Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Four employees of the University of Puerto Rico sought to stop the deduction of union dues from their paychecks after the Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees, Council 31, which held that public sector employees could not be compelled to pay union dues without consent. Despite their requests, the University and the union continued to deduct dues for nearly three years. The employees then brought suit against the University’s president and the union, alleging violations of their First Amendment rights and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico largely granted summary judgment to the University president and the union, finding no constitutional violation. However, the court ordered the union to reimburse the employees for dues deducted after their resignations but denied interest and did not grant declaratory or injunctive relief. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the employees’ Puerto Rico law claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit was asked only to direct the district court to issue declaratory judgments stating that the past and potential future deductions were unconstitutional. The First Circuit dismissed the appeal as moot. It held that a declaration regarding past conduct would be merely advisory because the deductions had already ceased and a judgment ordering reimbursement was in place. The court also found the request for prospective relief moot, as the University and union had admitted their error, stopped the deductions, and adopted new policies to comply with Janus. The court concluded there was no substantial controversy remaining and that the voluntary cessation doctrine did not apply under these facts. The appeal was therefore dismissed as moot. View "Ramos-Ramos v. Jordan-Conde" on Justia Law

The case involves parents of two children with disabilities, both of whom attend private religious schools in Massachusetts. State law entitles all students with disabilities, including those in private schools, to publicly funded special education services. However, a state regulation requires that while public school students can receive these services at their school of enrollment, private school students may only receive them at a public school or another public or neutral location. The parents, who observe Jewish law and prefer their children’s education be informed by Judaism, found it burdensome and disruptive to transport their children to and from different locations for services and chose to forgo the publicly funded services.The parents sued the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, individual board members, and the commissioner in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. They alleged that the regulation violated the Due Process, Equal Protection, and Privileges or Immunities Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment by interfering with their fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of their children. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The Court held that while parents have a fundamental right to choose private schooling, the regulation does not restrict that right but merely defines the terms under which the state provides public benefits. The regulation does not ban or penalize private schooling or deprive meaningful access to it. Instead, it survives rational basis review because it is rationally related to the legitimate state interest of providing special education services while complying with the Massachusetts Constitution’s prohibition on aiding private schools. The court also rejected the Equal Protection and Privileges or Immunities claims. View "Hellman v. Department of Elementary and Secondary Education" on Justia Law

The plaintiff filed a putative class action against the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, challenging the Massachusetts Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. He alleged that the Act’s provisions regarding payment of interest on unclaimed property resulted in an uncompensated taking of his private property for public use. The plaintiff’s complaint included evidence that the state held property in his name, but did not explain his connection to the listed address or further describe the property. He had not filed a claim to recover the property through the statutory process.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiff lacked standing to seek injunctive or declaratory relief since he did not demonstrate any future harm, and that the Commonwealth had not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity. The district court also concluded that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for relief under the Takings Clause, reasoning in part that the statute provides a mechanism for reclaiming the property in full and that any taking resulted from the plaintiff’s own neglect. The district court did not address the ripeness argument raised by the Treasurer.Upon review, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that if the plaintiff’s challenge was to the statutory interest rate, his claim was not ripe, as he had not yet made a claim for the property or been denied interest. Alternatively, if the claim was that a taking had already occurred when the state took possession, he lacked standing to seek prospective relief because any injury was in the past and not ongoing. The court thus affirmed the dismissal for lack of Article III jurisdiction. View "Narrigan v. Goldberg" on Justia Law

In 1974, a fatal shooting occurred in a Boston park, resulting in the death of a fourteen-year-old victim. The suspect, who was twenty years old at the time, was identified by witnesses and a murder complaint was issued against him. Shortly after the incident, the suspect was arrested in Indiana under an alias for an unrelated crime. After being acquitted of that charge, he was mistakenly released, and his whereabouts were unknown to Massachusetts authorities for nearly two decades. During this period, he lived under his own name in Indiana, worked, attended university, and occasionally used aliases when interacting with law enforcement.Following a renewed discovery of his location in 1994, Massachusetts authorities interviewed and indicted him for murder in 1997. He was tried and convicted in 2004. Prior to trial, the defendant filed multiple motions to dismiss the indictment on speedy-trial grounds, all unsuccessful. The Massachusetts Superior Court and then the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) rejected his arguments, finding that the delay was largely attributable to his own conduct, including the use of aliases. The SJC also denied his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims on direct appeal.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied his habeas petition, which alleged violations of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial and ineffective assistance by counsel. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that, under binding federal precedent, the speedy-trial right only attached upon indictment, not at the issuance of the complaint, and since the relevant delay was seven years, not thirty, his federal speedy-trial claim failed. The court also found his ineffective-assistance claims unavailing, as the record showed no deficient performance or prejudice. Therefore, the First Circuit affirmed the denial of habeas relief. View "Carr v. Lizotte" on Justia Law

