Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The plaintiff, a convicted inmate at Riverside Regional Jail, was placed in restrictive housing after being found with contraband, and later spent five months in the Restrictive Housing Unit (RHU) due to repeated infractions and misconduct. During this period, he experienced varying levels of confinement and privileges, including periods of isolation, limited access to recreation, and additional restrictions following disciplinary incidents. He was also shackled to a telephone on two occasions for several hours, during which he alleged suffering humiliation and physical discomfort.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment to the jail officials, both before and after limited discovery. The court dismissed all but two defendants and ordered production of any surveillance video related to the incidents. After reviewing the available evidence, including video footage, the district court rejected the plaintiff’s claims regarding conditions of confinement and due process violations.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting summary judgment before discovery, as the plaintiff failed to show that additional evidence would have affected the outcome. Reviewing de novo, the Fourth Circuit concluded that the plaintiff’s placement in restrictive housing did not implicate a protected liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment because the conditions, duration, and review process did not constitute atypical and significant hardship. The court also found that the conditions of confinement—including the telephone shackling incidents—did not rise to the level of “extreme deprivation” required for an Eighth Amendment violation, and even if they had, the officials would be entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established right was violated. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Mason v. Talley" on Justia Law

While incarcerated at a North Carolina women’s correctional facility, the plaintiff learned she was pregnant and, due to her history of opioid use disorder, was prescribed medication for opioid withdrawal (MOUD) under a prison policy that restricted such treatment to pregnant inmates. When she went into labor, she was transported to the hospital and was shackled at various stages during labor, delivery, and her return to prison. After giving birth, the facility denied her further MOUD because she was no longer pregnant, instead providing a short course of alternative pain medication. She experienced significant withdrawal symptoms as a result. The plaintiff brought claims against various prison officials, alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment for the shackling and for denial of MOUD, as well as disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina granted summary judgment to all defendants, finding no constitutional violations and that qualified immunity protected the officials. It also concluded that the plaintiff was not discriminated against under federal disability law because the MOUD program was limited to pregnant inmates.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The Fourth Circuit held that, as to certain officials, there was a genuine dispute of fact regarding whether shackling the plaintiff during labor and postpartum, without evidence of a security or flight risk, violated the Eighth Amendment. The court also held that the denial of MOUD following pregnancy, pursuant to a categorical policy, could constitute deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment, and that summary judgment was inappropriate for the medical officials involved. The court further vacated the lower court’s disposition of the plaintiff’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims, remanding for further proceedings. Summary judgment for other defendants was affirmed. View "Edwards v. Witherspoon" on Justia Law

Two individuals who had lived in the United States for many years after entering without inspection were detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in October 2025. Both were apprehended while living and working in the Washington, D.C. area, and had established significant ties to the community. Removal proceedings were initiated against them on the basis that they had entered the country without authorization. Following their detention, neither was given an opportunity for a bond hearing, a process that, prior to July 2025, would have typically been available to noncitizens in their circumstances unless they posed certain risks or had committed specific crimes—none of which applied to these individuals.After the Department of Justice adopted a new interpretation of the relevant immigration statute in July 2025, mandating detention for all noncitizens who entered without inspection under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), the individuals filed habeas petitions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. They argued that they were entitled to bond hearings under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and that their continued detention violated due process. The district court agreed, granting habeas relief and ordering bond hearings under § 1226(a). During these hearings, immigration judges found neither individual posed a danger or flight risk, and both were released on bond. The government appealed, and the cases were consolidated.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of habeas relief de novo. The Fourth Circuit held that § 1226, not § 1225, governs the detention of noncitizens who have been present in the United States for years, regardless of their manner of entry. The court concluded that the statutory text, structure, history, and longstanding interpretation all supported this reading, and that detaining such individuals without bond hearings raised significant constitutional concerns. The court affirmed the district court’s grant of habeas relief, requiring bond hearings for the petitioners. View "Lopez Garcia v. Guadian" on Justia Law

