Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Three individuals who are lawful gun owners challenged a Fairfax County, Virginia ordinance that prohibits the possession, carrying, or transportation of firearms in certain locations. The two main restrictions at issue are a ban on firearms in county parks and a ban in public spaces where, or near where, a county-permitted event is taking place. The plaintiffs argued that both restrictions violate the Second Amendment, and that the events restriction is unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia reviewed the case. It denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and later granted summary judgment to Fairfax County and its Chief of Police. The district court found that both restrictions were consistent with the Second Amendment’s sensitive places doctrine and that the events restriction was not unconstitutionally vague.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment ruling de novo. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision regarding the parks restriction, holding that the ordinance is constitutional in at least some applications, specifically as applied to preschools located within county parks. The court relied on Supreme Court dicta indicating that bans on firearms in schools are presumptively constitutional. However, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment regarding the events restriction, concluding that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to challenge it because they did not demonstrate a credible threat of prosecution or a concrete intention to violate the restriction. The case was remanded with instructions to dismiss the claims related to the events restriction without prejudice. View "Lafave v. County of Fairfax" on Justia Law

A man who was previously convicted of a felony in Virginia sought to have his voting rights restored after his release from prison. Under Virginia’s Constitution, individuals convicted of felonies lose the right to vote, but the Governor has the sole discretion to restore those rights. The restoration process requires applicants to submit a form, after which the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth reviews the application and makes a recommendation to the Governor, who then decides whether to grant restoration. The applicant in this case, who had never voted due to his conviction as a minor, submitted at least one application for restoration, but the Governor declined to restore his rights.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia reviewed the applicant’s claims, which were brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The applicant argued that the Governor’s unfettered discretion in restoring voting rights, and the lack of a definite time limit for the process, violated the First Amendment’s unfettered-discretion doctrine. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Governor and Secretary, finding that the doctrine did not apply because the restoration process determines eligibility to reenter the franchise, rather than regulating the exercise of an existing right.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Fourth Circuit held that Virginia’s discretionary system for restoring voting rights, which is rooted in the executive clemency power, does not facially violate the First Amendment’s unfettered-discretion doctrine. The court reasoned that the clemency power is fundamentally different from a licensing scheme subject to First Amendment prior restraint analysis, and that judicial review of such executive discretion is limited to narrow circumstances not present here. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Hawkins v. Youngkin" on Justia Law

A woman was convicted of first-degree murder in Maryland state court after being tried jointly with her husband. The prosecution’s case was largely circumstantial, focusing on motive and opportunity, and initially argued that she was the shooter. After her conviction, she moved for a new trial, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. In support of her motion, she disclosed attorney-client privileged materials and testified about her defense strategy and communications with counsel. The trial court granted her a new trial but ordered her to turn over privileged materials to the State and allowed the same prosecution team, now privy to her defense strategy, to retry her case. The court also left open the possibility that her prior testimony could be used to impeach her if she testified at the new trial.On appeal, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals assumed, without deciding, that the trial court erred by allowing the same prosecution team to retry the case and by permitting the State to use information obtained from privileged materials. However, the appellate court found no prejudice, reasoning that the new evidence (including the existence of a second wig) did not harm her defense and that her decision not to testify was not prejudicial absent a proffer of her intended testimony. The Maryland Court of Appeals denied certiorari, and the United States Supreme Court also declined review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case on habeas corpus. The Fourth Circuit held that the Maryland Court of Special Appeals’ finding of no prejudice was based on an objectively unreasonable determination of the facts, given the record showing the State’s use of privileged evidence and the impact on the defendant’s ability to testify. However, because the state appellate court had not actually decided whether a constitutional violation occurred, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s denial of habeas relief and remanded for the district court to determine that question de novo. View "Kaur v. Warden" on Justia Law

