Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

A security services company and its sole shareholder, who is also its president and CEO, provided security services to two Iowa cities under separate contracts. After the shareholder published a letter criticizing media coverage of law enforcement responses to protests, a local newspaper published articles highlighting his critical comments about protestors and the Black Lives Matter movement. Subsequently, a city council member expressed concerns about the shareholder’s views, and the city council voted unanimously to terminate the company’s contract. The council member also pressured officials in the other city to end their contract with the company. Facing negative publicity, the company voluntarily terminated its second contract to avoid harm to a pending business transaction.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa against the city, the council member, and other council members, alleging First Amendment retaliation, tortious interference with business contracts, and defamation. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims under Rule 12(b)(6). It found that the shareholder lacked standing to assert a First Amendment retaliation claim for injuries to the corporation, and that the corporation failed to state a retaliation claim because only the shareholder engaged in protected speech. The court dismissed the tortious interference claim for lack of sufficient factual allegations and because the contract was terminated voluntarily. The defamation claim was dismissed for failure to identify any actionable statements by the defendants.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the shareholder’s First Amendment retaliation and defamation claims, but directed that these dismissals be without prejudice. The court reversed the dismissal of the corporation’s First Amendment retaliation and tortious interference claims, finding that the complaint alleged sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss, and remanded those claims for further proceedings. View "Conley v. City of West Des Moines" on Justia Law

In 2024, Minnesota enacted a law that revised the criteria for classifying independent contractors in the construction industry, expanding a previous nine-part test to a fourteen-part test. Several construction industry organizations and a general contractor challenged the law, arguing that certain provisions were unconstitutionally vague and that the civil penalties authorized by the statute violated the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. The plaintiffs specifically objected to requirements regarding written contracts, invoicing, expense responsibility, and profit or loss realization, as well as the potential for significant civil penalties for noncompliance.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the law. The court found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claims. The plaintiffs then appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the law, as they alleged specific conduct targeted by the statute and faced a credible threat of enforcement. However, the court concluded that the challenged statutory terms were sufficiently clear for people of ordinary intelligence and did not encourage arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. The court also determined that the plaintiffs’ excessive fines claim was premature, as no penalties had yet been imposed and Minnesota law requires a proportionality analysis before penalties are assessed. Because the plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits, the court found no basis for a preliminary injunction and affirmed the lower court’s judgment. View "MN Chapter of Assoc. Builders v. Blissenbach" on Justia Law

Iowa enacted a law making it a state crime for certain noncitizens who had previously been denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed from the United States to enter or be found in Iowa. The law also required state judges to order such individuals to return to the country from which they entered and prohibited state courts from pausing prosecutions based on pending or possible federal immigration status determinations. Two noncitizens residing in Iowa, both of whom had previously been subject to federal removal orders but later lawfully reentered the United States, along with a membership-based immigrant advocacy organization, challenged the law, arguing it was preempted by federal immigration law.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa found that the plaintiffs had standing and granted a preliminary injunction, concluding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Iowa law was preempted by federal law under both conflict and field preemption doctrines. The district court also found that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm if the law went into effect and that the balance of equities and public interest favored an injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion, reviewing legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction, holding that the plaintiffs had standing and were likely to succeed on the merits because every application of the Iowa law would conflict with federal immigration law by interfering with the discretion Congress grants to federal officials. The court also found that the other factors for a preliminary injunction were met. The Eighth Circuit remanded for the district court to determine the appropriate scope of the injunction in light of recent Supreme Court guidance. View "IA Migrant Movement for Justice v. Bird" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, who worked for a bank that operated a branch inside a public high school, was terminated from her employment after she publicly criticized the local school district’s mask mandate on social media and at school events. The bank’s operation at the school was part of a partnership in which the bank provided funds and services to the school district. The plaintiff’s children attended schools in the district, and she was active in school-related activities. After a series of confrontations and a critical Facebook post about a school board member, the school superintendent communicated with the bank’s branch manager, expressing disapproval of the plaintiff’s conduct and requesting that she be barred from school property. The bank subsequently suspended and then fired the plaintiff, citing her conduct and the school’s ban.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted summary judgment to all defendants, finding that the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights were not violated and that there was insufficient evidence of a conspiracy or tortious interference. The court applied the Pickering balancing test, treating the plaintiff as a government contractor, and found no actionable retaliation. It also found no evidence of a meeting of the minds between the bank and the school district, and held that the superintendent and other officials were entitled to qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part. The court held that the plaintiff was not a government employee or contractor for First Amendment purposes and was entitled to ordinary citizen protections. It found that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to decide whether the superintendent, the bank, and the branch manager retaliated against the plaintiff for protected speech, and whether the superintendent tortiously interfered with her employment. However, the court affirmed summary judgment for the school board chair and the school district, finding insufficient evidence of their direct involvement or policy liability. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "McNeally v. HomeTown Bank" on Justia Law

