Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was charged with one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. Defendant filed a motion to suppress a pistol and ammunition found after a search conducted at his house, arguing that the affidavit submitted by a special agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms supporting an application for a warrant to search his residence was misleading. The district court denied the motion to suppress. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty, reserving his right to challenge the denial of his suppression motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that, although certain aspects of the affidavit were troubling, the affidavit established probable cause by showing a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found at Defendant’s residence. View "United States v. Fleury" on Justia Law

On the fifth time before the First Circuit, Plaintiff, a United States citizen-resident of Puerto Rico, and his fellow plaintiffs challenged the denial of the right of Puerto Rico citizens to vote for representatives to the U.S. House of Representatives and their right to have five Puerto Rico representatives apportioned to that body. Plaintiffs further contended that the district court erred in refusing to convene a three-judge court to adjudicate their claims. When Plaintiff first raised the issue of congressional representation, a panel majority concluded that they were bound by past circuit decisions to find that Plaintiffs were not constitutionally entitled to the claimed right by means other than those specified for achieving statehood or by amendment. The First Circuit, noting that it was bound by precedent, affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in refusing to convene and three-judge court and dismissing the case on the merits; but (2) the three-judge-court issue should be reconsidered by the full court in an en banc rehearing of this case. View "Igartua v. Obama" on Justia Law

Mark Eves, the Maine Legislature Speaker of the House, obtained a contract of employment with Good Will-Hinckley (GWH), a Maine nonprofit that is largely funded by biennial grants from the state. Whether to disburse that grant money to GWH was left to the discretion of the Governor of Maine. Displeased at GWH’s decision to hire the Speaker, the Governor threatened to withhold GWH’s discretionary funding when payment would ordinarily be due. GWH subsequently terminated the Speaker’s employment contract. The Speaker sued the Governor for damages and injunctive relief, asserting that the Governor had retaliated against the Speaker’s exercise of his First Amendment rights. The federal district court dismissed all claims. The First Circuit (1) affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of the Speaker’s federal claims on qualified immunity grounds; and (2) vacated the district court’s judgment with respect to the dismissal with prejudice of the Speaker’s state claim, which the Court remanded to the district court for a dismissal without prejudice, holding that this matter is best left to the Maine courts. View "Eves v. LePage" on Justia Law

After a jury trial in a Massachusetts state court, Appellant was convicted of unarmed robbery. The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting Appellant’s claim that certain identification procedures violated his constitutional rights. Thereafter, Appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking to set aside his conviction, arguing that the trial court violated his due process rights by admitting certain identification evidence at his trial. The federal district court denied Appellant’s habeas petition, and the First Circuit granted a certificate of appealability. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Appellant’s petition, holding that the Appeals Court did not unreasonably apply Supreme Court precedent in rejecting Appellant’s claim that the pre-trial identification procedures were impermissibly suggestive. View "Moore v. Dickhaut" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of Hobbs Act extortion, tax fraud, and making false statements to obtain federal worker’s compensation. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying her motion to suppress incriminating statements she made during her interview with two sheriff’s deputies because the statements were obtained through a custodial interrogation without the benefit of a Miranda warning and that her confession was involuntary. The district court denied the motion to suppress. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was not subjected to a custodial interrogation, and therefore, it was not necessary to provide her with Miranda warnings; and (2) Defendant’s statements were voluntary. View "United States v. Swan" on Justia Law

In 2002, Appellant entered a guilty plea, pursuant to a plea agreement, to four counts of conspiracy to commit, and aiding and abetting, insurance and mail fraud. In 2011, Appellant consulted an immigration attorney to apply for naturalization. The attorney informed Appellant that his guilty plea barred him from becoming a United States citizen and that he was subject to mandatory removal based on his conviction. Appellant brought a petition for a writ of coram nobis, arguing that his attorney provided ineffective assistance by erroneously advising him that a probation sentence from his guilty plea would not affect his immigration status and that the prosecutor provided a similar assurance during plea negotiations. The district court denied the petition, concluding (1) Appellant’s Sixth Amendment claim was barred because its success depended on the retroactive application of Padilla v. Kentucky, and Padilla did not apply retroactively to Appellant’s claim in light of Chaidez v. United States; and (2) Appellant’s claim against the prosecutor lacked merit. The First Circuit vacated and remanded the claim, holding (1) Appellant’s claim against the prosecutor indeed lacked merit; but (2) Appellant’s Sixth Amendment claim was not barred by the retroactivity doctrine. Remanded. View "United States v. Castro-Taveras" on Justia Law

After a jury trial in a Massachusetts state court, Appellant was found guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, and other offenses. The appeals court affirmed. Appellant later filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254, arguing that the state courts failed to apply the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Snyder v. Massachusetts and violated his due process and equal protection rights in denying his request to be present during the jury view of the crime scene. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the appeals court’s decision did not contradict, nor was it an unreasonable application of, Snyder. View "Hyatt v. Gelb" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of conspiracy, manufacturing over 100 marijuana plants, maintaining a residence for marijuana manufacturing, and possessing a firearm as a felony. The district court sentenced Defendant to 120 months’ imprisonment followed by eight years of supervised release. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) even if the superseding indictment violated the principles outlined in Alleyne v. United States, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) the district court erred in admitting hearsay testimony under the exception for statements in furtherance of a conspiracy, but this error did not warrant reversal; (3) any error in the admission of other testimony was harmless; and (4) Defendant’s sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment. View "United States v. Ford" on Justia Law

In 2014, New Hampshire amended a statute by forbidding citizens from photographing their marked ballots and publicizing those photographs (referred to as “ballot selfies”). Three New Hampshire citizens filed suit, arguing that the statute was a content-based restriction of speech that, on its face, violates the First Amendment. The district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. On appeal, the New Hampshire Secretary of State argued that the statute was justified to prevent vote buying and voter intimidation. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the statute as amended is facially unconstitutional even applying only intermediate scrutiny, and the statute’s purposes cannot justify the restrictions it imposes on speech. View "Rideout v. Gardner" on Justia Law

Phillip McCue died after an encounter with five police officers with the City of Bangor. During the encounter, the officers sought to take McCue into protective custody due to his erratic behavior allegedly caused by ingestion of bath salts. In an attempt to restrain McCue, the officers placed him in a face-down position on the ground while two officers exerted significant weight on his neck and shoulders. McCue was declared dead after this intervention. Plaintiff, the father of Phillip, sued the City and the five officers in their individual and official capacities, asserting violations of Phillip’s constitutional rights and various state law tort claims. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, on the basis of qualified immunity, with two exceptions. Specifically, the denied Defendants’ claims of qualified immunity as to the alleged use of excessive force after Phillip ceased resisting and as to the assault and battery claim. Defendants appealed, contending that they were entitled to qualified immunity on these remaining claims. The First Circuit dismissed the appeal, holding that material disputed facts yet to be resolved precluded summary judgment, and therefore, the Court lacked appellate jurisdiction to entertain Defendants’ interlocutory appeal at this stage. View "McCue v. City of Bangor, Maine" on Justia Law