Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

A trade association representing the dietary supplement industry challenged a New York law that prohibits the sale of dietary supplements marketed for weight loss or muscle building to individuals under eighteen. The law was enacted in response to concerns about health risks to minors from such supplements. The statute defines covered products based on how they are labeled or marketed, and authorizes the Attorney General to seek injunctions against violators. The association argued that the law violates the First Amendment, is unconstitutionally vague, and is preempted by federal law.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the association’s motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the association was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its claims, had not shown irreparable harm, and that the balance of equities and public interest weighed against granting relief. The District Court later dismissed the vagueness and preemption claims but allowed the First Amendment claim to proceed.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of a preliminary injunction. The Second Circuit held that the law satisfies intermediate scrutiny under the Central Hudson test for commercial speech, finding that New York has a substantial interest in protecting minors’ health, that the law directly advances that interest, and that it is not more extensive than necessary. The court also concluded that the age verification requirement does not unconstitutionally compel speech, that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, and that it is not preempted by federal law. The court further found that the association failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the public interest favored an injunction. The order denying the preliminary injunction was affirmed. View "Council for Responsible Nutrition v. James" on Justia Law

In March 2023, a New York State grand jury indicted a former President on thirty-four counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. The indictment alleged that he orchestrated a scheme to influence the 2016 presidential election by directing his personal lawyer to pay $130,000 to an adult film star to prevent disclosure of an alleged sexual encounter. The payments were disguised as legal fees in business records. After arraignment, the defendant sought to remove the case to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, arguing the conduct was within the color of his office and involved federal defenses. The federal district court remanded the case to state court, finding the prosecution fell outside the scope of federal officer removal jurisdiction. A state court jury subsequently convicted the defendant on all counts.After conviction but before sentencing, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in Trump v. United States, holding that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority and that evidence of immunized official acts is inadmissible even when an indictment alleges only unofficial conduct. The defendant then sought leave to file a second, untimely notice of removal in federal court, arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision provided new grounds for removal and established good cause for the delay. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied leave, concluding that good cause had not been shown and that the hush money payments were private, unofficial acts.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial. The Second Circuit held that the district court had not adequately considered issues relevant to the good cause inquiry, including the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision and whether evidence admitted at trial related to immunized official acts. The Second Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded for reconsideration of the motion for leave to file a second notice of removal, instructing the district court to address these issues. View "New York v. Trump" on Justia Law

A man committed several felonies in New York and Virginia between 2000 and 2001. After serving his prison sentences, he was subject to both state and federal post-release supervision. He repeatedly violated the terms of his supervision, resulting in multiple periods of reincarceration. In 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in Earley v. Murray that New York’s practice of administratively imposing post-release supervision without a judicial pronouncement was unconstitutional. The state legislature responded in 2008 by authorizing corrections officials to initiate resentencing proceedings. The plaintiff was incarcerated in New York from June 2007 to February 2008 for violating post-release supervision, and again in 2010, before being resentenced without post-release supervision.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed the plaintiff’s claims for damages related to his 2010 incarceration, finding the defendants acted reasonably at that time, but allowed claims related to the 2007-08 incarceration to proceed to trial. At trial, the defendants were barred from introducing evidence that legal and administrative obstacles prevented them from initiating resentencing for the plaintiff during 2007-08. The jury awarded the plaintiff $100,000 in compensatory and $750,000 in punitive damages. The district court denied the defendants’ motion for a new trial and rejected their qualified immunity defense for the 2007-08 period.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion by excluding evidence of impediments to resentencing and erred in denying a new trial for the 2007-08 period. The court reversed the denial of a new trial for that period, vacated the dismissal of the 2010 claims on qualified immunity grounds, and remanded for further proceedings. The court also held that qualified immunity was properly denied for both periods under existing precedent. View "Santiago v. Fischer" on Justia Law

