Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Nike, Inc., alleging gender discrimination and hostile workplace claims. During discovery, a collection of internal workplace complaints, known as the Starfish complaints, was produced under a protective order. Three media organizations, including The Oregonian, intervened in the case to gain access to these documents. Plaintiffs' attorney inadvertently sent confidential documents to a reporter from The Oregonian, who refused to return or destroy them upon request.The United States District Court for the District of Oregon initially granted a motion to intervene by the media organizations. However, when the inadvertent disclosure occurred, the magistrate judge ordered The Oregonian to return or destroy the documents. The district court vacated this order, reasoning that it lacked authority to compel a non-party to return the documents. The magistrate judge then denied the motion, and the district court affirmed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the district court had the inherent authority to order The Oregonian, as an intervenor and thus a party to the case, to return or destroy the confidential documents. The court determined that The Oregonian did not have a First Amendment right to withhold the documents because pretrial discovery proceedings are not public components of the judicial process. The court applied relaxed First Amendment scrutiny and concluded that the district court's exercise of its inherent authority over discovery furthered a substantial government interest unrelated to the suppression of expression. The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "CAHILL V. NIKE, INC." on Justia Law

Two plaintiffs, Todd Yukutake and David Kikukawa, challenged two provisions of Hawaii's firearms laws, arguing they violated the Second Amendment. The first provision, Hawaii Revised Statutes § 134-2(e), required that a handgun be acquired within a narrow time window (originally 10 days, later amended to 30 days) after obtaining a permit. The second provision, § 134-3, mandated that gun owners physically bring their firearms to a police station for inspection within five days of acquisition as part of the registration process.The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, ruling that both provisions were facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The court permanently enjoined the enforcement of these provisions. The State of Hawaii appealed, arguing that recent legislative amendments to the challenged provisions rendered the case moot. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the State's motion to dismiss the appeal as moot, finding that the amended versions of the provisions were sufficiently similar to the previous versions.The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that the short timeframe for completing a firearms purchase after obtaining a permit was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The court reasoned that the purchase and acquisition of firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, and the State failed to justify the short temporal limit on firearms acquisition permits. The court also affirmed the district court's conclusion that the in-person inspection requirement violated the Second Amendment, noting that the government did not provide sufficient evidence that the requirement materially advanced the objectives of the registration system. The case was remanded to the district court to revise its permanent injunction in light of the recent amendments to the challenged provisions. View "Yukutake v. Lopez" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, who are California residents and cardroom operators, challenged the constitutionality of California Business and Professions Code §§ 19858(a) and 19858.5. These statutes make a person ineligible for a California cardroom license if they own more than a 1% financial interest in a business that engages in casino-style gambling or if they have control over such a business. Plaintiffs argued that these provisions violate the dormant Commerce Clause by discriminating against interstate commerce, regulating extraterritorially, and unduly burdening interstate commerce.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California initially dismissed the complaint as untimely, but the Ninth Circuit reversed that decision. On remand, the district court rejected plaintiffs' dormant Commerce Clause claims, concluding that the statutes did not discriminate against interstate commerce, did not regulate extraterritorially, and did not unduly burden interstate commerce. Plaintiffs appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that the cardroom licensing restrictions do not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. The court found that the statutes are not facially discriminatory, do not have a discriminatory purpose or effect, and do not favor in-state economic interests. The court also concluded that the statutes do not regulate extraterritorially because they condition a state license for conducting in-state activities on plaintiffs foregoing certain business interests, whether within or outside the state. Finally, the court determined that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a significant or substantial burden on interstate commerce under the Pike balancing test. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of the California officials. View "Flynt v. Bonta" on Justia Law

Keith Paul Bird, a prisoner at High Desert State Prison in Nevada, requested a cell transfer due to concerns about his cellmate, fearing a potential fight. Officer Bruce Huinker, the officer in charge, called for assistance, and Officers Paryga and Atherton responded. Bird explained his concerns, and Officer Paryga allegedly threatened him. The officers then instructed Bird to gather his belongings for a move but later changed their minds, leading to a confrontation. Bird's property was confiscated, and he claimed this was in retaliation for his request. Bird filed grievances, which were denied at all levels.Bird then filed a pro se complaint in federal court against the officers and other prison administrators, alleging retaliation and other claims. The district court found that only the retaliation claim survived screening and was properly exhausted. The district court denied the prison officials' motion for summary judgment on the retaliation claim, holding that they were not entitled to qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Bird's request for a cell transfer based on concerns with his cellmate did not constitute "protected conduct" under clearly established law. The court noted that neither the Supreme Court nor the Ninth Circuit had ever held that retaliation for complaints against other prisoners violated the First Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances. Consequently, the prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity and remanded with instructions to grant summary judgment on Bird's retaliation claim. View "BIRD V. DZURENDA" on Justia Law

