. The court concluded that the State had made a strong showing that a merits panel of the court would likely conclude that, absent en banc proceedings or an intervening decision of the Supreme Court, the court remained bound by its decision in Mont. Right to Life Ass'n v. Eddleman. The court also concluded that a merits panel was likely to hold that the analytical framework of the Supreme Court's decision in Randall v. Sorrell did not alter the analysis of Buckley v. Valeo or Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC in a way that affected the court's decision in Eddleman. In light of the State's interest in regulating campaign contributions, the lack of evidence that other parties would be substantially injured, and the public's substantial interest in the stability of its electoral system in the final weeks leading to an election, the court will stay the order pending the state's appeal. View "Lair, et al v. Bullock, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Yellow Page Companies, challenged the validity of Seattle's imposition of substantial conditions and costs on the distribution of yellow page phone directories (Ordinance 123427). The district court rejected plaintiffs' challenges and granted summary judgment in favor of the City, allowing the Ordinance to stand. The court concluded that, although portions of the directories were obviously commercial in nature, the books contained more than that, and the court concluded that the directories were entitled to the full protection of the First Amendment. As a result, when the court evaluated the Ordinance under strict scrutiny, the Ordinance did not pass strict scrutiny because it was not the least restrictive means available to further the government's interest. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the City and remanded for the entry of judgment in favor of plaintiffs. View "Dex Media West, Inc., et al v. City of Seattle, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sought to install a temporary offsite sign advertising the television program "E! News" without obtaining the required City permits. Deeming the sign "strictly commercial in nature," the City notified plaintiffs that installation of the proposed sign would violate several provisions of its sign ordinance. The district court agreed with the City and granted judgment in its favor. The court held that, in light of plaintiffs' concessions that the E! News sign was an advertisement for a particular product and that it proposed a commercial transaction, the district court properly determined that the signs at issue were commercial speech and correctly dismissed plaintiffs' claims. View "Charles, et al v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs challenged a Justice Department regulation, 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(2)(i)(B), governing the process by which religious workers could apply for adjustment of status pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1255(a). The court held that the regulation did not bar religious workers from applying for adjustment of status. The regulation has only the practical effect of making it necessary for religious employers to file visa petitions earlier. Therefore, there was no violation of plaintiffs' due process rights. View "Ruiz-Diaz, et al v. United States, et al" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed from the district court's order granting plaintiffs partial injunctive relief prohibiting defendants from detaining any individual "based on knowledge or reasonable belief, without more, that the person was unlawfully present within the United States." Plaintiffs contended that defendants have a "custom, policy and practice of racial profiling and practice of stopping Latino drivers and passengers pretextually and without individualized suspicion or cause, and of subjecting them to different, burdensome, stigmatizing and injurious treatment once stopped," under the auspices of enforcing immigration laws. While defendants raised a number of issues on appeal, the court only addressed the order granting "partial injunctive relief." Consequently, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting preliminary injunctive relief. View "De Jesus Ortega Melendres, et al v. Arpaio, et al" on Justia Law

Kivalina appealed the district court's dismissal of their action for damages against Energy Producers. Kivalina alleged that massive greenhouse gas emissions emitted by the Energy Producers have resulted in global warming, which, in turn, has severely eroded the land where the City of Kivalina sits and threatens it with imminent destruction. Kivalina sought damages under a federal common law claim of public nuisance. At issue was whether the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., and the EPA action that the Act authorized, displaced Kivalina's claims. The court concluded that the Supreme Court has held that federal common law addressing domestic greenhouse gas emissions has been displaced by Congressional action. That determination displaced federal common law public nuisance actions seeking damages, as well as those actions seeking injunctive relief. The civil conspiracy claim fell within the substantive claim. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Native Village of Kivalina, et al v. Exxonmobile Corp., et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging, among other things, that his constitutional rights were violated by defendants' failure to protect him from other inmates and by defendants' deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The court concluded that an inmate's lack of awareness of a correctional institution's grievance procedure did not make the administrative remedy "unavailable" for purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a), unless the inmate met his or her burden of proving the grievance procedure to be unknowable. Because plaintiff had not met his burden of proof, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment. View "Albino v. Baca, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that defendant's failure to provide pain medication to him violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiff subsequently appealed from the judgment in favor of defendant entered pursuant to the order granting defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court held that plaintiff was entitled to notice explaining the requirements for a response to defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and the consequences if the district court granted the motion. The court further held that plaintiff had a substantial right to such notice and that the district court's failure to provide such notice was not harmless.

These consolidated appeals concern the aftermath of the shooting of Kristin Marie Maxwell-Bruce by her husband, Lowell Bruce. The Maxwells brought suit against several parties. These interlocutory appeals concern two sets of claims. First, the Maxwells alleged various constitutional violations by the Sheriff's officers pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Second, the Maxwells sought tort damages under California law against the Viejas defendants, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(a). The court affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity to the Sheriff's officers on the ground of qualified immunity to the Sheriff's officers with regards to the Maxwell's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim and Fourth Amendment search and seizure claims. The court reversed the district court's granting of the Viejas defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to tribal sovereign immunity, and remanded for further proceedings.

The City of Glendale and various other parties sought to set aside the Department of the Interior's decision to accept in trust, for the benefit of the Tohono O'odham Nation, a 54-acre parcel of land known as Parcel 2. The Nation hoped to build a destination resort and casino on Parcel 2, which was unincorporated county land, entirely surrounded by the city. This appeal related the the status of the land as trust. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the government after that court concluded that the Secretary of the Interior reasonably applied the Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Act, Pub. L. No. 99-503, 100 Stat. 1798, and that the Act did not violate the Indian Commerce Clause or the Tenth Amendment.