A high school senior in New York posted a photo on social media after school hours and off school grounds, depicting a friend kneeling on his neck with the caption “Cops got another.” The image resembled the murder of George Floyd, and although the student claimed he did not intend this resemblance, he removed the post within minutes after receiving negative reactions. However, another student took a screenshot and shared it more widely, leading to public outcry, in-school discussions, a student demonstration, and a school investigation. The school superintendent suspended the student and barred him from extracurricular activities for the rest of the school year.The student initially filed suit in New York State Supreme Court, alleging that the school’s disciplinary actions violated his First Amendment rights. After the state court granted limited injunctive relief allowing him to attend graduation, the defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Following discovery, the district court granted summary judgment for the school district, finding that the student’s off-campus speech caused substantial disruption in school and thus was not protected by the First Amendment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. Applying the standards from Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District and Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., the Second Circuit held that the school’s disciplinary actions violated the student’s First Amendment rights. The court found that the off-campus nature of the speech, its lack of threatening content, and the school’s interests did not justify the punishment imposed. The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Leroy v. Livingston Manor Central School District" on Justia Law

Three U.S. citizens each sponsored a close family member for an immigrant visa to the United States. After their petitions were approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the family members applied for visas at the U.S. Consulate General in Guangzhou, China. Following interviews, the consular officers denied the visa applications, citing fraud or misrepresentation as the basis for inadmissibility. The U.S. citizen sponsors challenged these denials in federal court, alleging that the decisions were not facially legitimate or bona fide, were issued in bad faith, and that the notices were untimely.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed the claims. It found that one plaintiff’s claim was brought in an improper venue and dismissed it without prejudice. The remaining claims were dismissed with prejudice under the doctrine of consular nonreviewability, which generally bars judicial review of consular visa decisions. The district court concluded that, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Department of State v. Muñoz, U.S. citizens do not have a constitutional right to reunite with parents or siblings through visa sponsorship, and thus no constitutional right was burdened by the denials. The court also found the allegations of bad faith insufficient and rejected the timeliness argument as a repackaged merits challenge.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Second Circuit held that the doctrine of consular nonreviewability precludes judicial review of the visa denials because the plaintiffs did not have a constitutional right implicated by the denials. The court also agreed that the plaintiffs’ alternative arguments lacked merit and that the consular officers’ decisions were insulated from judicial review. View "Chen v. Rubio" on Justia Law

The case concerns a former CEO of a brand-management company who was prosecuted for allegedly orchestrating a scheme to inflate company revenues through secret “overpayments-for-givebacks” deals with a business partner. The government alleged that the CEO arranged for the partner to pay inflated prices for joint ventures, with a secret understanding that the excess would be returned later, thereby allowing the company to report higher revenues to investors. The CEO was also accused of making false filings with the SEC and improperly influencing audits. The central factual dispute was whether the CEO actually made these undisclosed agreements.In 2021, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held a jury trial. The jury acquitted the CEO of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, make false SEC filings, and interfere with audits, but could not reach a verdict on the substantive charges, resulting in a mistrial on those counts. The government retried the CEO in 2022 on the substantive counts, and the second jury convicted him on all charges. The CEO moved to bar the retrial, arguing that the Double Jeopardy Clause precluded it because the first jury’s acquittal necessarily decided factual issues essential to the government’s case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the first jury’s acquittal on the conspiracy charge necessarily decided that the CEO did not make the alleged secret agreements, which was a factual issue essential to the substantive charges. Because the government’s case at the second trial depended on proving those same secret agreements, the Double Jeopardy Clause’s issue-preclusion doctrine barred the retrial. The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment, vacated the CEO’s convictions, and ordered dismissal of the indictment. View "United States v. Cole" on Justia Law

Several individuals and a firearms association challenged provisions of New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) that require ammunition sellers to conduct background checks on purchasers, pay a $2.50 fee per check, and register with the Superintendent of the New York State Police. The plaintiffs alleged that these requirements deterred them from purchasing or selling ammunition, and that one plaintiff was unable to complete a purchase due to a system failure. They also claimed that dealers were passing the background check fee onto purchasers, and that the registration requirement deterred private sales.The United States District Court for the Western District of New York found that the association lacked standing but that the individual plaintiffs did have standing to challenge the provisions. The district court denied a preliminary injunction, concluding that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their Second Amendment claims because the state had shown that the provisions were consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, as required by the framework set out in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed that the individual plaintiffs had standing. However, the Second Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction on different grounds. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to show that the background check, fee, and registration provisions meaningfully constrained their ability to “keep” or “bear” arms under the first step of the Bruen framework. Because the plaintiffs did not meet this threshold, the court did not address the historical analysis. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s order and remanded for further proceedings. View "N.Y. State Firearms Ass'n v. James" on Justia Law

