Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The case concerns the executive branch’s decision to freeze foreign aid funds that Congress had appropriated for fiscal year 2024. On January 20, 2025, the President issued an executive order directing the State Department and USAID to pause foreign assistance spending, pending a review of those programs. This led to the suspension or termination of thousands of grant awards and significant restructuring within the agencies. Organizations that were recipients of these funds, many of which relied heavily on such funding, challenged the executive order, arguing that the freeze unlawfully impounded funds that Congress had directed to be spent.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia initially granted a temporary restraining order, and later a preliminary injunction, against the executive branch (excluding the President personally). The district court found that the plaintiffs had standing due to financial harm, and that they were likely to succeed on their claims that the executive branch’s actions violated the separation of powers, the Take Care Clause, the Impoundment Control Act (ICA), the Anti-Deficiency Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court ordered the government to make available the full amount of appropriated funds.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and vacated the district court’s preliminary injunction. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs lacked a cause of action to pursue their claims. Specifically, it found that the plaintiffs could not bring a freestanding constitutional claim when the alleged violations were statutory in nature, that the ICA precludes APA review by private parties (reserving enforcement to the Comptroller General), and that the plaintiffs could not reframe their claims as ultra vires actions. The court concluded that, although the plaintiffs had standing, they were not entitled to the preliminary injunction because they were unlikely to succeed on the merits. View "Global Health Council v. Trump" on Justia Law

Police responded to reports of gunfire at a rowhouse in Southeast Washington, D.C., where they found spent shell casings but no suspects. Reviewing footage from a recently installed pole-mounted surveillance camera, officers observed a man firing a gun from the rear of the residence and later identified him as Demetrius Green. A search warrant executed that day at the residence uncovered large quantities of narcotics, digital scales, and a firearm. Green attempted to flee but was apprehended inside. Evidence linking Green to the residence included identification cards, personal items, and data from his cellphone, which contained a photograph of a bag of powder on a scale and a text message referencing drug sales.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied Green’s motion to suppress the pole-camera footage, finding he lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area surveilled. The court also admitted the challenged exhibits from Green’s cellphone, determining they were relevant to show knowledge and intent, and that any risk of unfair prejudice could be mitigated by a limiting instruction. At trial, Green was convicted by a jury on four counts related to drug and firearm offenses. He was sentenced to 84 months’ imprisonment and appealed his convictions.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the convictions. The court held that the use of the pole camera did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment because the area surveilled was exposed to public view and the surveillance was brief. The court also found the evidence sufficient to establish Green’s constructive possession of the drugs, given his connection to the residence and the items found. Finally, the court concluded that the challenged exhibits were properly admitted, and even if their admission was erroneous, any error was harmless. View "USA v. Green" on Justia Law

Michael Hurd, Jr. was sentenced in 2005 to 15 months in prison for a felony firearm charge and an additional 27 months for four misdemeanor firearm and drug possession charges. After serving his felony sentence in federal custody, Hurd was mistakenly released instead of being transferred to serve his misdemeanor sentence. He completed his supervised release and, years later, was reincarcerated by the District of Columbia Department of Corrections when the error was discovered during a subsequent, unrelated incarceration. Hurd was not given a hearing before being required to serve the remainder of his original sentence.After his reincarceration, Hurd filed a habeas petition in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, which was denied. His appeal was dismissed as moot after he completed his sentence. Hurd then brought a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his substantive and procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment to the District, finding no substantive due process violation and holding that his procedural due process claim was barred by the Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that reincarcerating a person to serve the remainder of a lawfully imposed sentence after an erroneous release does not violate substantive due process, as such action does not “shock the conscience.” The court also held that Hurd’s procedural due process claim for damages was barred by Heck v. Humphrey because a judgment in his favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his confinement, which had not been set aside. View "Hurd v. DC" on Justia Law