A witness was subpoenaed to testify in a federal criminal trial in the United States District Court for the District of Maine. After answering a few questions, she invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, refusing to answer further questions from the government. The government then sought and obtained an order from the District Court granting her statutory immunity under 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002-6003, which precluded the use of her compelled testimony or information derived from it against her in any criminal case, except for prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or failing to comply with the order. Despite this grant of immunity and a direct order from the court, the witness continued to refuse to testify.Following her refusal, the District Court found her in criminal contempt and issued an order accordingly. Her attorney argued that the statutory immunity provided was not as broad as her Fifth Amendment privilege, specifically asserting that the immunity did not protect her from potential prosecution for perjury based on her compelled testimony. The District Court rejected this argument, clarifying that the immunity was coextensive with the Fifth Amendment privilege as it protected against self-incrimination for prior acts but did not extend to potential perjury in the immunized testimony itself.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the District Court’s criminal contempt order for abuse of discretion, reviewing factual findings for clear error and legal questions de novo. The First Circuit held that the statutory immunity granted under 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002-6003 was indeed coextensive with the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, except for future perjury or false statements given under immunity. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s order of criminal contempt. View "United States v. McBreairty" on Justia Law

A man was convicted of sex trafficking a minor after police located the missing child in an apartment where he was staying. The police had responded to a missing persons report filed by the minor’s father, who believed the child was endangered. Investigators traced the minor’s Snapchat activity to an IP address at the apartment and, after gaining access from a tenant in the building, entered the unlocked apartment briefly to ask about the missing child. During this encounter, the defendant emerged from a bedroom. Subsequent evidence, including text messages from a phone recovered from the minor, supported the prosecution’s case.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence related to the police entry and admitted several text messages and emails as evidence. During jury selection, the court temporarily sealed the courtroom while questioning potential jurors about sensitive matters, with defense counsel expressly stating there was no objection. At the close of trial, the court mistakenly allowed alternate jurors into the deliberation room but promptly removed them and instructed the jury to disregard any statements by the alternates and restart deliberations if needed. The defendant was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment plus supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the police entry was justified under the emergency-aid exception, the temporary courtroom sealing did not violate the public trial right due to waiver, and the evidentiary rulings were not an abuse of discretion. The court also found no reversible error in the alternate juror incident, as there was no showing of prejudice. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Rowell" on Justia Law