An inmate in Missouri, facing imminent execution, requested that his two daughters—both ordained ministers—be allowed to serve as his spiritual advisors in the execution chamber. One daughter would administer communion and anoint him with oil, then move to the viewing area, while the other would enter the chamber to pray over and touch him during the execution. The Missouri Department of Corrections denied this request, citing security concerns, but offered alternatives: a non-relative spiritual advisor, prison clergy, or his attorney could perform the rituals, with his daughters directing the proceedings from behind glass.After exhausting administrative remedies and just five days before his scheduled execution, the inmate filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. He alleged that the Department’s refusal violated his rights under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). He sought a preliminary injunction and a stay of execution. The district court denied his requests and dismissed the case with prejudice.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the denial of a stay of execution. The court focused on whether the inmate had shown a likelihood of success on the merits, specifically whether the Department’s policy imposed a “substantial burden” on his religious exercise under RLUIPA. The court found that, while the inmate preferred his daughters as spiritual advisors, he did not demonstrate that only they could perform the rituals in accordance with his beliefs. The court concluded that the Department’s alternatives did not significantly inhibit his religious exercise and that security concerns justified the restriction. The Eighth Circuit denied the motion for a stay of execution. View "Shockley v. Adams" on Justia Law

Edwin Diaz was stopped by law enforcement in Ida Grove, Iowa, after Deputy Clausen observed his truck parked with only one working headlight, broken taillights, and impeding traffic. Upon approaching the vehicle, Clausen smelled marijuana and saw Diaz drop an item later identified as methamphetamine. Diaz and his passenger, Mikaela Breen, were arrested and charged with state drug offenses. Days later, Breen reported to police that Diaz had coerced her into signing a statement taking responsibility for the drugs found in the truck. Based on Breen’s account and Diaz’s criminal history, law enforcement obtained a warrant to search Diaz’s residence, where they found drugs, paraphernalia, and a firearm.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa reviewed Diaz’s motion to suppress evidence from both the truck and home searches. The magistrate judge recommended denying the motion, finding that the truck search was lawful due to probable cause from observed traffic violations and the smell of marijuana, and that the good faith exception applied to the home search despite questions about the warrant’s nexus to the residence. The district judge agreed that the truck search was justified by probable cause and that the good faith exception protected the home search evidence, even though the warrant affidavit did not establish a sufficient nexus between the drugs and Diaz’s home.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the suppression motion. The court held that the initial encounter with Diaz was supported by reasonable suspicion and probable cause due to multiple traffic violations and the odor of marijuana, justifying the truck search. For the home search, the court found that the Leon good faith exception applied because it was not entirely unreasonable for officers to believe that a drug dealer would store contraband at his residence, even if the warrant affidavit lacked a direct nexus. The judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Diaz" on Justia Law

After being convicted of second-degree sexual assault in Garland County, Arkansas, Harl Garrett was sentenced to 20 years in prison. Garrett requested his attorney, Ben Hooten, to file an appeal, but instead, Hooten moved to withdraw as counsel without filing the notice of appeal. Garrett was not informed of the withdrawal order until after the 30-day window for filing a direct appeal had expired. Garrett attempted to file a pro se notice of appeal and later submitted motions for a belated appeal and to proceed in forma pauperis, but these were denied by both the Garland County Circuit Court and the Arkansas Supreme Court. Garrett subsequently filed a state postconviction petition, which was also denied as untimely.Garrett then filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, raising the claim that he was denied his constitutional right to a direct appeal due to counsel and court failures. The district court denied the petition as time-barred under the one-year statute of limitations set by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), finding that the limitations period began when Garrett learned of his attorney’s abandonment and expired before the federal petition was filed. However, the district court granted a certificate of appealability on whether Garrett’s motion for a belated appeal tolled the AEDPA limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and held that a motion for belated appeal in Arkansas constitutes “collateral review” under AEDPA, thus tolling the statute of limitations while the motion is pending. The court reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, concluding that Garrett’s federal habeas petition was timely. View "Garrett v. Payne" on Justia Law