Steven D’Braunstein was involved in a serious single-vehicle accident, resulting in his car being totaled. California Highway Patrol Officer Samantha Diaz-Durazo arrived at the scene and found D’Braunstein disoriented and in physical distress. Despite his evident symptoms, she did not call for medical assistance. Instead, she arrested him for driving under the influence of drugs and took him to jail. A nurse at the jail refused to admit D’Braunstein due to his medical condition, prompting Durazo to finally take him to the hospital, where he was diagnosed with a stroke. The delay in receiving medical treatment allegedly led to permanent injuries for D’Braunstein.The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment in favor of Officer Durazo, holding that although she violated D’Braunstein’s Fourth Amendment rights by failing to provide reasonable medical care, she was entitled to qualified immunity. The court reasoned that the constitutional violation was not clearly established, as D’Braunstein’s injury was sustained prior to his arrest and not during the arrest process.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s summary judgment. The Ninth Circuit held that a reasonable jury could find that Durazo violated D’Braunstein’s constitutional rights by failing to summon prompt medical care, given the serious nature of the collision and his symptoms. The court further held that Durazo’s failure to provide medical care was a violation of clearly established law, which requires officers to seek medical assistance for an injured detainee or arrestee facing a substantial and obvious risk of serious harm. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "D’Braunstein v. California Highway Patrol" on Justia Law

Two professors of Indian descent and adherents to the Hindu religion challenged California State University's (CSU) anti-discrimination and harassment policy, which included "caste" as a protected class. They argued that this inclusion stigmatized their religion and caused them to self-censor certain religious practices. They filed a lawsuit alleging violations of the Due Process Clause, Free Exercise Clause, and Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as well as equivalent claims under the California Constitution.The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the professors' Equal Protection claim and the equivalent state law claim for lack of standing. The court also dismissed the Free Exercise claim for failing to state a claim without deciding on standing. The Due Process and Establishment Clause claims proceeded to a bench trial, where the court ultimately dismissed these claims as well, finding that the professors lacked sufficient injury for a pre-enforcement challenge and that the policy did not express government disapproval of Hinduism.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court held that the professors lacked Article III standing for their Due Process claim because they failed to show that they intended to engage in any religious practice that could reasonably constitute caste discrimination or harassment. The court also found that the professors lacked standing for their Free Exercise claim, as they did not demonstrate any injury to their ability to exercise their religion. Finally, the court held that the professors lacked standing for their Establishment Clause claim, as the district court's factual finding that the policy had no hostility toward religion was not clearly erroneous. The court affirmed the judgment for the defendants and remanded for entry of judgment of dismissal without prejudice. View "Kumar v. Koester" on Justia Law

Peyman Roshan, a lawyer and real estate broker, had his law license suspended by the California Supreme Court in 2021 for misconduct. Following this, the California Department of Real Estate (DRE) initiated a reciprocal disciplinary proceeding against his real estate license. Roshan filed a federal lawsuit against the DRE, alleging constitutional violations and seeking to enjoin the DRE's disciplinary action.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed Roshan's lawsuit, citing the Younger abstention doctrine, which prevents federal courts from interfering with certain ongoing state proceedings. The district court held that the DRE's disciplinary proceeding was quasi-criminal in nature and that Roshan could raise his federal claims during the judicial review of the DRE action.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court correctly applied the Younger abstention doctrine. The court noted that the state proceedings were ongoing, involved important state interests, and allowed Roshan to raise his federal claims. The court also determined that the DRE proceeding was quasi-criminal because it was initiated by a state agency following an investigation, involved formal charges, and aimed to determine whether Roshan should be sanctioned by suspending or revoking his real estate license.The Ninth Circuit concluded that all the requirements for Younger abstention were met and that Roshan had not demonstrated any bad faith, harassment, or extraordinary circumstances that would make abstention inappropriate. Therefore, the district court's decision to abstain from hearing the case was proper, and the dismissal of Roshan's lawsuit was affirmed. View "ROSHAN V. MCCAULEY" on Justia Law