After police responded to a theft report at a convenience store in Chesterfield County, Virginia, Markel Trevon Smith and another individual were detained. A search of their vehicle revealed four firearms, including a Glock pistol equipped with a device converting it into a machinegun. This Glock bore three serial numbers: two had been scratched, leaving only partial digits visible, while one serial number remained fully legible. The firearm was traced using the unaltered serial number.Smith was indicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for possession of a machinegun in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). He moved to dismiss, arguing that § 922(o) violated the Second Amendment, but the district court denied the motion. Smith then pled guilty. At sentencing, the court adopted the Presentence Report’s recommendation to apply a four-level enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B)(i), which increases the offense level if any firearm has a serial number modified so that the original information is illegible or unrecognizable to the unaided eye. The district court reasoned that altering any serial number on the firearm warranted the enhancement, and sentenced Smith to 57 months’ imprisonment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Smith’s conviction, holding that § 922(o) does not violate the Second Amendment, either facially or as applied to Smith, because machineguns are not in common use for lawful purposes. However, the Fourth Circuit found that the district court erred in applying the serial number enhancement. The court held that the enhancement only applies where modifications render the firearm as a whole untraceable, which was not the case since one serial number remained fully legible. The appellate court therefore reversed the application of the enhancement, vacated Smith’s sentence, and remanded for resentencing without the enhancement. View "US v. Smith" on Justia Law

Police in Montgomery County, Maryland, responded to a high-priority call reporting that a Black male had placed three children into the trunk of a black Tesla, possibly indicating a kidnapping. Officers quickly traced the vehicle and address to Fareed Hayat. Upon arriving at his home, they found Hayat and his wife on the porch and initiated questioning. Hayat acted evasively, did not answer whether he had been at the location in question, cut off his wife’s conversation with officers, and attempted to retreat into his house, insisting the police could not enter. The officers prevented him from closing the door, entered the front hall, handcuffed Hayat, and checked on the children’s welfare. After confirming no kidnapping had occurred, the officers released Hayat.Hayat subsequently filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against the officers, the Chief of Police, and Montgomery County. He alleged violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as various federal and state law claims. The district court dismissed most claims and granted summary judgment to the defendants on the remaining claims, finding that the officers had a reasonable suspicion justifying a Terry stop prior to Hayat’s retreat into his home. The court also held that the officers were justified in entering the home to complete the stop and to confirm the children’s welfare, given the exigency created by Hayat’s conduct.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Fourth Circuit held that the officers had reasonable articulable suspicion to justify a Terry stop based on corroborated eyewitness accounts and Hayat’s suspicious behavior. The court further held that entry into the home was justified to complete the Terry stop and to ensure the safety of the children, under both the exigent circumstances and “hot pursuit” exceptions to the warrant requirement. The court concluded that Hayat’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. View "Hayat v. Diaz" on Justia Law

A group of registered voters in South Carolina, all under the age of sixty-five, challenged a provision of state law that restricts “no excuse” absentee-by-mail voting to voters sixty-five years of age or older. These plaintiffs argued that the statute unconstitutionally discriminates against them on account of age, in violation of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, and also violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The law at issue allows voters sixty-five and older to vote absentee by mail for any reason, while voters under sixty-five can only do so if they meet specific, narrow criteria such as disability, military service, or certain employment conflicts.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, where the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants—the South Carolina State Election Commission and related officials—on both constitutional claims. The district court found that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a violation of either the Twenty-Sixth Amendment or the Equal Protection Clause. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the appeal. This court held that the plaintiffs have standing and that South Carolina’s age-based absentee-by-mail voting scheme violates the Twenty-Sixth Amendment because it abridges the right to vote on account of age by providing greater ballot access to older voters. However, the court affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss the Equal Protection claim, as age is not a suspect classification under the Equal Protection Clause and the plaintiffs did not challenge the law under rational basis or Anderson-Burdick scrutiny. The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment on the Twenty-Sixth Amendment claim, affirmed the Equal Protection ruling, and remanded the case for appropriate remedy. View "Grant v. Belangia" on Justia Law

Law enforcement officers sought and obtained a no-knock search warrant for a residence in an area known as Kent Bottom, Maryland, based on an affidavit describing the area's reputation for drug activity, criminal histories of individuals associated with the area, and surveillance of suspected drug transactions near the property. The affidavit included descriptions of drug-related incidents from as far back as 2006 involving the residence, as well as more recent but less direct observations of possible drug activity in the general vicinity of the house. The more recent surveillance involved suspected hand-to-hand transactions outside the residence and people entering and leaving the property, but did not directly connect current criminal activity to the interior of the home.After the search, officers recovered drugs and a firearm from a vehicle parked outside the residence. The defendant, who was found inside the house, was charged with several drug and firearm offenses. He moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause because the affidavit failed to establish a meaningful connection between the alleged criminal activity and the specific residence. The United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied the motion, reasoning that the history and geography of drug activity in Kent Bottom, along with the observed conduct near the residence, provided a sufficient basis for probable cause.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed. It held that the warrant affidavit did not provide a substantial basis for probable cause to search the residence because the facts were either too old, not specifically tied to the home, or both, and therefore failed to establish a fair probability that evidence of a crime would be found inside the house at the time of the search. The court also determined that the good-faith exception did not apply, as the affidavit was so lacking in indicia of probable cause that no reasonable officer could rely on it. The court reversed the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress, vacated the conviction, and remanded for further proceedings. View "US v. Griffin" on Justia Law

