Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The case concerns a defendant who was convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York of transporting, receiving, and possessing child pornography, all in violation of federal law. The defendant’s conduct involved the use of the Kik messaging application, which uses software to detect and report child sexual abuse material (CSAM) to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). Kik’s detection process relies on a database of known CSAM hash values provided by NCMEC. When Kik’s software identifies a match, a designated employee reviews the file and, if confirmed as CSAM, reports it to NCMEC, which then forwards the information to law enforcement. The defendant was linked to the offending accounts through IP address records and admitted during a post-arrest interview to using the relevant Kik accounts and sharing child pornography.After his arrest, the defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained from Kik’s searches and his own statements to law enforcement, arguing that Kik acted as an agent of NCMEC, which he claimed was a governmental entity for Fourth Amendment purposes. The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York denied the motion, finding that while NCMEC might be a governmental entity, Kik was not acting as its agent. The court also found that the defendant had validly waived his Miranda rights and that his statements were not coerced. The jury acquitted the defendant on some counts but convicted him on others. The court sentenced him to 151 months in prison and 15 years of supervised release.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that NCMEC is a governmental entity for Fourth Amendment purposes, but the defendant failed to show that Kik acted as a governmental agent when it searched his accounts. The court affirmed the denial of the suppression motion, found the evidence sufficient to support the convictions, and upheld the sentence as substantively reasonable. However, the court vacated and remanded in part, instructing the district court to amend the written judgment to conform with its oral pronouncement regarding certain conditions of supervised release. View "United States v. Guard" on Justia Law

A private Christian school in Vermont forfeited a girls’ basketball playoff game because it objected, on religious grounds, to playing against a team with a transgender athlete. The school believes that requiring its female athletes to compete against biological males would violate its religious convictions about the immutability of sex. Following the forfeit, the Vermont Principals’ Association (VPA), which oversees extracurricular activities for Vermont schools, expelled the school from all state-sponsored extracurricular activities, including both athletic and non-athletic events.After the expulsion, the school and several students and parents filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, seeking a preliminary injunction to reinstate the school’s VPA membership and alleging a violation of their rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The district court denied the motion, finding that the VPA’s policies regarding transgender athletes were neutral and generally applicable, and thus subject only to rational-basis review. The court concluded that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction. The Second Circuit held that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in showing that the VPA’s expulsion was not neutral, as it was accompanied by official expressions of hostility toward the school’s religious beliefs. The court found that the plaintiffs also satisfied the requirements of irreparable harm and public interest. Accordingly, the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case with instructions to grant a preliminary injunction reinstating the school’s VPA membership pending further proceedings. View "Mid Vermont Christian School v. Saunders" on Justia Law

A nonprofit organization sought to provide free legal advice to low-income New Yorkers facing debt-collection lawsuits by training nonlawyer “Justice Advocates” to help individuals complete a state-issued check-the-box answer form. The organization and a prospective Justice Advocate argued that many defendants in such cases default due to lack of understanding, leading to severe consequences. However, New York law prohibits nonlawyers from providing individualized legal advice, and all parties agreed that the proposed activities would violate the state’s unauthorized practice of law (UPL) statutes.The plaintiffs filed a pre-enforcement challenge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, claiming that applying the UPL statutes to their activities would violate their First Amendment rights. The district court found that the plaintiffs had standing and were likely to succeed on the merits, holding that the UPL statutes, as applied, were a content-based regulation of speech that could not survive strict scrutiny. The court granted a preliminary injunction, barring the Attorney General from enforcing the UPL statutes against the plaintiffs and participants in their program.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed that the UPL statutes, as applied, regulate speech. However, the Second Circuit held that the regulation is content neutral, not content based, and therefore subject to intermediate scrutiny rather than strict scrutiny. Because the district court applied the wrong standard, the Second Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings under the correct legal standard. The court did not reach a final decision on whether the statutes, as applied, ultimately violate the First Amendment, leaving that determination for the district court on remand. View "Upsolve, Inc. v. James" on Justia Law

