Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Bradley’s third civil rights suit involving alleged improprieties with revocation of her license to operate a childcare center named six defendants—five of whom Bradley had sued in her second suit. She claims that Wisconsin Department of Children and Families employees, without permission, interviewed her adopted son; photographed the space in her home where she operated the daycare program and was in the process of reorganizing; falsely accused her of child abuse and neglect and forced her to surrender her license; and violated the “Federal Right to Privacy Act” (likely referring to 5 U.S.C. 552a), the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, 42 U.S.C. 5106(a), the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Due Process Clause, and 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985(3). The district court dismissed; claim preclusion barred the claims against the five second-lawsuit defendants because the claims there were based on the same events. As for the sixth defendant, the court concluded that the complaint failed to state a claim under any constitutional provision or federal statute identified by Bradley. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The prior suit resulted in a final judgment on the merits. The court warned Bradley that submitting further frivolous appeals may result in sanctions. View "Bradley v. Sabree" on Justia Law

In 1999, Werner was convicted of multiple sex offenses and was a Special Bulletin Notification (SBN) sex offender under Wisconsin law. Werner’s release was deferred until his 2010 mandatory release date. Werner and his probation agents were unable to secure an approved residence as required by his rules of supervision, so the Department of Corrections detained him pursuant to Administrative Directive No. 02‐10, under which persons who had reached their mandatory release date but could not secure approved housing were detained in the county jail at night but permitted to seek housing during certain hours of the day. In 2011, he moved into an approved residence. Werner filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court permitted Werner to proceed on individual‐capacity claims under the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause and to maintain an official‐capacity claim, for injunctive relief, that AD 02‐10 violated the Due Process and Ex Post Facto Clauses. The court ultimately granted the defendants summary judgment on all claims, finding the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims barred by qualified immunity and that his challenge to the policy was moot. AD 02‐10 was replaced in 2015 by AD 15‐12, under which SBN sex offenders lacking approved residences are no longer held in jail. Werner has twice violated probation and is again incarcerated. The Seventh Circuit affirmed; clearly established law at the time would not have notified the defendants that the AD 02‐10 procedures were unlawful. View "Werner v. Wall" on Justia Law

In 2001, Carrion entered the apartment of 69‐year‐old Zymal and stabbed her, causing her death. Carrion, who lived in an apartment above Zymali’s, was a 19-year‐old immigrant who spoke almost no English. He was interviewed in Spanish, denied involvement with Zymali’s death, but agreed to provide fingerprint samples. His fingerprint was found on a knife recovered from Zymali’s apartment. Illinois courts affirmed his convictions for residential burglary and first‐degree murder on direct appeal and on post-conviction review. Carrion’s habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254 was denied. The court concluded that although it probably was timely filed, most of the claims were procedurally defaulted and remaining claims were meritless. The Seventh Circuit granted a certificate of appealability to address: whether there was sufficient evidence to support his convictions, whether Carrion’s confession was voluntary, and whether appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge the voluntariness of his confession. The court concluded that, whether applying the deferential review of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act or de novo review, Carrion is not entitled to relief. The prosecution met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There was no due process violation in the reception into evidence of Carrion’s statement, as translated by an investigating officer. Any ambiguities in the statement were examined thoroughly at trial. View "Carrion v. Butler" on Justia Law

McGuire pleaded guilty to interfering with commerce by threat or violence. The district court classified McGuire as a career offender under section 4B1.1(a) of the Sentencing Guidelines, which increases the offense level if the defendant has two prior felony convictions for a “crime of violence.” “Crime of violence” is defined in section 4B1.2 and includes “any offense … that … is burglary of a dwelling, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another,” (the residual clause). The district judge counted two of McGuire’s prior convictions as crimes of violence. One conviction, for fleeing the police, qualified only under the residual clause. With the career-offender enhancement, McGuire’s Guidelines range increased from 63–78 months to 151–188 months. Citing McGuire’s extensive criminal history, the judge imposed a sentence of 188 months, noting her surprise that the government hadn’t asked for the statutory maximum sentence of 20 years. The Seventh Circuit remanded for resentencing, citing the Supreme Court’s 2015 Johnson holding that the residual clause in the career-offender guideline is unconstitutionally vague. View "United States v. McGuire" on Justia Law

Waldman, an inmate, was convicted of forcibly assaulting a correctional officer after head‐butting him during an argument about a pat‐down search. Waldman and the guard dispute how the pat-down request advanced to a confrontation. Waldman advanced an unsuccessful self‐defense argument at trial. The Seventh Circuit affirmed his conviction. While the district court erred in holding that there needed to be an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm before he could justifiably use force in self‐defense, the court was correct in finding that Waldman had a legal alternative to force in complying with the pat‐down. Requiring that an inmate fear serious bodily harm or death before using force to protect himself is in‐ consistent with both the Eighth Amendment and common law principles justifying the use of self‐defense. Congress intended to protect correctional officers from harm in passing 28 U.S.C. 111, but that purpose must be harmonized with Eighth Amendment protections. View "United States v. Waldman" on Justia Law