A dispute arose between the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding a rule requiring broadcasters to disclose if any programming was paid for by a foreign governmental entity. The FCC's 2021 Rule mandated such disclosures and included specific diligence steps for broadcasters to follow. NAB challenged the rule, leading to a court decision that vacated part of the rule requiring broadcasters to search federal databases.The FCC then issued a revised rule in 2024, which retained the core disclosure requirements but modified the diligence steps. The new rule exempted commercial ads and political candidate ads from the disclosure requirement but included paid public service announcements (PSAs) and issue advertisements. NAB challenged the 2024 Rule, arguing it violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the First Amendment, and exceeded the FCC's statutory authority.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the 2024 Rule complied with the APA's notice-and-comment requirements and was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The court also held that the rule did not violate the First Amendment, as it was narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest in preventing foreign influence in U.S. broadcasting. The court further determined that the FCC did not exceed its statutory authority with the reasonable diligence requirements, as the rule did not directly regulate lessees but required broadcasters to seek information from them.Ultimately, the court denied NAB's petition for review, upholding the FCC's 2024 Rule. View "National Association of Broadcasters v. FCC" on Justia Law

The case involves the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) implementing a cap-and-trade program to reduce hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) as mandated by the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act of 2020. The AIM Act requires an 85% reduction in HFC production and consumption by 2036. The EPA issued a rule in 2021 to allocate allowances for 2022 and 2023 based on historical market share data from 2011 to 2019. In 2023, the EPA issued a new rule for 2024-2028, again using the same historical data.The petitioners, RMS of Georgia, LLC (Choice) and IGas Holdings, Inc. (IGas), challenged the 2024 Rule. Choice argued that the AIM Act violated the nondelegation doctrine by giving the EPA too much discretion in allocating allowances. IGas contended that the EPA's exclusion of 2020 data from its market-share calculations was arbitrary and capricious.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court first addressed Choice's argument, holding that the AIM Act did not unconstitutionally delegate legislative power because it provided sufficient guidance to the EPA, modeled on previous cap-and-trade programs under the Clean Air Act. The court found that Congress intended for the EPA to allocate allowances based on historical market share, providing an intelligible principle to guide the agency's discretion.Regarding IGas's challenge, the court found that the EPA's decision to exclude 2020 data was reasonable. The EPA determined that 2020 data was unrepresentative due to the COVID-19 pandemic and supply chain disruptions and that including it could disrupt the market. The court held that the EPA's methodology was not arbitrary and capricious, as the agency provided a rational explanation for its decision.The court denied both petitions for review, upholding the EPA's 2024 Rule. View "IGas Holdings, Inc. v. EPA" on Justia Law

Seth Hettena, an investigative journalist, submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for a report on the death of an Iraqi national, Manadel al-Jamadi, who died in CIA custody at Abu Ghraib prison in 2003. The CIA disclosed parts of the report but redacted most of it, including the Office of Inspector General's (OIG) conclusions and recommendations. Hettena sued the CIA, arguing that the redactions did not comply with FOIA.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia reviewed the case and granted summary judgment in favor of the CIA, concluding that the redactions were justified under FOIA exemptions. The court found that the redacted information pertained to the CIA's intelligence activities, sources, and methods, which are protected under FOIA Exemptions 1 and 3.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the district court's decision de novo. The appellate court agreed that most of the redactions were justified, as they contained information about CIA covert personnel, intelligence methods, and locations of Agency facilities. However, the court found that the CIA had not adequately justified the redactions related to the OIG's findings on potential obstruction by CIA officers. The court noted that the CIA's declaration and Vaughn index did not address these findings, and it was unclear why disclosing them would reveal protected information.The appellate court also found that factual questions remained regarding whether the redactions contained information that the CIA had already officially acknowledged, such as references to a "hood" or "head cover." The court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the CIA another opportunity to explain its redactions and potentially develop the record further. View "Hettena v. CIA" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam, baristas at Starbucks stores in Buffalo and Depew, New York, filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the statutory tenure protections for members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). They argued that these protections place an impermissible limitation on the President’s executive power. Both plaintiffs had previously filed decertification petitions with the NLRB, which were dismissed due to pending unfair labor practice proceedings against Starbucks.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The court concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing because their petitions had been dismissed, and they had not sought reinstatement. Additionally, the court agreed with the NLRB that the plaintiffs failed to allege compensable harm, which was necessary for their claim.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. By this time, the plaintiffs had abandoned their claims for injunctive relief and sought only a declaratory judgment that the NLRB members’ tenure protections were unconstitutional. The NLRB, aligning with the Acting Solicitor General, no longer defended the constitutionality of the tenure protections. The court held that there was no longer a live case or controversy because the parties were not sufficiently adverse; both sides agreed on the unconstitutionality of the tenure protections. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court’s judgment dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. View "Cortes v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

