Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Morris filed an application under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3), seeking authorization to file a successive motion to vacate under section 2255. Morris was sentenced as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. 924(e) and wanted to challenge his sentence under the Supreme Court’s 2015 holding, in Johnson v. United States, that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act is unconstitutionally vague. The Supreme Court made Johnson retroactive. The Seventh Circuit granted the petition. Morris made a prima facie showing that he may be entitled to relief. Morris proposes to challenge only one of his three predicate offenses: his conviction for attempted robbery in Illinois, 720 ILCS 5/8‐4(a), 18‐1(a). To determine whether an attempt offense constitutes a violent felony, a court must examine how state courts have applied the general attempt statute to the particular crime attempted. View "Morris v. United States" on Justia Law

Todd sold 22.1 grams of cocaine to an undercover police officer. In 2010, he pled guilty and, having a criminal record that included five prison sentences totaling 22 years, was sentenced to 25 years in prison. He unsuccessfully appealed, claiming ineffective assistance because his lawyer told him the government would recommend no more than a 10‐year sentence. Four years later he unsuccessfully sought habeas corpus in federal court on the same ground. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of relief, noting the evidence in support of state court findings that Todd had not been confused about the terms of the plea agreement and that defense counsel was not ineffective. Even if Todd believed in the claimed 10‐year cap, he either lied or was confused in replying “no” when asked by the judge whether any promises had been made to him other than that his bond would be reduced and the other charge against him dropped. If he was confused and still believed there was a sentencing cap, the trial judge disabused him of his mistake by telling him he could be sentenced to anywhere from six to 60 years even if he pleaded guilty. View "Todd v. Roberson" on Justia Law

Officer McVicker pulled over a vehicle with Colorado license plates, traveling in Madison County, Illinois. The vehicle contained Smoot, the driver, and Walton, a passenger and had been traveling 68 mph in a 65 mph zone. It was following too closely; it appeared that Walton was not wearing his seatbelt, a violation of Illinois law. McVicker informed them that he intended only to issue a written warning. Walton stated that they had been stopped in Kansas the previous evening and had received a warning for an improper signal. Walton gave the written warning to McVicker. The warning noted that Walton was driving with a suspended license. Walton said that the police had searched their vehicle, which was a rental car. He produced the rental agreement, which showed that the Suburban had been rented at the Denver International Airport and that Smoot was not an authorized driver; neither could legally drive the Suburban. McVicker stated that he could have the vehicle towed, but would not do so. McVicker noted that Smoot appeared “extremely nervous.” After 22 minutes of conversation, McVicker learned, from dispatch, that Walton’s extensive criminal history included a drug trafficking offense. The two denied permission to search the vehicle. Approximately 33 minutes after the stop, McVicker requested a canine unit, which arrived 22 minutes later. The dog alerted that drugs were present. McVicker searched the interior; seven minutes into the search, McVicker located cocaine concealed in a void within the rear quarter panel. The Seventh Circuit affirmed denial of a motion to suppress. McVicker was justified in detaining the two beyond the time necessary to complete the written warning in order to confirm or dispel his reasonable suspicion and acted with reasonable diligence in requesting a canine unit. View "United States v. Walton" on Justia Law

Officer Johnson spotted defendant driving on an interstate highway in Bloomington, Illinois. Defendant was not speeding, swerving, or committing any moving violation, but had an Indiana temporary vehicle registration tag “that was unlike any Indiana registration tag” Johnson had seen before. In Johnson’s experience temporary Indiana tags were normally “in the back of a window, not a piece of paper where the license plate normally goes.” When his own check and then a dispatcher’s separate check of the database found no record of the registration, Johnson made a traffic stop to investigate whether the tag might be a forgery. When Johnson asked defendant for his license, he admitted that he was driving on a suspended license. Johnson arrested him. During an inventory search, police discovered two guns that led to defendant’s conviction as a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The Seventh Circuit affirmed denial of a motion to suppress. The officer based the stop on the fact that the number on the car’s temporary registration tag did not appear in the law enforcement database. That discrepancy gave the officer a reasonable suspicion that the car was either stolen or not properly registered. The court remanded for reconsideration of certain conditions of supervised release. View "United States v. Miranda-Sotolongo" on Justia Law