Muhammad Arif, the owner of convenience stores in Arkansas, was accused of soliciting a fifteen-year-old girl, the daughter of his handyman, to engage in sexual acts in exchange for money on two occasions in 2019. Both incidents occurred while Arif was driving the girl home in his vehicle. The girl declined his advances, recorded the conversations, and later reported the incidents to her parents and the police. Arif was initially prosecuted under Arkansas state law, but the federal government took over, charging him under 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1), which criminalizes commercial sex trafficking of a minor “in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce.”The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas presided over the trial. After the jury found Arif guilty, he moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the government failed to prove the required element that his conduct affected interstate commerce. The district court agreed, granting the motion and concluding that merely driving a car manufactured out of state and giving money to the victim did not constitute an actual effect on interstate commerce as required by precedent.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo, considering whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the interstate commerce element of the federal statute. The appellate court held that the government’s evidence—Arif’s use of a car manufactured in another state, the transfer of $20, and the use of local roadways—was insufficient to show an actual effect on interstate commerce. The court distinguished this case from others where use of the internet, interstate travel, or communications had a clear impact on commerce. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment of acquittal. View "United States v. Arif" on Justia Law

During an oil pipeline protest in Hubbard County, Minnesota, Matthew Locke and another protestor locked themselves to construction equipment using a device known as a “sleeping dragon,” which made removal difficult. Law enforcement officers, including Sheriff Cory Aukes and Chief Deputy Scott Parks, responded to the scene. In their efforts to remove Locke, the officers used several pain compliance techniques, applying pressure to various nerves on Locke’s head and neck. Locke alleges that as a result, he suffered facial paralysis, tinnitus, and emotional distress. After being removed from the device by extraction teams, Locke was evaluated by EMTs, taken to the hospital, and then jailed.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed Locke’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Minnesota law. The court held that Sheriff Aukes and Deputy Parks were entitled to qualified and official immunity, and that Locke’s complaint did not state a claim for municipal liability against Hubbard County. The district court also dismissed Locke’s state law claims for assault and battery.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The Eighth Circuit held that, accepting the complaint’s allegations as true, Locke plausibly alleged a violation of his clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force, as the officers’ use of pain compliance techniques on a nonviolent, passively resisting misdemeanant was not objectively reasonable. The court also found that the district court erred in dismissing the official capacity claim without considering whether the sheriff was a final policymaker for the county. Additionally, the Eighth Circuit reversed the grant of official immunity on the state law claims, finding that the complaint sufficiently alleged willful violation of a known right. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Locke v. County of Hubbard" on Justia Law

Philip Myers, a native and citizen of Liberia, was adopted by a U.S. citizen and entered the United States as a child. He later sustained several criminal convictions, including for aggravated felonies. In 2021, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him. Myers claimed derivative citizenship through his adoptive mother, who had become a naturalized U.S. citizen, and also alleged that he had been abused by her. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) had previously denied his derivative citizenship application, finding insufficient evidence that he was in his adoptive mother’s legal and physical custody at the relevant time. During removal proceedings, Myers, sometimes represented by counsel and sometimes pro se, was found competent to proceed without safeguards. He applied for various forms of relief, including asylum and protection under the Convention Against Torture, but these were denied.The Immigration Judge ordered Myers removed to Liberia. Myers appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), arguing that the competency determination was flawed and that he should have been found incompetent to proceed pro se. The BIA found no clear error in the Immigration Judge’s competency finding and dismissed the appeal. Myers then moved to reopen the proceedings, citing a pending motion with USCIS regarding derivative citizenship, alleged errors in the competency determination, a new asylum claim based on his sexual orientation, and a pending T-visa application as a victim of sex trafficking. The BIA denied the motion to reopen, and Myers was removed to Liberia.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen for abuse of discretion and found none. The court also rejected Myers’s constitutional challenge to the statutory requirements for derivative citizenship and found no genuine issue of material fact regarding his nationality claim. The petition for review was denied. View "Myers v. Bondi" on Justia Law