Rebirth ran a child care ministry—a “child care operated by a church or religious ministry that is a religious organization exempt from federal income taxation,” Ind. Code 12‐7‐2‐28.8. After an unannounced inspection, a Bureau of Child Care employee gave Rebirth a “Plan of Improvement,” stating that Rebirth had violated statutes and regulations governing registered child care ministries and directed Rebirth to cure the purported infractions and submit proof within 10 days. Rebirth believed that it had not committed any violations and did not submit any documentation. The Bureau sent Rebirth a notice of termination. Despite Rebirth’s request to appeal administratively, the Bureau terminated Rebirth’s registration and the child care operation closed. Indiana’s statutory scheme does not give providers an administrative opportunity to challenge the decision to revoke a certificate of registration. Rebirth sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming violation of the due‐process clause. The district court dismissed Rebirth’s individual‐capacity claims, citing qualified immunity. After the parties developed an evidentiary record on the official‐capacity claims, Rebirth prevailed on its claims for injunctive relief. The Seventh Circuit reinstated the individual-capacity claims, concluding that the complaint adequately alleged that the defendants violated clearly established law by depriving Rebirth of a property interest (its registration) without first providing any opportunity to be heard. View "Rebirth Christian Acad. Daycare, Inc. v. Brizzi" on Justia Law

Chicago Police officers arrested Bell for possession of a controlled substance while he was driving Spinks’s vehicle. They impounded the vehicle after Bell’s arrest. Chicago Municipal Code 7‐24‐225 permits police to impound a vehicle when officers have probable cause to believe it contained a controlled substance or was used in an illegal drug transaction. Spinks challenged the impoundment in the Chicago Department of Administrative Hearings. The ALJ determined that probable cause existed to impound the vehicle. A month later, an ALJ found Spinks liable for violating the Code and ordered that she pay the prescribed penalty of $2,000 plus $180 in storage and towing fees. Spinks and Bell filed suit, alleging that the ordinances were facially invalid under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The district court dismissed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the Code permits warrantless seizure of vehicles in all instances and allows for a non‐judicial officer to determine whether probable cause exists to allow the vehicle to remain seized. Under the Code, the officer seizing the vehicle without a warrant must have probable cause to believe it contains illegal drugs or has been used in an illegal drug transaction. The court noted that plaintiffs did not employ post-seizure state law remedies. View "Bell v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

Hurlburt and Gillespie pleaded guilty in separate cases to unlawfully possessing a firearm as a felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). To calculate the Sentencing Guidelines range in each case, the district court began with U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(a), which assigns progressively higher offense levels if the defendant has one or more prior convictions for a “crime of violence.” The term “crime of violence” is defined in the career-offender guideline to include any offense that “otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another,” (residual clause).” The U.S.S.G. residual clause mirrors the residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B). One year ago the Supreme Court’s “Johnson decision” invalidated the ACCA’s residual clause as unconstitutionally vague. The Seventh Circuit previously held that the Guidelines are not susceptible to challenge on vagueness grounds. Overruling that precedent and applying Johnson, the Seventh Circuit vacated the sentences imposed on Hurlburt and Gillespie, holding that the residual clause in section 4B1.2(a)(2) is unconstitutionally vague. View "United States v. Hurlburt" on Justia Law

Rollins pleaded guilty to selling crack cocaine and was sentenced to 84 months in prison. In his second appeal, he challenged the application of the career-offender guideline, which assigns a higher offense level if the defendant has two prior convictions for a “crime of violence,” U.S.S.G. 4B1.1(a), including “any offense … that … otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another” (residual clause). The district judge classified Rollins as a career offender based in part on a prior conviction for possession of a sawed-off shotgun, a crime that would qualify only under the residual clause of this definition. The Supreme Court’s “Johnson” decision invalidated the identically phrased residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), residual clause as unconstitutionally vague. In light of the government’s concession that Johnson’s constitutional holding applies to the residual clause in section 4B1.2(a)(2), the Seventh Circuit granted rehearing and held that under Johnson, the residual clause in the career-offender guideline is unconstitutionally vague and vacated Rollins’s sentence. View "United States v. Rollins" on Justia Law

Chicago Police officers executed a warrant and found a loaded pistol, a second gun, a plastic baggie containing 17 grams of heroin, a digital scale, and documents in Thomas’s name. Thomas was arrested. He moved to suppress, arguing that the warrant was deficient because it was supported by a confidential informant “of unknown background and unknown reliability.” According to Thomas, the judge did not know whether the informant was under arrest or on probation, whether he received favorable treatment or was paid, how he knew Thomas, whether he used aliases, whether he was a rival gang member, his criminal history, and his record as an informant. The district court denied Thomas’s motion and found that Thomas had not made the showing necessary for a Franks hearing. Thomas entered a conditional guilty plea. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting a “Brady” argument. Even if Brady applies to pretrial motions to suppress, the warrant was supported by probable cause, so the information he sought concerning the CI is not material.The informant provided details about Thomas’s apartment, that Thomas was a member of a particular gang, and described the firearms in detail. The information was corroborated by a prior arrest report that noted Thomas’s nickname, description, gang affiliation, age, and residence. The informant selected Thomas from a photo array and identified Thomas’s residence. View "United States v. Thomas" on Justia Law