The case concerns an individual who was convicted under federal law for possessing a firearm after having previously been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. The predicate offense was a 2010 conviction under Maine law for simple assault against his then-wife, to which he pleaded no contest after the original charge of "Domestic Violence Assault" was reduced. Several years later, he was charged federally after he admitted to police that he owned a firearm. At his federal trial, he stipulated to many elements of the offense but sought to introduce evidence that he believed, based on his plea arrangement and representations by the prosecution and his attorney in state court, that he was legally allowed to possess a firearm.Initially, the United States District Court for the District of Maine convicted him, but the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated that conviction after the Supreme Court decided Rehaif v. United States, which clarified the knowledge requirement for firearms offenses. On remand, he was retried and again convicted, but a First Circuit panel vacated the conviction due to errors in jury instructions. Sitting en banc, the First Circuit clarified the applicable knowledge standard, vacated the conviction, and remanded for another trial. On further remand, the District Court denied his Second Amendment challenge to the statute, excluded his proffered evidence regarding his belief about firearm possession, and again convicted him after a jury trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), which prohibits firearm possession by those convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, does not violate the Second Amendment, either facially or as applied, in light of the Supreme Court’s guidance in United States v. Rahimi. The court also held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of the defendant’s belief about the lawfulness of his conduct, as the statute does not require knowledge that firearm possession is unlawful, only knowledge of the facts that make one ineligible. The conviction and denial of the motion to dismiss were affirmed. View "US v. Minor" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs in this case are the sons of Roberto Clemente, a renowned Puerto Rican baseball player, and two corporations they control. The dispute centers on the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s use of Clemente’s name and image on commemorative license plates and vehicle registration tags. Proceeds from these items were designated to fund a new “Roberto Clemente Sports District,” a public project that would replace an earlier initiative, Ciudad Deportiva, originally founded by Clemente. The plaintiffs allege that they hold trademark rights in Clemente’s name and that the Commonwealth’s actions were unauthorized and caused public confusion, with many mistakenly believing the Clemente family benefited financially from the program.The plaintiffs brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico against the Commonwealth, several high-ranking officials, and the Puerto Rico Convention Center District Authority. Their claims included trademark infringement, false association, false advertising, and trademark dilution under the Lanham Act, as well as a takings claim under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Commonwealth and the Authority moved to dismiss, arguing sovereign and qualified immunity and failure to state a claim. The district court granted both motions, dismissing all federal claims on immunity and merits grounds, and declined to exercise jurisdiction over non-federal claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court affirmed the dismissal of all claims against the Authority and all claims against the Commonwealth and its officials in their official capacities. It also affirmed dismissal of the false advertising and takings claims. However, the court vacated the dismissal of the Lanham Act claims for trademark infringement, false endorsement, and dilution against the Commonwealth officials in their personal capacities, holding those claims were plausibly alleged and not barred by qualified immunity at this stage, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Clemente Properties, Inc. v. Pierluisi-Urrutia" on Justia Law

A group of eleven current and former employees of the Woods Hole, Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority challenged the Authority’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, which required all employees to be fully vaccinated unless they qualified for a medical or religious exemption. The policy allowed for exemptions if an employee provided sufficient medical documentation or demonstrated a sincerely held religious belief, provided that reasonable accommodations could be made without undue burden to the Authority. Thirteen employees applied for religious exemptions, but only the request of one fully remote employee was granted. One employee received a temporary medical exemption but was ultimately terminated after refusing vaccination once that exemption expired. Four appellants later became vaccinated and remained employed; the remaining seven were fired for noncompliance.After the Authority enacted its policy, the plaintiffs filed suit, alleging violations of their rights under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and Massachusetts anti-discrimination law. The state court initially granted a temporary restraining order, but after removal to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the district court denied their preliminary injunction request. On a prior appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the denial as to most claims but remanded for further consideration of the First Amendment claim, instructing the district court to address the relevance of the granted medical exemption and to determine the appropriate level of scrutiny.On remand, the district court again denied a preliminary injunction, finding the policy to be generally applicable and thus subject to rational basis review, which it held the policy satisfied. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed, holding that the policy’s medical and religious exemptions were not comparable for Free Exercise purposes, the policy was generally applicable, and the Authority’s interests justified the mandate under rational basis review. View "Brox v. Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard & Nantucket Steamship Authority" on Justia Law

In this case, the petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and robbery for an offense committed at age 17, resulting in a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole under Massachusetts law. Decades later, following developments in constitutional law, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that life-without-parole sentences for juveniles were unconstitutional and ordered that such sentences be modified to life with the possibility of parole. As a result, the petitioner’s sentence was changed; he became parole eligible, was granted parole, and was released.After this modification, the petitioner sought to file a second habeas corpus petition in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that this petition was “second or successive” under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) and thus subject to its “gatekeeping” requirements, concluding that the addition of parole eligibility did not constitute a new judgment for purposes of federal habeas law.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed de novo whether the sentence modification constituted a new judgment. The court held that the change from life without parole to life with parole eligibility was a material change, making the sentence a new judgment under federal law. The court reasoned that, because the petitioner’s current custody was authorized by this new judgment, his second-in-time habeas petition did not trigger the restrictions of § 2244(b).Therefore, the First Circuit reversed the district court’s decision, holding that the petitioner need not obtain pre-authorization to file his habeas petition, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Donovan v. Massachusetts Parole Board" on Justia Law