Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

While serving a ten-year sentence in Rhode Island Department of Corrections (RIDOC) custody, Jerry Cintron, who suffers from opioid use disorder, relapsed and overdosed on a fentanyl-laced pill. After the incident, RIDOC officials sanctioned him with a total of 450 days in solitary confinement for various infractions related to the overdose and alleged trafficking. During this period, Cintron experienced severe mental and physical deterioration, including significant weight loss, self-injurious behavior, and psychiatric symptoms. He repeatedly informed RIDOC officials of his worsening condition and requested relief, but his pleas were denied or ignored, and his conditions remained unchanged.Cintron filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment rights due to deliberate indifference by RIDOC officials. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Cintron’s claims failed on the merits and that they were entitled to qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion as to the Eighth Amendment claim, allowing it to proceed against all defendants, and the defendants appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and held that Cintron’s complaint plausibly alleged an Eighth Amendment violation by three RIDOC officials—Aceto, Corry, and Kettle—who were aware of his deterioration and had authority to intervene but failed to do so. The court found that, as of 2019, it was clearly established that prolonged social, sensory, and sleep deprivation in solitary confinement could constitute cruel and unusual punishment, and that officials could not respond with deliberate indifference. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity for these three officials, reversed as to the other defendants, and remanded for further proceedings on declaratory and injunctive relief. View "Cintron v. Bibeault" on Justia Law

Amber Lavigne filed a lawsuit against the Great Salt Bay Community School Board and various school staff members, alleging that they infringed on her constitutional right to parent by providing her child, A.B., with a chest binder and referring to A.B. by a different name and pronouns without informing her. Lavigne claimed that these actions were part of a school-wide policy of withholding such information from parents.The United States District Court for the District of Maine dismissed the claims against the individual defendants and later granted the Board's motion to dismiss, concluding that Lavigne had not plausibly alleged that the Board had a custom or policy of withholding information. The court found that Lavigne's allegations were based on conclusions unsupported by factual allegations and that the Board's statements did not constitute active approval of the individual defendants' actions.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that Lavigne had not plausibly alleged the existence of an unwritten policy or custom of withholding information from parents. The court noted that the Board's written policies encouraged parental involvement and that the statements made by the Board and school officials did not support the inference of an unwritten policy of withholding. The court also found that the Board's decision to renew the contract of the social worker involved did not amount to ratification of the alleged conduct. Thus, the appellate court concluded that Lavigne had failed to show that the Board was responsible for any constitutional violation. View "Lavigne v. Great Salt Bay Community School Board" on Justia Law

A graduate student and resident advisor (RA) at the University of Massachusetts, John Doe, was found responsible for sexual misconduct by the University in 2023. The University sanctioned him based on complaints from four female RAs about his interactions with them. Doe filed a federal lawsuit against the University, its trustees, and the members of the hearing panel, alleging that the University violated his First Amendment rights by punishing him for protected speech and expressive conduct. He sought a preliminary injunction, which the district court considered on a "case stated" basis, consolidating the preliminary injunction hearing with the trial on the merits.The district court ruled against Doe, finding that his First Amendment rights had not been violated. The court applied the Tinker standard, determining that the University's actions were justified because Doe's conduct caused or would cause a substantial disruption and invaded the rights of others. The court also held that the Individual Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity for monetary damages. Doe appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the record lacked evidence of substantial disruption to the academic environment or the complainants' jobs. The court also concluded that Doe's conduct did not constitute a pervasive pattern of unwelcome conduct. Therefore, the court held that the University's actions were not justified under the Tinker standard. However, the court affirmed the district court's ruling that the Individual Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, as the law was not clearly established that their actions violated Doe's First Amendment rights. The judgment was reversed in part and affirmed in part. View "Doe v. University of Massachusetts" on Justia Law