In August 2022, law enforcement officers in Sterling, Virginia, stopped a Ford Explorer as part of an operation to execute an arrest warrant for a suspected armed robber. Herbert Murillo-Lopez was driving the vehicle. During the stop, officers recovered a firearm from a satchel worn by Murillo-Lopez. He admitted to being an undocumented non-citizen. Subsequent investigation confirmed he was born in El Salvador, had no lawful status in the United States, and had no record of legal entry.A grand jury indicted Murillo-Lopez for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A), which prohibits possession of a firearm by an undocumented non-citizen. He moved to suppress the evidence from the stop, arguing the stop and search were unconstitutional, but the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied the motion. Shortly before trial, he moved to dismiss the indictment on Second Amendment grounds, but the district court found the motion untimely and unpersuasive. After a jury found him guilty, the district court denied his motion for judgment of acquittal and sentenced him to eight months in prison and three years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that Murillo-Lopez knew he was unlawfully present in the United States. The court also found the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion that Murillo-Lopez might be the subject of the arrest warrant, and that the search of his satchel was consensual. Finally, the court rejected his Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(5)(A), holding that existing circuit precedent remains valid after recent Supreme Court decisions. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Murillo-Lopez" on Justia Law

Maryland enacted a statute imposing a tax on digital advertising revenues, targeting only large companies with at least $100 million in global annual gross revenues. In response to concerns that these companies would pass the tax cost onto customers and potentially blame the state for price increases, Maryland amended the law to include a “pass-through provision.” This provision prohibited companies from directly passing the tax cost to customers by means of a separate fee, surcharge, or line-item on invoices, though it did not prevent companies from raising prices or otherwise recouping the tax cost in a non-itemized way.A group of trade associations challenged the pass-through provision, arguing that it violated the First Amendment by restricting their ability to communicate with customers about the tax and its impact on pricing. The United States District Court for the District of Maryland initially dismissed the First Amendment claims for lack of jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit determined that the Act did not bar the claims and remanded for consideration on the merits. On remand, the district court found that the provision regulated speech but dismissed the facial challenge, reasoning that the provision had constitutional applications.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the pass-through provision is a content-based restriction on speech, as it prohibits companies from communicating certain truthful information to customers. The court found that the provision could not survive even intermediate scrutiny under the First Amendment, as it was not adequately tailored to any substantial government interest. The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for consideration of the appropriate remedy, holding that the pass-through provision is facially unconstitutional in all its applications. View "Chamber of Commerce v. Lierman" on Justia Law

A United States citizen, formerly known as Paul Anderson and now Saadiq Long, was placed on the federal government’s Terrorist Screening Dataset (commonly called the Terrorist Watchlist) and, at one point, on its No Fly List subset. After experiencing travel restrictions, employment issues, and other alleged harms, Long challenged his placement on these lists, asserting constitutional and statutory violations. He claimed that his inclusion was based on impermissible factors such as race, religion, and protected activities, and that the government’s information-sharing practices and redress procedures were unlawful. While the litigation was ongoing, Long was removed from the No Fly List, but remained on the broader Watchlist. He also alleged that his Watchlist status led to the denial of credentials necessary for his work as a truck driver.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia initially transferred some of Long’s claims to the Fourth Circuit and stayed others. After Long’s removal from the No Fly List, a prior Fourth Circuit panel found his No Fly List claims moot and remanded for the district court to determine which claims remained justiciable. On remand, the district court dismissed all of Long’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that his removal from the No Fly List mooted those claims and that he lacked standing for his Watchlist-related claims, as his alleged injuries were either resolved or not sufficiently imminent.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal. The Fourth Circuit held that, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in FBI v. Fikre, Long’s removal from the No Fly List did not necessarily moot his claims, as the government had not shown it could not repeat the challenged conduct. The court also found that Long had standing to challenge his Watchlist status based on the denial of transportation credentials, and remanded for the district court to consider the merits of his claims. View "Long v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A prisoner at Eastern Correctional Institution was suspected of possessing a knife, prompting two correctional officers to search him. The officers escorted the prisoner and his cellmate to a recreation area, where a strip search occurred. The parties dispute the events that followed: the officers claimed the prisoner was noncompliant and bit one of them during a struggle, while the prisoner alleged he complied with orders and was then violently assaulted without justification, suffering injuries to his head, neck, and back. Medical records documented a bruise and other injuries, and the prisoner sought treatment over several months. An internal investigation cleared the officers of wrongdoing.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed the prisoner’s state law claims and claims against a supervisory official, then granted summary judgment to the correctional officers on the remaining Eighth Amendment excessive force claim. The district court found that the undisputed evidence did not support a finding that the officers acted maliciously or sadistically, and characterized the prisoner’s injuries as minor. The court also denied the prisoner’s requests for discovery and for appointment of counsel.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo. The Fourth Circuit held that genuine disputes of material fact remained regarding the amount and justification for the force used, as well as the officers’ intent. The court found that the prisoner’s verified complaint and medical evidence could support a finding of more than de minimis force and potentially malicious conduct. The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the prisoner to renew his motion for counsel and proceed to trial. View "Escobar-Salmeron v. Moyer" on Justia Law