Jose Trinidad Martinez Santoyo was sought for extradition to Mexico to face charges of intentional aggravated homicide. In January 2014, a Mexican judge issued an arrest warrant for Santoyo, alleging he shot a man twice in the head after an argument. Mexico requested his provisional arrest in November 2018, and the United States filed a complaint in August 2021. Santoyo was arrested in May 2022 and released on bail in November 2022. Mexico formally requested his extradition in July 2022, providing various supporting documents. A magistrate judge certified the extradition in February 2023, and Santoyo challenged this certification via a habeas corpus petition.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied Santoyo's habeas corpus petition. Santoyo argued that the extradition treaty between the United States and Mexico incorporated the Sixth Amendment's Speedy Trial Clause, contending that the delay between the 2014 arrest warrant and the 2022 extradition request violated his speedy trial rights. The district court rejected this argument, holding that the treaty's "lapse of time" provision referred only to statutes of limitations, not to the Sixth Amendment's speedy trial protections.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Ninth Circuit held that the "lapse of time" language in the extradition treaty does not incorporate the Sixth Amendment Speedy Trial Clause. The court emphasized that extradition proceedings are not criminal prosecutions and that the treaty's language refers to statutes of limitations rather than the constitutional right to a speedy trial. The court also noted that the judiciary's role in extradition is limited and that issues of delay are more appropriately addressed by the Secretary of State. View "SANTOYO V. BOYDEN" on Justia Law

Lars Jensen, a math professor at Truckee Meadows Community College (TMCC), voiced concerns about a policy change to the math curriculum standards. He criticized the new co-requisite policy, which placed students needing remedial instruction in college-level classes, arguing it lowered academic standards. Following his criticism, Jensen faced several adverse actions, including reprimands, negative performance reviews, and a termination hearing.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada dismissed Jensen’s claims, including First Amendment retaliation, procedural due process, and equal protection violations. The court held that Jensen’s First Amendment claim was barred by qualified immunity and that his official capacity claim was barred by sovereign immunity. The court also found that Jensen failed to identify a protected interest for his due process claim and did not allege membership in a discrete class for his equal protection claim. The court dismissed all claims with prejudice and denied leave to amend.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of Jensen’s First Amendment retaliation claim. The appellate court held that Jensen’s criticism of the curriculum changes addressed a matter of public concern and was protected speech related to scholarship or teaching. The court found that the adverse actions against Jensen were motivated by his speech and that the state had not shown a substantial disruption to outweigh his First Amendment rights. The court also held that the Administrators were not entitled to qualified immunity and that Jensen’s official capacity claim for prospective relief was not barred by sovereign immunity. The court affirmed the dismissal of Jensen’s due process and equal protection claims but reversed the denial of leave to amend, remanding for further proceedings. View "JENSEN V. BROWN" on Justia Law

A church in Washington, Cedar Park Assembly of God, challenged the state's Reproductive Parity Act (Parity Act), which mandates insurance carriers to cover all federally approved contraceptives and, if maternity care is included, abortions. The church argued that this law violated its First Amendment rights and religious autonomy because it could not find a comparable health plan that excluded abortion coverage after its insurer, Kaiser Permanente, stopped offering such a plan.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted summary judgment in favor of the state officials, Myron Kreidler and Jay Inslee, who were sued in their official capacities. The district court found that the church did not have standing to challenge the Parity Act because it could not demonstrate that its inability to obtain a suitable health plan was directly caused by the Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and vacated the district court's summary judgment, remanding with instructions to dismiss the action for lack of standing. The Ninth Circuit held that Cedar Park Assembly of God failed to establish that its injury was traceable to the Parity Act or that invalidating the Act would redress its injury. The court noted that Washington's conscientious-objection statute allows insurers to accommodate religious objections, and nothing in the Parity Act prevents insurers from offering plans that exclude abortion coverage. The court concluded that the church's injury was due to the independent decisions of insurers, not the Parity Act, and thus, the church lacked standing to sue. View "CEDAR PARK ASSEMBLY OF GOD OF KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON V. KREIDLER" on Justia Law