A transgender inmate serving a lengthy sentence in the Connecticut prison system was diagnosed with gender dysphoria after several years of incarceration. The inmate requested various treatments, including stronger hormone therapy and a vaginoplasty, but was initially denied hormone therapy due to a prison policy that only allowed continuation, not initiation, of such treatment. After a policy change, the inmate received hormone therapy, mental health counseling, antidepressants, and some lifestyle accommodations. Despite these measures, the inmate continued to request additional treatments, including surgery, and expressed dissatisfaction with the care provided, alleging it was inadequate and not delivered by specialists in gender dysphoria.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut reviewed the inmate’s claims of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment. The district court found that the corrections officials had deprived the inmate of adequate care by providing mental health treatment from unqualified providers, delaying and inadequately administering hormone therapy, and denying surgical intervention. The court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, holding that the right to be free from deliberate indifference to serious medical needs was clearly established.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. The Second Circuit held that there is no clearly established constitutional right for inmates to receive specific treatments for gender dysphoria or to be treated by gender-dysphoria specialists. The court found that reasonable officials could disagree about the adequacy and legality of the care provided, which included talk therapy, antidepressants, and hormone therapy. The Second Circuit concluded that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and remanded the case with instructions to grant summary judgment in their favor. View "Clark v. Valletta" on Justia Law

Two individuals who hold valid New York State concealed carry licenses challenged several aspects of New York’s firearm regulations after the state enacted the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. The plaintiffs objected to three main provisions: the prohibition on carrying firearms in designated “sensitive locations” (specifically Times Square, the New York City subway, and the Metro-North rail system), the statewide ban on open carry of firearms, and the requirement that state concealed carry license holders obtain a separate, city-specific permit to carry a firearm in New York City. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of these provisions, arguing they violated the Second Amendment.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that the government had demonstrated a historical tradition of regulating firearms in crowded public places, supporting the sensitive locations restrictions. It also concluded that the open carry ban was consistent with historical regulations that allowed states to prohibit one form of public carry (open or concealed) as long as the other remained available. Regarding the city-specific permit, the court determined that localities have historically imposed their own firearm regulations. The court also found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the open carry ban, but otherwise rejected their constitutional claims on the merits.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s order. The Second Circuit held that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their Second Amendment claims. The court concluded that each challenged provision—sensitive location restrictions, the open carry ban, and the city-specific permit requirement—fell within the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation and did not violate the Second Amendment. The denial of the preliminary injunction was therefore affirmed. View "Frey v. City of New York" on Justia Law

Several individuals and a firearms instruction company challenged various aspects of New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) and the way the Suffolk County Police Department (SCPD) implements the law. The individual plaintiffs, all Suffolk County residents, objected to requirements for obtaining a handgun license, including a “good moral character” standard, an in-person interview, disclosure of household members and character references, a list of social media accounts, and completion of eighteen hours of firearms training. They also alleged that the SCPD’s process for scheduling interviews and issuing licenses could take years, far exceeding statutory timelines. Additionally, the plaintiffs, including firearms instructors, challenged an alleged SCPD policy of arresting unlicensed individuals participating in live-fire training, despite a state law exemption for such training.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that the individual applicants lacked standing to challenge the CCIA’s requirements because they had not completed the application process, and that none of the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the SCPD’s arrest policy due to a lack of credible threat of enforcement. The district court did not address the challenge to the SCPD’s processing delays.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the applicants did have standing to challenge the CCIA’s requirements and the SCPD’s processing delays, but affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their facial Second Amendment challenges, except for the social media disclosure requirement, which was already preliminarily enjoined in another case, rendering that issue moot. The court also found that at least one plaintiff had standing to challenge the SCPD’s arrest policy and vacated the district court’s ruling on that issue, remanding for further proceedings. The disposition was affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "Giambalvo v. Suffolk Cnty." on Justia Law