A South Carolina lender originates loans only within South Carolina but has extended credit to individuals with Pennsylvania addresses. Although the lender does not operate in Pennsylvania, it has engaged in activities connected to Pennsylvania, such as perfecting liens, collecting payments, and repossessing vehicles located in Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities investigated the lender’s practices involving Pennsylvania residents, issuing subpoenas and ultimately initiating a formal administrative enforcement proceeding for alleged violations of Pennsylvania’s usury laws.Previously, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted summary judgment for the lender, finding Pennsylvania’s subpoena violated the Dormant Commerce Clause. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed, holding that Pennsylvania could investigate and apply its usury laws to conduct connected to Pennsylvania. Afterward, Pennsylvania enforced its subpoena and initiated the administrative enforcement proceeding. The lender responded by filing suit in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, seeking to enjoin both the enforcement proceeding and a new subpoena, raising constitutional claims including those under the Dormant Commerce Clause.The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina dismissed the lender’s complaint, holding that claims related to the enforcement proceeding were barred by issue preclusion or, alternatively, by Younger abstention. Claims challenging the second subpoena were dismissed as unripe due to lack of present injury.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of claims challenging the administrative enforcement proceeding under Younger abstention, finding it was a quasi-criminal civil enforcement proceeding and that state interests and procedures were sufficient. The court also affirmed dismissal of claims challenging the second subpoena on ripeness grounds, but vacated the judgment insofar as those claims were dismissed with prejudice, remanding with instructions to dismiss them without prejudice. View "TitleMax of South Carolina, Inc. v. Spicher" on Justia Law

Curtis Whateley, a Virginia resident, applied for a personalized license plate with the characters “FTP&ATF,” intending the message “Fuck the Police & Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.” The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) initially issued the plate but subsequently recalled it after a complaint about its vulgarity and perceived encouragement of violence. Whateley appealed the DMV’s decision through its internal administrative process without success and then filed suit against the DMV Commissioner, arguing that the recall violated his First Amendment rights by restricting his political expression.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia granted the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss, finding that the personalized license plate was government speech, not subject to ordinary First Amendment protections. The district court relied primarily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., which held that specialty license plate designs in Texas constituted government speech. The court acknowledged differences between Texas's specialty plates and Virginia's personalized character combinations but determined that Walker supported treating Virginia’s plates as government speech.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The Fourth Circuit concluded that the personalized character combinations on Virginia’s vanity plates constitute private speech rather than government speech. The court applied the factors outlined in Walker and subsequent Supreme Court cases, finding that the history, public perception, and extent of government control over the messages indicated private expression. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that Virginia’s regulation of personalized plate messages is subject to First Amendment scrutiny. View "Whateley v. Lackey" on Justia Law

A man’s wife called 911 to request a welfare check after her husband threatened to harm himself. The dispatcher relayed to law enforcement that the man had made similar threats in the past, was not acting like himself, and was last known to be at a riverfront house. When the responding officer arrived, he found the man’s vehicle at the property but received no response to repeated knocks and announcements at multiple doors. The officer entered the house several times after announcing himself, ultimately discovering a suicide note and pill bottle. Upon further entry, the officer encountered the man in his bedroom. After a brief exchange in which the man repeatedly ordered the officer to leave, the man retrieved a rifle and advanced toward the officer, ignoring commands to stop. The officer fired, fatally wounding the man.The personal representative of the man’s estate filed suit in South Carolina state court against the responding officer, the county sheriff, and the sheriff’s office, alleging violations of the Fourth Amendment for unlawful entry and excessive force, as well as a claim for failure to train. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all federal claims, holding that the officer’s entries and use of force were objectively reasonable and that he was entitled to qualified immunity. The court also found no basis for municipal liability and remanded the state-law claims to state court.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Fourth Circuit held that the officer’s warrantless entries were justified under the emergency aid exception, given the objectively reasonable belief that the man was at risk of serious harm. The court also concluded that the use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Accordingly, all federal claims were properly dismissed. View "Crosby v. Colleton County Sheriff's Office" on Justia Law