Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Stephen Bryant was sentenced to death by a South Carolina state court. During postconviction proceedings, Bryant filed a new application for relief, claiming his execution would violate the Eighth Amendment due to his intellectual disabilities, as defined in Atkins v. Virginia and Hall v. Florida. Later, Bryant sought to amend his application to include a claim that he suffers from fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) and that executing individuals with FASD should also be prohibited under the Eighth Amendment. The state postconviction court denied this request, ruling it was both impermissibly successive and filed too late.Bryant's initial appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court, which focused on a single claim of evidentiary error, was denied. He then sought post-conviction relief on several grounds, none of which included the Eighth Amendment claim. The state trial court denied these claims, and the South Carolina Supreme Court denied discretionary review. Bryant subsequently filed for federal habeas corpus relief, which was stayed to allow him to exhaust state remedies. He filed two new applications in state court, one of which was allowed to proceed on the intellectual disability claim but not on the FASD claim. The state trial court ultimately denied the intellectual disability claim on its merits.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the state trial court's refusal to permit Bryant to amend his application to add the FASD claim rested on state procedural grounds that were independent of federal law and adequate to bar federal habeas review. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief, concluding that Bryant's FASD claim was procedurally defaulted and could not be considered on its merits. View "Bryant v. Stirling" on Justia Law

Curtis Wells parked his car near Arlington Cemetery and was noticed by Officer Armstrong due to his animated gestures while on a phone call. Armstrong approached Wells and discovered that his car had an expired registration. Arlington County police were called, and they found that Wells did not have a driver's license and had weapons in his car. The police decided to tow Wells's car and conducted an inventory search, which revealed various weapons and tactical gear, including a ballistic plate carrier. Wells was sent home, but further investigation suggested that the plate might have been stolen from the Army. Nine days later, Wells was arrested for receiving stolen property.In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Wells brought state and federal claims against various officers and entities, alleging Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations, among other claims. The district court dismissed all his claims, reasoning that the officers were protected by qualified immunity and that Wells had not plausibly alleged the necessary elements for his state tort claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The court held that the officers' actions were protected by qualified immunity because Wells did not have a clearly established right against the officers' conduct. The court found that the initial approach by Officer Armstrong was justified under the community-caretaking exception, the inventory search of Wells's car was conducted according to standard procedures, and Wells had consented to the safekeeping of his property. Additionally, the court held that Wells's Second Amendment claims failed because the right to public carry was not clearly established in 2020. The court also dismissed Wells's state law claims, finding that he had not plausibly alleged the necessary elements for false imprisonment or malicious prosecution. View "Wells v. Fuentes" on Justia Law

Courthouse News Service, a news organization, sought remote online access to civil court records from the Circuit Court for Prince William County, Virginia, similar to the access granted to Virginia attorneys. Virginia law prohibits the clerk from providing such access to non-attorneys. Courthouse News sued, claiming this restriction violated its First Amendment and Equal Protection rights.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed Courthouse News's Equal Protection claim and granted summary judgment for the defendants on the First Amendment claims. The court found the restrictions to be content-neutral time, place, and manner regulations justified by the state's interests in the orderly administration of justice and protecting sensitive personal information.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's ruling on the First Amendment and Equal Protection claims, holding that the access restriction was a content-neutral regulation narrowly tailored to serve significant governmental interests. The court found that the restriction did not violate the First Amendment as it provided ample alternative channels for accessing court records and did not burden more access than necessary. The court also concluded that the restriction did not violate the Equal Protection Clause for the same reasons it passed First Amendment scrutiny.However, the court vacated the district court's ruling on the Dissemination Restriction claim, finding that Courthouse News lacked standing to challenge it since the restriction only applied to those with remote access, which Courthouse News did not have. The case was remanded for the district court to dismiss this claim without prejudice. View "Courthouse News Service v. Smith" on Justia Law

Danny Fox, an active-duty servicemember, purchased a property in Norfolk, Virginia, in 2015. The City of Norfolk determined the property was unsafe and uninhabitable, repeatedly notifying Fox of building code violations. Despite these notices, Fox did not make the necessary repairs. In December 2018, the city demolished the house, deeming it a public nuisance. Fox subsequently sued the city, claiming inverse condemnation, among other things, arguing the property was not a nuisance and that the city's actions were pretextual to increase its tax base.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment in favor of the city. The court held that Fox's federal constitutional claims were barred by the statute of limitations. It also ruled that Fox's inverse condemnation claim failed because, whether or not the property was a nuisance, he could not demonstrate the city's public use requirement. The court found no evidence to support Fox's claim that the city's actions were pretextual.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that Fox's inverse condemnation claim failed regardless of whether the property was a nuisance. If the property was a nuisance, the city had the authority to abate it without compensation. If it was not a nuisance, Fox could not show a public use, a necessary element for an inverse condemnation claim. The court also found that Fox provided no evidence to support his pretext argument. Thus, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the city. View "D.A. Realestate Investment, LLC v. City of Norfolk" on Justia Law

