Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Ann Tierney Smith owned real property in West Virginia but failed to pay the assessed real estate taxes for 2016. As a result, the Mercer County Sheriff sold a tax lien on the property to Ed Boer. Boer sought a tax deed and provided the West Virginia State Auditor’s Office with a list of individuals to be notified about the right to redeem the property, including Smith. However, Boer did not include Smith’s current mailing address, which was available in county records. Notices sent by mail were returned as undeliverable, and attempts at personal service were unsuccessful, leading to notices being posted at the property and other addresses. After the redemption deadline passed, G. Russell Rollyson, Jr., an employee of the State Auditor’s Office, issued a tax deed to Boer. Smith learned of the deed in late 2020.Smith, and later her estate representatives, sued Rollyson and Boer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deprivation of property without due process. The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia granted summary judgment to Rollyson, finding him entitled to qualified immunity. The court determined that while Rollyson could have directed Boer to search county records for Smith’s address after the mailed notices were returned, the duty to do so was not clearly established at the time. The estate representatives appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment and qualified immunity rulings de novo. The Fourth Circuit held that it was not clearly established on April 1, 2019, that Rollyson was required to have Boer search county records anew for Smith’s address after the mailed notices were returned. The court found that existing precedent did not prescribe a specific follow-up measure and that Rollyson’s actions did not violate clearly established law. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Ann deWet v. G. Russell Rollyson, Jr." on Justia Law

A North Carolina police officer, Clarence Belton, was shot multiple times by fellow officer Heather Loveridge during the execution of a search warrant. The incident, which resulted in serious injuries to Belton and ended his law enforcement career, was captured on video and body camera footage. Belton sued Loveridge and the City of Charlotte, alleging excessive force and other claims. During the litigation, both parties moved to seal the video exhibits related to the shooting, and the district court granted these motions, placing the footage under seal.After the district court denied Loveridge’s motion for summary judgment, which was later vacated and remanded by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, a local television station, WBTV, sought to intervene in the case to unseal the video footage. Belton supported WBTV’s motion, but Loveridge opposed it, arguing that unsealing would jeopardize her right to a fair trial. The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina denied WBTV’s motion to intervene, citing lack of jurisdiction due to the pending appeal, and also denied the motion to unseal, finding no right of access under the common law or the First Amendment and concluding that Loveridge’s fair trial rights outweighed any public interest.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of WBTV’s motion to intervene, agreeing that the district court lacked jurisdiction at that stage. However, the appellate court treated WBTV’s appeal regarding the sealing order as a petition for a writ of mandamus. The Fourth Circuit held that the district court’s order sealing the video exhibits violated the First Amendment right of access to judicial records. The court vacated the sealing order and remanded with instructions to unseal the video footage, finding that Loveridge had not met her burden to justify continued sealing. View "Gray Media Group, Inc. v. Loveridge" on Justia Law

Two nonprofit organizations challenged the constitutionality of a North Carolina statute that made it a felony for individuals with felony convictions to vote before their rights were restored, regardless of whether those individuals mistakenly believed they were eligible. The statute, originally enacted in the late 19th century, was shown to have been motivated by racial animus and to have a disproportionate impact on Black North Carolinians. In 2023, the North Carolina General Assembly amended the statute to add a requirement that a person must “know” their rights had not been restored to be prosecuted, effective January 1, 2024.The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina considered the plaintiffs’ claims under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. After the statute was amended, a magistrate judge recommended dismissal for lack of standing, but the district court found the case was not moot because prosecutions under the old statute for pre-2024 conduct could still occur, potentially chilling voter participation and requiring the plaintiffs to divert resources. The district court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, holding the statute unconstitutional and enjoining its enforcement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the case was not moot because prosecutions under the prior version of the statute could still proceed, and the plaintiffs retained a concrete interest in the outcome. On the merits, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that the challenged statute violated the Equal Protection Clause. The court found that the statute’s original enactment and reenactment were motivated by racial discrimination, and that subsequent legislative changes did not “cleanse” the statute of its discriminatory origins, as the statute itself had not been substantively reenacted or amended in a way that would warrant a presumption of legislative good faith. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "A. Philip Randolph Institute v. North Carolina State Board of Elections" on Justia Law