Three appellants, Anthony Rivera-Rivera, Victor M. Hernández-Carrasquillo, and Jimmy Ríos-Alvarez, were convicted of armed carjacking and using a firearm in a crime of violence. They were part of a group that committed a violent home invasion targeting a family. During the invasion, the group assaulted the family members, causing serious injuries, and stole valuables. Two members of the group took the family's car to withdraw money from an ATM, while the appellants stayed behind to guard the family.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico held a joint trial for the appellants. The jury found them guilty on both counts. The appellants filed motions for judgment of acquittal, which the court denied, concluding that the government had presented sufficient evidence for a rational factfinder to find each appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Rivera and Hernández also filed motions to dismiss the indictment due to delayed Brady disclosures, which the court denied. Additionally, Rivera and Hernández sought severance from Ríos to call him as a witness, but the court denied this motion as well.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdicts. The court held that the appellants had knowledge of the carjacking and took affirmative acts to further the crime. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of the motions to dismiss the indictment and for severance. The court rejected Rivera's Confrontation Clause claims and upheld the sentences for Rivera and Hernández, finding them procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Rivera-Rivera" on Justia Law

Between February 2014 and December 2015, United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) agents in Puerto Rico identified a pattern of suspicious packages being sent between Puerto Rico and New York. Upon inspection, these packages were found to contain cocaine and large sums of money concealed in household items. The investigation led to Miguel A. Reyes-Ballista (Reyes) and two co-conspirators. Reyes was indicted and, after a six-day trial, a jury convicted him of participating in two conspiracies to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and three counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine.Reyes was sentenced to 170 months in prison with four years of supervised release. He appealed his convictions, arguing that the government provided insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. Reyes also sought a new trial, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel due to inadequate communication with his attorney and poor performance at trial, which he argued violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the evidence presented at trial, including testimony from co-conspirators, surveillance footage, and fingerprint evidence, was sufficient to support Reyes's convictions for conspiracy. The court noted that Reyes's arguments regarding the credibility of witnesses and the lack of direct evidence placing him inside the post office did not undermine the jury's verdict. The court also dismissed Reyes's Sixth Amendment claim as premature, indicating that such claims are typically better suited for collateral proceedings where a more developed record can be established.The First Circuit affirmed Reyes's convictions and dismissed his Sixth Amendment claim without prejudice, allowing him the opportunity to raise the issue in a future collateral proceeding. View "United States v. Reyes-Ballista" on Justia Law

In early 2025, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) implemented a new policy prohibiting NIH from funding certain categories of scientific research grants. Two groups of plaintiffs, including private research organizations, individual researchers, and several states, sued, alleging that the new policy and the resulting grant terminations violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the U.S. Constitution. They argued that the policy was arbitrary and capricious, as the prohibited research categories were undefined and the rationale for discontinuing the research was circular.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts held a trial on the merits and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding the agencies' actions to be "breathtakingly arbitrary and capricious." The court set aside the new policy and related grant terminations as illegal under the APA. The court found that the decisions were based on circular reasoning, lacked a rational connection to the facts, and ignored significant reliance interests. The government then moved for a stay of the district court's order pending appeal, which the district court denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that the district court had jurisdiction to review the agency action under the APA and to grant declaratory relief. The court found that the district court's orders did not enforce a contractual obligation to pay money but rather provided declaratory relief that set aside agency actions as arbitrary and capricious. The court also determined that the grant terminations were reviewable under the APA and that the Department had failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits. The court denied the Department's motion for a stay, concluding that the balance of equities and the public interest favored the plaintiffs. View "American Public Health Assn v. National Institutes of Health" on Justia Law

In 2023, Maine voters passed "An Act to Prohibit Campaign Spending by Foreign Governments" to prevent foreign governments and entities influenced by them from contributing to or influencing elections. The Act also requires media platforms to ensure they do not distribute communications that violate this prohibition, with violators facing civil and criminal penalties. Several companies and individuals, including Central Maine Power (CMP) and Versant Power, challenged the Act, claiming it violated the First Amendment. The district court granted a preliminary injunction against the Act, and Maine appealed.The United States District Court for the District of Maine granted the preliminary injunction, finding that the Act was likely unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The court held that the Act's prohibition on spending by entities with at least 5% foreign ownership was not narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest. It also found that the definition of "foreign government-influenced entity" was overly broad and likely to stifle domestic speech regardless of actual foreign influence. The court declined to sever the unconstitutional provisions from the rest of the Act, reserving the issue for later consideration.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the Act's 5% foreign ownership threshold was not narrowly tailored and that the definition of "foreign government-influenced entity" was overly broad. The court also found that the Act's restrictions on contributions and expenditures were likely unconstitutional. The court did not address the issue of severability, leaving it for the district court to decide. The court also did not find it necessary to discuss the preemption determination in affirming the injunction. View "Central Maine Power Co. v. Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices" on Justia Law