David Shanton, Sr. was involved in two armed bank robberies in Hagerstown, Maryland, shortly after completing a 20-year sentence for a previous bank robbery. During the first robbery, Shanton threatened to kill anyone who called the police and pointed a shotgun at a deputy sheriff while fleeing with nearly $34,000. He was apprehended during the second attempted robbery. Shanton was indicted and convicted on multiple counts, including armed bank robbery, discharging and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, and possessing a firearm as a felon.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland sentenced Shanton to 188 months for each armed bank robbery and firearm possession conviction, to be served concurrently, plus consecutive terms for the firearm offenses, totaling 608 months. Shanton's sentence was enhanced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) due to his prior convictions, including Maryland robbery. Shanton did not initially object to the enhancement. On direct appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed his convictions and sentence.Shanton later filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, challenging the constitutionality of his ACCA-enhanced sentences based on the Supreme Court's decision in Samuel Johnson v. United States, which invalidated the ACCA's residual clause. The district court allowed Shanton to supplement his motion, arguing that his Maryland robbery convictions no longer qualified as violent felonies under ACCA's elements clause. The district court rejected this argument, relying on Fourth Circuit precedent, and denied the motion but issued a certificate of appealability.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that Maryland robbery qualifies as a violent felony under ACCA's elements clause, consistent with prior Fourth Circuit decisions and the Supreme Court's ruling in Stokeling v. United States. The court concluded that Maryland robbery involves the use of force against a person, meeting the ACCA's definition of a violent felony. View "United States v. Shanton" on Justia Law

Plaintiff pro se filed suit against defendant, a prison official, alleging that plaintiff's placement in segregation violated his constitutional rights to freedom from retaliation for filing a grievance, equal protection, and due process. The Fourth Circuit agreed with the district court that plaintiff failed to state a claim under the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses. The court held, however, that plaintiff pleaded sufficient facts to state a claim that defendant violated plaintiff's First Amendment rights by placing him in segregation as retaliation for filing a grievance. Furthermore, it was clearly established at the time that defendant placed plaintiff in segregation that retaliating against an inmate for filing a grievance violates the inmate's rights under the First Amendment. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Martin v. Duffy" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed in substantial part the district court's issuance of a nationwide injunction as to Section 2(c) of the challenged Second Executive Order (EO-2), holding that the reasonable observer would likely conclude EO-2's primary purpose was to exclude persons from the United States on the basis of their religious beliefs. Section 2(c) reinstated the ninety-day suspension of entry for nationals from six countries, eliminating Iraq from the list, but retaining Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.Determining that the case was justiciable, the Fourth Circuit held that plaintiffs have more than plausibly alleged that EO-2's stated national security interest was provided in bad faith, as a pretext for its religious purpose. Because the facially legitimate reason offered by the government was not bona fide, the court no longer deferred to that reason and instead may look behind the challenged action. Applying the test in Lemon v. Kurtzman, the court held that the evidence in the record, viewed from the standpoint of the reasonable observer, created a compelling case that EO-2's primary purpose was religious. Then-candidate Trump's campaign statements revealed that on numerous occasions, he expressed anti-Muslim sentiment, as well as his intent, if elected, to ban Muslims from the United States. President Trump and his aides have made statements that suggest EO-2's purpose was to effectuate the promised Muslim ban, and that its changes from the first executive order reflect an effort to help it survive judicial scrutiny, rather than to avoid targeting Muslims for exclusion from the United States. These statements, taken together, provide direct, specific evidence of what motivated both executive orders: President Trump's desire to exclude Muslims from the United States and his intent to effectuate the ban by targeting majority-Muslim nations instead of Muslims explicitly. Because EO-2 likely fails Lemon's purpose prong in violation of the Establishment Clause, the district court did not err in concluding that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim. The court also held that plaintiffs will likely suffer irreparable harm; the Government's asserted national security interests do not outweigh the harm to plaintiffs; and the public interest counsels in favor of upholding the preliminary injunction. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that a nationwide injunction was necessary to provide complete relief, but erred in issuing an injunction against the President himself. View "International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump" on Justia Law

Petitioner challenged the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition, alleging that his guilty plea to attempted murder and a related firearm offense resulted from his trial counsel's disabling conflict of interest. Determining that the appeal was not moot, the Fourth Circuit held that the petition was timely. In this case, petitioner's limitations period commenced on December 12, 2008, when the judgment entered upon his November 2008 resentencing became final. Because his postconviction proceedings statutorily tolled the limitations period from at least January 20, 2009 through October 21, 2013, his petition was timely. Furthermore, under the exceptional circumstances presented by petitioner's case, neither procedural bar at issue was adequate to preclude federal review of petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim; the Court of Special Appeals' application of Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. 7-106(b)(1)(i)(6) was inadequate to bar federal review of petitioner's claim; and the circuit court's reliance on section 7-106(b)(1)(i)(4) was inadequate to bar consideration of his ineffective assistance claim on federal habeas review. The court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Woodfolk v. Maynard" on Justia Law

Wikimedia and eight other organizations filed suit challenging Upstream surveillance, an electronic surveillance program operated by the NSA. First, Wikimedia alleged that the sheer volume of its communications makes it virtually certain that the NSA has intercepted, copied, and reviewed at least some of its communications (Wikimedia Allegation). Second, all plaintiffs alleged that in the course of conducting Upstream surveillance the NSA was intercepting, copying, and reviewing substantially all text-based communications entering and leaving the United States, including their own (Dragnet Allegation). The district court dismissed the complaint based on lack of Article III standing. The Fourth Circuit held that the analysis of speculative injury in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013), was not controlling in this case because the central allegations were not speculative. As to Wikimedia, the court vacated and remanded because Wikimedia made allegations sufficient to survive a facial challenge to standing. As to the other plaintiffs, the court affirmed because the complaint did not contain enough well-pleaded facts entitled to the presumption of truth to establish their standing. View "Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA/CSS" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the denial of his habeas corpus petition, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request an alibi instruction. The Fifth Circuit held that the post-conviction relief court's decision was a reasonable application of Strickland v. Washington. Although the parties accept for purposes of appeal that trial counsel's performance was deficient, even if the instruction had been given, there was no reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different. Therefore, because petitioner was not prejudiced by the error, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Maurice Hope v. Warden Cartledge" on Justia Law