Brandon Glen Jackson was indicted in Arizona for a state-law felony related to possessing a short-barreled rifle. While released on bail and with the felony charge still pending, Jackson lawfully acquired a handgun and traveled from Arizona to Maryland, bringing the handgun with him. In Maryland, he was arrested for carrying the gun without a permit. Upon discovering his pending Arizona felony indictment, federal prosecutors charged him under 18 U.S.C. § 922(n), which prohibits individuals under felony indictment from transporting firearms in interstate commerce.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied Jackson’s motion to dismiss the indictment on Second Amendment grounds. Jackson then entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving his right to appeal the constitutional issue. He was sentenced to time served, and subsequently appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and applied the Supreme Court’s “text-and-history” standard from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). The Fourth Circuit held that Jackson’s conduct—transporting a handgun across state lines while under felony indictment—was presumptively protected by the Second Amendment. However, the court found that the government met its burden to show that § 922(n), as applied to Jackson, was consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court relied on historical surety laws and the tradition of disarming dangerous persons, as well as its own precedent in United States v. Hunt, 123 F.4th 697 (4th Cir. 2024), to conclude that temporary disarmament of those under felony indictment is constitutionally permissible. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "US v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Two Maryland residents challenged a state law that allows Maryland to take custody of property deemed “abandoned” after a period of owner inactivity, such as unclaimed bank accounts or stocks. Before 2004, owners who reclaimed such property from the state received both the principal and any interest accrued while the property was in state custody. After a 2004 amendment, claimants could only recover the principal, not the interest. The lead plaintiff, who had not yet filed a claim with the state, argued that Maryland’s failure to pay interest constituted an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment and sought a declaratory judgment and injunction requiring the state to pay just compensation, including interest, when he eventually filed a claim.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied the Comptroller’s motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff had standing, the claim was ripe, and the complaint stated a facial challenge to the statute. The court also held that the claim was not barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, reasoning that the relief sought was prospective and thus fell within the Ex parte Young exception, which allows federal courts to enjoin ongoing violations of federal law by state officials.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed only the sovereign immunity issue. The Fourth Circuit held that the Eleventh Amendment bars federal courts from ordering Maryland to pay interest that accrued before any federal court judgment, as such relief is retroactive and constitutes a claim for money damages. However, the court held that to the extent the plaintiff seeks prospective relief—specifically, interest that would accrue after a federal court judgment—such a claim may proceed under the Ex parte Young doctrine. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Albert v. Lierman" on Justia Law

Three plaintiffs alleged they suffered injuries after receiving the Gardasil vaccine, which is designed to prevent certain strains of human papillomavirus. Each plaintiff experienced adverse symptoms following their Gardasil injections, but the onset of these symptoms occurred more than three years before they filed petitions for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The plaintiffs acknowledged to the special master that their petitions were untimely and sought equitable tolling of the Vaccine Act’s limitations period.The special master in the United States Court of Federal Claims found the petitions untimely and denied equitable tolling, resulting in dismissal of the claims. The plaintiffs then filed suit against Merck & Co. and Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, which was handling multi-district litigation related to Gardasil. Merck moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs had failed to timely pursue their remedies under the Vaccine Act. The district court dismissed the complaints, holding that the proper forum for challenging the special master’s timeliness rulings was the Court of Federal Claims and the Federal Circuit, not the district court. The court also rejected a constitutional challenge to the process by which Gardasil was added to the Vaccine Injury Table.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The Fourth Circuit held that the addition of Gardasil to the Vaccine Injury Table did not violate the Constitution. It further held that timely participation in the Vaccine Act compensation program is a prerequisite to bringing a tort suit, and that courts hearing vaccine-related tort suits may not reconsider the timeliness of a Vaccine Act petition once the special master has made a finding. The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaints. View "Needham v. Merck & Company Inc." on Justia Law

A California resident sought to participate in Maryland’s cannabis business licensing process, which included a “social equity applicant” program designed to address historical inequities in the cannabis industry. To qualify as a social equity applicant, an individual needed to meet one of several criteria, such as having lived in a disproportionately impacted area, attending a public school in such an area, or attending for at least two years a Maryland institution of higher education where at least 40% of students are Pell Grant eligible. The plaintiff, who had never lived in Maryland, claimed eligibility based on her attendance at California State University, Long Beach, but was unable to meet the Maryland-specific higher education criterion. She was ultimately found ineligible for the first round of licensing.The plaintiff filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, alleging that the Maryland licensing scheme discriminated against nonresidents in violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. She moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to halt the licensing process. The district court denied her motion, finding she had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, and denied her request for an injunction pending appeal.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. The Fourth Circuit held that the challenged higher education criterion did not discriminate against non-Maryland residents, as it did not require Maryland residency and was equally available to out-of-state applicants who attended qualifying Maryland institutions. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of injunctive relief, concluding that the plaintiff failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of her Dormant Commerce Clause claim. View "Jensen v. Maryland Cannabis Administration" on Justia Law

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