Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Israa Hassan, a United States citizen, filed an I-130 petition seeking permanent resident status for her noncitizen husband, Kamal Ali. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied the petition based on its determination that Ali’s prior marriage had been fraudulent. Ali and Hassan (together, Plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit alleging that USCIS had violated their Fifth Amendment procedural due process rights by denying the I-130 petition without sua sponte offering a pre-decision evidentiary hearing. The magistrate judge issued an order granting the government’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that, even assuming that Plaintiffs had a liberty interest in Ali having permanent resident status through the petition, due process did not require an evidentiary hearing. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that, even assuming that Plaintiffs were entitled to some form of constitutionally protected liberty interest in this matter, the district court properly held that Plaintiffs did not show how their preferred procedure would have made any difference to the outcome. View "Ali v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to participating in a conspiracy to defraud the federal government. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment with prejudice based on violations of the Speedy Trial Act, the Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment, and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The First Circuit vacated the district court’s decision on Defendant’s Sixth Amendment claim and remanded for reconsideration of that claim, holding that the district court was led astray by dicta in one of this Court’s prior opinions in calculating the length of delay relevant to evaluating the alleged Sixth Amendment violation. View "United States v. Irizarry-Colon" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant waived any argument regarding the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress text messages that the police obtained from Defendant’s cell phone pursuant to a search warrant; (2) the district court did not err in admitting evidence of Defendant’s prior drug conviction; (3) the district court did not err in allowing a police officer to provide expert testimony; and (4) the district court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of simple possession. View "United States v. Henry" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to possession of child pornography and was sentenced to seventy-eight months’ imprisonment and ten years of supervised release. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the search and seizure of computers and other items from his apartment violated the Fourth Amendment. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding (1) FBI agents did not violate the curtilage of Defendant’s home; (2) Defendant consented to the search, and the FBI agents did not exceed the scope of that consent; and (3) the temporary seizure of Defendant’s apartment did not violate the Fourth Amendment. View "United States v. Perez-Diaz" on Justia Law

Defendant, a police officer acting under color of state law, took Plaintiff into protective custody, handcuffed him, transported him to a police station, and jailed him after attempting to evaluate whether Defendant was incapacitated by his consumption of alcohol. Plaintiff sued in federal district court, arguing that Defendant lacked probable cause to take him into protective custody. The district court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, concluding that the law was not clearly established as to the need for probable cause. The First Circuit vacated the entry of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings, holding (1) the state of preexisting law established that a reasonable officer must have probable cause to take an individual into protective custody, handcuff him, transport him to a police station, and confine him in a jail cell; (2) an objectively reasonable officer in this case would not have had adequate reason to believe that Plaintiff, though intoxicated, was incapacitated; and (3) therefore, the qualified immunity defense was not available to Plaintiff. View "Alfano v. Lynch" on Justia Law

In 1991, six men were shot, execution-style, in an illegal gambling club in Boston's Chinatown district; one (Lee) survived. Lee testified that Tran arrived at the club with one of the victims after they had been drinking. Tran left, then returned with Tham and Pham. All three had guns. Lee felt a gun at the back of his head, heard a bang, and lost consciousness. Two hours later, Lee regained consciousness. Arrest warrants issued, but the three had left the country. Authorities in China arrested Tran in 1999, and Tham in 2000. They were extradited. At trial, the Commonwealth was allowed to introduce, as evidence of consciousness of guilt, a passenger manifest and ticket inquiry showing that three weeks after the shooting, passengers named Tran, Tham, and Pham flew on United Airlines from New York to Hong Kong, having purchased their tickets together. Both were convicted and sentenced to five consecutive terms of life in prison, plus 24 to 25 years. State courts affirmed. They filed federal habeas petitions. The First Circuit affirmed denial of relief, rejecting arguments that the prosecution’s use of photocopies of the flight records violated the Sixth Amendment either because defendants had a right to confront someone who knew the airline's procedures for verifying passenger identities at the time of the flight or had a right to confront the person who created the records. View "Van Tran v. Roden" on Justia Law

After two trials, Appellant was found guilty of various federal drug and firearms-related crimes for his participation in six “Operation Guard Shack” drug deals orchestrated by the FBI. Each trial was presided over by a different district judge. Thus, there were two cases on appeal. In this present appeal from the first trial, Appellant argued that the district court committed several reversible errors. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err when it denied Appellant’s claim for ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea-bargaining stage; (2) did not commit obvious error in failing to instruct the jury that it was required to find drug quantity beyond a reasonable doubt; (3) did not clearly err in denying Appellant’s sentencing manipulation claim; and (4) did not sentence Appellant to a grossly disproportionate sentence in violation of the Eighth Amendment. View "United States v. Rivera-Ruperto" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was New Hampshire Senate Bill 319 (the Act), which was signed into law in 2014. The Act permits a reproductive health care facility to demarcate a zone under certain conditions and forbids members of the public to knowingly enter or remain on the portion of the public way or sidewalk within that zone. After the U.S. Supreme Court decided in McCullen v. Coakley that a buffer zone statute in Massachusetts was unconstitutional, Plaintiffs commenced this action in federal district court seeking to enjoin enforcement of the Act and to have the Act declared facially unconstitutional under McMullen. The statute, however, has never been activated or enforced. The district court dismissed the action. The First Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal for want of jurisdiction, holding that Plaintiffs have shown neither standing or ripeness. View "Reddy v. Foster" on Justia Law

Brian Blackden, a freelance photographer who sends photos to several regional-media outlets, including Belsito Communications (Belsito), and Belsito filed suit alleging that James Decker, a New Hampshire State Trooper, violated their constitutional rights when he seized Blackden’s camera without a warrant at the scene of a vehicle crash. The trial judge concluded that even if Decker’s actions were unconstitutional under current law, he was entitled to qualified immunity from suit because constitutional standards as applied to a situation like this one were unclear at the time of the challenged conduct. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Blackden failed to identify clearly established law as of the time of the challenged conduct showing beyond debate that the police officer’s specific acts violated the First Amendment. View "Belsito Communications, Inc v. Decker" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, was arrested and charged with removability on the basis that he had remained in the United States beyond the six months permitted by his visa. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that certain documents were obtained as the result of an egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment. An immigration judge denied the motion to suppress, concluding that Petitioner did not present a prima facie case that the search and seizure leading to his arrest amounted to an egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that, like the BIA, the Court need not decide whether there was any Fourth Amendment violation because, even if there were, the violation was not egregious. View "Corado-Arriaza v. Lynch" on Justia Law