Linda Martin filed a class action lawsuit against the FBI, alleging that the Notice of Seizure provided to property owners did not meet the Due Process requirements under the Fifth Amendment. The FBI had seized $40,200 from Martin's safe deposit box and issued a Notice of Seizure, which Martin claimed lacked specific legal or factual bases for the seizure, thus denying her a meaningful opportunity to respond. Martin sought declaratory and injunctive relief for herself and a proposed nationwide class of individuals who had received similar notices.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Martin's individual claim as moot after the FBI returned her seized property. The court also dismissed the class action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for failure to state a plausible Due Process claim. The court found that Martin had an adequate opportunity to present her Due Process challenge during the administrative proceedings and that her claim was moot because the FBI had returned her property.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Martin's individual claim as moot, as the FBI had returned her property. The court also dismissed the appeal of the class certification judgment for lack of jurisdiction, noting that Martin had not challenged the denial of class certification in her appellate briefs. The court concluded that without a certified class, it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court's merits rulings on the Due Process and exhaustion claims. View "Martin v. FBI" on Justia Law

The case involves the Stored Communications Act, which allows the government to subpoena electronic communication service providers for user records and seek court orders to prohibit disclosure of such subpoenas. The government requested and obtained a court order allowing it to prohibit disclosure of any subpoena related to a particular investigation for one year, provided the government determined that disclosure would risk one of the harms specified in the Act. The government then served a subpoena on X Corp. with the nondisclosure order attached. X Corp. moved to vacate the nondisclosure order, arguing it did not comply with the Act. The district court denied X Corp.'s motion.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued the nondisclosure order and denied X Corp.'s motion to vacate it. X Corp. appealed the decision, arguing that the order did not comply with the Stored Communications Act and violated the First Amendment. The district court relied on ex parte evidence in its decision, which X Corp. also challenged.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the nondisclosure order did not conform to the Stored Communications Act because the court did not find "reason to believe" that disclosure of the subpoena would risk a statutory harm. The court emphasized that the statute requires the court, not the government, to make this determination. The appellate court did not address X Corp.'s First Amendment argument or the issue of the district court's reliance on ex parte evidence, as the statutory ruling was sufficient to resolve the case. View "In re Sealed Case" on Justia Law

Tobias Jones, a self-described citizen journalist, was filming a Secret Service building in Washington, D.C. when two officers ordered him to stop. When he refused, they detained, handcuffed, and searched him. A third officer later informed Jones that he had the right to film, and he was released. Jones sued the officers for damages, claiming violations of his First and Fourth Amendment rights, and sought prospective relief against the Secret Service.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Jones' case. The court held that Jones did not have a valid cause of action for damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics and lacked standing to seek injunctive or declaratory relief.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Jones' Fourth Amendment claims presented a new context under Bivens, as the Secret Service officers were performing protective duties, which differ from the law enforcement activities in Bivens. The court found that extending Bivens to this new context was inappropriate due to the potential for judicial intrusion into executive functions and the availability of alternative remedies through the Department of Homeland Security. The court also declined to extend Bivens to Jones' First Amendment claim, noting that the Supreme Court has never done so and has foreclosed Bivens remedies for First Amendment retaliation claims.Regarding prospective relief, the court held that Jones lacked standing because he did not plausibly allege a substantial risk of future harm. The court noted that Jones' allegations of potential future encounters with Secret Service officers were speculative and insufficient to establish standing.The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Jones' case. View "Jones v. Secret Service" on Justia Law