In 2019, a well-known advice columnist publicly accused a sitting U.S. president of sexually assaulting her in a department store in 1996. The president, while in office, responded with public statements denying the allegations, asserting he did not know the accuser, and claiming she fabricated the story for personal and political gain. The accuser then filed a defamation lawsuit in New York state court, alleging that these statements were false and damaged her reputation. The case was removed to federal court after the Department of Justice certified that the president acted within the scope of his office, but the DOJ later withdrew this certification. During the litigation, the accuser also brought a separate lawsuit under a new state law allowing survivors of sexual assault to sue regardless of the statute of limitations, which resulted in a jury finding that the president had sexually abused and defamed her after leaving office.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted partial summary judgment for the accuser in the original defamation case, relying on issue preclusion from the verdict in the later case. The trial was limited to damages, and the jury awarded the accuser $83.3 million in compensatory and punitive damages. The president moved for a new trial or remittitur, arguing, among other things, that he was entitled to presidential immunity, that the damages were excessive, and that the jury instructions were erroneous. The district court denied these motions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the president had waived any claim to absolute presidential immunity by failing to timely assert it, and that the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Trump v. United States did not alter this conclusion. The court also found no error in the district court’s application of issue preclusion, evidentiary rulings, or jury instructions, and concluded that the damages awarded were reasonable and not excessive. The judgment in favor of the accuser was affirmed in full. View "Carroll v. Trump" on Justia Law

The defendant pled guilty to possession of a firearm and ammunition after a felony conviction. At sentencing, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York imposed a term of imprisonment followed by supervised release. During the sentencing hearing, the court orally imposed several “special” conditions of supervised release, as recommended in the presentence report, but did not specify or discuss any “standard” or additional discretionary conditions. The court also stated that the defendant would not be required to contribute to the cost of mental health services, contrary to a recommendation in the presentence report. However, the written judgment later included not only the special conditions but also thirteen additional discretionary “standard” conditions of supervised release, as well as a requirement that the defendant contribute to mental health service costs.After sentencing, the defendant appealed, arguing that his constitutional right to be present at sentencing was violated because the thirteen discretionary conditions were not pronounced in his presence, and that the written judgment’s requirement to pay for mental health services contradicted the oral sentence. Both parties agreed that the payment requirement should be eliminated due to this inconsistency.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting en banc, reviewed the case de novo. The court overruled its prior precedent in United States v. Truscello, which had allowed non-mandatory “standard” conditions to be added to the written judgment without oral pronouncement. The Second Circuit held that all non-mandatory conditions of supervised release, including those labeled as “standard” in the Sentencing Guidelines, must be pronounced in the defendant’s presence at sentencing. The court vacated the portions of the sentence imposing the thirteen discretionary conditions and the payment requirement, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "United States v. Maiorana" on Justia Law

A New York State Police trooper stopped Daniel Delgado for erratic driving and discovered that his license was suspended. During an inventory search of his vehicle, the trooper found a loaded “ghost gun” and ammunition, which Delgado admitted belonged to him. Delgado had several prior convictions, including a felony conviction for attempted second-degree murder in Florida, where he had shot a man in the back. Delgado was indicted for possessing ammunition after a felony conviction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and pleaded guilty without a plea agreement.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Delgado’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea and to dismiss the indictment, finding that § 922(g)(1) did not violate the Second Amendment. At sentencing, the court determined that Delgado’s prior Florida conviction for attempted second-degree murder was a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a), resulting in a higher base offense level. Delgado was sentenced to thirty months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release. He timely appealed, challenging both the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) and the classification of his prior conviction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. It held that Delgado’s constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(1) was foreclosed by its recent decision in Zherka v. Bondi, which reaffirmed the statute’s constitutionality after New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen. The court also held that Florida’s offense of attempted second-degree murder is categorically a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines, as it requires an intentional act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind. The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Delgado" on Justia Law

Following the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Connecticut enacted legislation restricting the acquisition and possession of certain “assault weapons” and “large capacity magazines.” The laws were later expanded to include additional firearms. Individuals and organizations who wished to acquire and possess weapons restricted by these statutes, including AR-platform rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds, challenged the laws. They argued that the restrictions violated their rights under the Second Amendment.In the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, the plaintiffs in both cases sought preliminary injunctions to prevent enforcement of the statutes. The district court denied the motions, finding that the plaintiffs had not shown a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of their Second Amendment claims. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the regulated weapons and magazines were commonly used for self-defense, and, alternatively, that the state’s restrictions were consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of regulating unusually dangerous weapons. The plaintiffs appealed these rulings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunctions. Applying the framework established by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Second Circuit assumed, without deciding, that the plaintiffs’ proposed conduct was presumptively protected by the Second Amendment. The court concluded, however, that Connecticut’s laws are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of regulating unusually dangerous weapons, as they impose targeted restrictions while preserving numerous alternatives for lawful self-defense. The court also found that the plaintiffs had not shown that the balance of equities and public interest favored an injunction. Accordingly, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of preliminary injunctive relief in both cases. View "Nat'l Ass'n for Gun Rights v. Lamont" on Justia Law