A woman from El Salvador, after her husband fled to the United States due to gang threats, was subjected to repeated extortion and threats of violence, including sexual extortion, by gang members who targeted her because she was a woman living alone with her children. Despite seeking help from local police, she was told to comply with the gang or flee. After enduring escalating threats and payments, she eventually fled to the United States with her children.Upon arrival, she retained an attorney to represent her in her asylum proceedings. She informed her attorney of both the financial and sexual extortion she faced, but he failed to include the sexual extortion in her application and proposed a legal theory for asylum based on a particular social group (PSG) that was foreclosed by existing precedent. The immigration judge, sitting in the Immigration Court, found the proposed PSG not cognizable and denied her claim, concluding the gang’s motivation was financial rather than based on group membership. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, adopting the immigration judge’s reasoning and denying her appeal.Represented by new counsel, she moved to reopen her case before the Board of Immigration Appeals, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) and proposing alternative, plausible PSGs. The Board denied the motion, finding no IAC and concluding her harm was not due to a protected characteristic. She then petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for review.The Fourth Circuit held that noncitizens who retain counsel in removal proceedings have a Fifth Amendment right to a fundamentally fair hearing, which can be violated by ineffective assistance of counsel. The court found her original attorney’s performance objectively unreasonable and prejudicial, as alternative PSGs could have led to a different outcome. The court granted the petition for review, reversed the Board’s denial of her motion to reopen, vacated the denial of her asylum and withholding claims, and remanded for a new hearing. View "Guandique-De Romero v. Bondi" on Justia Law

The petitioner pleaded guilty in 2003 to attempted bank robbery and to carrying and using a firearm during a crime of violence. At sentencing, he was classified as a career offender under the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines, resulting in a sentence of 274 months’ imprisonment. Over the years, he filed several postconviction motions, including a first motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which was denied. After subsequent changes in Supreme Court precedent regarding the constitutionality of certain sentencing provisions, the petitioner argued that the mandatory Guidelines’ career-offender provision was unconstitutionally vague and sought habeas relief.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed his habeas petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, finding that he could not proceed under § 2241 because he did not satisfy the requirements of the “saving clause” in § 2255(e). The district court determined that the petitioner was procedurally barred from bringing a second or successive § 2255 motion and that this procedural bar did not render § 2255 “inadequate or ineffective” to test the legality of his detention.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Fourth Circuit held that, under the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. Hendrix, the inability to satisfy the procedural requirements for a second or successive § 2255 motion does not make § 2255 inadequate or ineffective, and thus does not permit recourse to § 2241 via the saving clause. The court also held that this result does not violate the Suspension Clause of the Constitution, relying on its en banc precedent in In re Vial. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Bell v. Streeval" on Justia Law

Law enforcement officers suspected that the defendant was involved in a drug trafficking operation based out of his apartment in a large, multi-unit building. To investigate further, officers, with the building management’s permission, conducted a warrantless dog sniff in the common hallway immediately outside the defendant’s apartment door. The trained dog alerted to the presence of drugs, and this information was used to obtain a search warrant. The subsequent search uncovered drugs, firearms, and other evidence. The defendant was indicted on drug and firearm charges.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence, rejecting his arguments that the dog sniff constituted an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment. The court found that the dog sniff did not violate a reasonable expectation of privacy because it only revealed the presence of contraband, and that the area outside the apartment door was not protected “curtilage” since it was a common hallway accessible to other residents and building staff. The defendant was convicted by a jury on all counts and sentenced to 150 months in prison.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error. The Fourth Circuit held that a dog sniff at an apartment door in a common hallway does not violate a reasonable expectation of privacy, as established by United States v. Place and Illinois v. Caballes, because it only reveals the presence of contraband. The court also held that the common hallway outside the apartment door is not curtilage protected by the Fourth Amendment, as the defendant had no right to exclude others from that area. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "US v. Johnson" on Justia Law