The U.S. Department of Education announced a reduction in force (RIF) on March 13, 2025, affecting about half of its employees. Subsequently, twenty-one states and several labor organizations and school districts filed lawsuits against the Secretary of Education, the Department, and the President, claiming that the RIF violated the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). They also sought an injunction against the transfer of certain functions out of the Department, announced by the President on March 21, 2025.The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts consolidated the cases and granted the plaintiffs' motions for a preliminary injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims, determining that the RIF and the transfer of functions were likely ultra vires and violated the APA. The court concluded that the actions were arbitrary and capricious, lacking a reasoned explanation and failing to consider the substantial harms to stakeholders.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court denied the appellants' motion for a stay pending appeal. The court found that the appellants did not make a strong showing that they were likely to succeed on the merits, particularly regarding the APA claims. The court also determined that the plaintiffs would suffer substantial injury without the injunction, as the RIF made it effectively impossible for the Department to carry out its statutory functions. The court concluded that the public interest favored maintaining the injunction to ensure the Department could fulfill its legal obligations. View "New York v. McMahon" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, who own or operate gasoline service stations in Puerto Rico, offered two different prices to consumers: a higher price for those using credit or debit cards and a lower price for those paying with cash. In 2013, Puerto Rico's legislature enacted Law 152-2013, amending Law 150-2008 by removing a provision that allowed merchants to offer cash discounts. Plaintiffs ceased offering the lower price due to the threat of fines and criminal prosecution. They sued the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, arguing that Law 150 is preempted by federal law and is unconstitutionally vague.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico rejected the plaintiffs' arguments and granted the Commonwealth's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court found that neither the Cash Discount Act (CDA) nor the Durbin Amendment preempted Law 150. The court also declined to address the constitutional vagueness argument, noting that the complaint did not allege that Law 150 is unconstitutionally vague.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the CDA and the Durbin Amendment do not preempt Law 150. The CDA regulates the conduct of credit card issuers, not merchants or states, and does not confer an absolute right to offer cash discounts. The Durbin Amendment regulates payment card networks, not states, and does not preempt state legislation restricting cash discounts. The court also found that the plaintiffs did not properly plead a vagueness claim in their complaint, rendering the claim unpreserved for appellate review. Consequently, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case. View "Asociacion de Detallistas de Gasolina de PR Inc. v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" on Justia Law

Four businesses involved in the cultivation, manufacture, possession, and distribution of marijuana within Massachusetts, in compliance with state laws, sued the Attorney General of the United States in 2023. They claimed that the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) exceeded Congress's powers under Article I of the U.S. Constitution and violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. They sought a declaratory judgment and an injunction to prevent the enforcement of the CSA against their intrastate activities.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court reasoned that the Supreme Court's decision in Gonzales v. Raich, which upheld the CSA's application to intrastate marijuana activities under the Commerce Clause, was controlling. The District Court also found no precedent for recognizing a fundamental right to cultivate, process, and distribute marijuana, thus rejecting the plaintiffs' substantive due process claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's dismissal. The First Circuit held that the CSA's regulation of intrastate commercial marijuana activities was within Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. The court found that Congress had a rational basis for concluding that intrastate marijuana activities substantially affect interstate commerce. Additionally, the court rejected the plaintiffs' substantive due process claim, holding that there is no fundamental right to cultivate, manufacture, possess, and distribute marijuana. The court emphasized that historical practices and recent state legislative trends do not establish such a fundamental right. View "Canna Provisions, Inc. v. Bondi" on Justia Law