A prospective candidate for the 2025 New York City mayoral election, who had not been affiliated with any political party since 2006, sought to run as the nominee of an independent body named the “Independence Party.” New York election law prohibits both political parties and independent bodies from using certain words, including “Independence” and “Independent,” in their names. The candidate argued that these naming restrictions, as applied to him, violated his First Amendment rights to free speech and association.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York reviewed the candidate’s request for a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the naming restrictions. The district court found that the candidate had standing to sue but denied the injunction. The court concluded that the naming provisions did not impose a severe burden on the candidate’s First Amendment rights, as they did not prevent him from communicating his political message or engaging in petitioning activity. Applying the Anderson-Burdick balancing test, the court determined that the restrictions were reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and justified by the state’s interest in preventing voter confusion.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Second Circuit held that the naming restrictions apply to independent bodies, that the candidate had standing, and that the state officials were not entitled to sovereign immunity. The court further held that the naming provisions did not impose a severe burden on the candidate’s First Amendment rights and were reasonable and viewpoint-neutral regulations justified by the state’s interest in avoiding voter confusion. The denial of the preliminary injunction was affirmed. View "Walden v. Kosinski" on Justia Law

The plaintiff was stopped by New York State Troopers in Oneida County, New York, on September 4, 2017, after a report of erratic driving. During the stop, Trooper Colton claimed the plaintiff failed field sobriety tests and later registered a high blood alcohol content on a breathalyzer. The plaintiff disputed these findings, alleging the tests were improperly administered and that he passed them. He was arrested and charged with a felony for aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle, multiple DWI-related misdemeanors, and a traffic infraction. The felony charge was later amended to a misdemeanor before a suppression hearing, after which the city court suppressed evidence due to concerns about Trooper Colton’s credibility. The plaintiff ultimately pled guilty to the traffic infraction, and the remaining DWI-related charges were dismissed.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed the plaintiff’s federal lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which alleged false arrest, malicious prosecution, and fabrication of evidence. The district court found that the guilty plea to the traffic infraction established probable cause for the arrest, defeating the false arrest claim. It also held that the plaintiff could not show favorable termination for the malicious prosecution claim because the DWI-related charges were dismissed as part of a plea agreement. The fabrication of evidence claim was dismissed as conclusory and contradicted by Trooper Colton’s testimony.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the false arrest claim and the malicious prosecution claim as to the DWI-related charges dismissed in the plea agreement, holding that a guilty plea to one charge bars a malicious prosecution claim for other charges dismissed as part of the same plea. However, the court vacated the dismissal of the malicious prosecution claim as to the terminated felony charge, finding it plausibly terminated favorably because its dismissal was not clearly part of the plea. The court also reinstated the fabrication of evidence claim, concluding the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged intentional fabrication. The case was remanded for further proceedings on these claims. View "Carruthers v. Colton" on Justia Law

A New York resident, known as Lucha El, was twice arrested for unlawful possession of firearms. In both instances, the firearms had been purchased in South Carolina by another individual, Keith Vereen, who acted as a straw purchaser. Lucha El paid Vereen, who then transported the firearms to New York, where Lucha El received them. Lucha El did not have the necessary permits to purchase firearms in New York and did not attempt to obtain a federal license to transport firearms across state lines.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York charged Lucha El with interstate transport of firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3) and conspiracy to transport or receive firearms from outside his state of residency in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Lucha El moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that § 922(a)(3) violated the Second Amendment, but the district court denied the motion. After a trial, a jury found him guilty on both counts, and he was sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment, three years’ supervised release, and forfeiture of the firearms. Lucha El appealed, raising only the Second Amendment challenge.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that § 922(a)(3) is a lawful regulation on the commercial sale of firearms that does not meaningfully constrain the right to keep and bear arms. The court further found that, even if the statute did impose a meaningful constraint, it is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The Second Circuit therefore affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that Lucha El’s convictions under § 922(a)(3) did not violate the Second Amendment. View "United States v. Perez" on Justia Law