Felton was in a car in Harvey, Illinois, when he was approached by an unmarked car with tinted windows. Felton, who was unarmed, claims that he feared for his life and fled onto the expressway, heading toward Chicago. Officers “chased” him, firing guns, then “ram[med]” their cars into his, causing him to crash. He states he was “shot by 6 different stu[n] guns,” “put into critical condition,” and suffered broken bones, bruises, a concussion, lost vision, and other injuries. He underwent several surgeries and suffered “excruciating pain and mental anguish.” He filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Because Felton was incarcerated at the time, the judge conducted an initial screening under, 28 U.S.C. 1915A, noting that the allegations were insufficient to state claims against the only named defendants: Chicago and its police superintendent (in his official capacity). The judge found it “painfully obvious” that Felton’s complaint “had omitted critical facts” and consulted newspaper accounts of Felton’s arrest. “Instead of expending further resources in recapping what those newspaper accounts reflected,” the judge attached them as exhibits to his order, dismissing the suit as “frivolous.” The Seventh Circuit reversed, noting that at least one part of Felton’s complaint was legally viable: his allegation that he was shot by multiple stun guns. View "Felton v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

After he was temporarily suspended from Watseka Community High School for allegedly consuming or possessing drugs, Dietchweiler filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the defendants violated his due process rights, with state law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, slander, and violations of the Illinois School Code, 105 ILCS 5/10-22.6, which provides procedures for suspending and expelling students. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment on the due process claim and dismissed the state law claims without prejudice. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The administrators explained to Dietchwieler and his parents the general nature of the charges against him and provided him with a written suspension notice. Most of Dietchweiler’s complaints about the hearing relate to the defendants’ alleged failure to follow their own published policies and procedures, but failure to follow state statutes or state-mandated procedures does not amount to a federal due process claim of constitutional magnitude. While the Board disbelieved the evidence he presented, due process does not guarantee that his version of events will be believed. View "Dietchweiler v. Lucas" on Justia Law

After a fight with another inmate, Ogurek required stitches and was charged with a disciplinary infraction. Ogurek says he told investigator Gabor that he wanted to charge the other inmate with starting the fight and that he wanted an investigation of the theft of property from his cell while he was in segregation after the fight. When 10 days elapsed with no response Ogurek complained to the warden. According to Ogurek, Gabor berated him for complaining and told him that, after watching a security video, he had determined that Ogurek had started the fight. Ogurek denied this. Gabor filed a disciplinary report for impeding an investigation, which led to Ogurek remaining in segregation for six months. An administrative appeal resulted in expungement, on grounds that Gabor had violated procedure and had failed to substantiate his charge. During discovery in his suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, Ogurek sought the video. The district judge ordered Gabor to respond within 17 days, which he did not do. The judge dismissed the suit before the video surfaced. The Seventh Circuit reversed. An inmate’s complaint of being assaulted and injured by another inmate and then framed by a guard is not a “personal gripe,” that is unprotected by the First Amendment. View "Ogurek v. Gabor" on Justia Law

Indiana Rules for the Admission to the Bar and the Discipline of Attorneys state: “No person who advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States or this state by force, violence or other unconstitutional or illegal means, shall be certified to the Supreme Court of Indiana for admission to the bar of the court and a license to the practice of law.” Plaintiff intends to engage in “revolutionary advocacy,” as by distributing the Charter of Carnaro and Marx and Engels’ Communist Manifesto. He challenged the Rule, without stating that he intends to advocate the overthrow of the government. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of the suit as premature. Plaintiff has not applied for admission to the Indiana bar and lacks standing. The rule will harm him only if he would be admitted to the Indiana bar were the rule to be invalidated: “that is highly unlikely,” given “his tempestuous relations with the Illinois bar authorities,” who deemed him unfit to practice law, citing his failure to acknowledge on his applications his multiple arrests and firings over the previous decade. View "Otrompke v. Skolnik" on Justia Law

Gray, an inmate at Illinois’s Stateville Correctional Center for 15 years, sued the warden under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the warden violated the Eighth Amendment by failing adequately to address the infestation of vermin, insects, and birds in Gray’s cell. He alleged that the prison cleans only infrequently and does not fix broken windows and holes in the walls. Gray suffers from asthma and claims that he had not had an attack for seven years before arriving at Stateville and that he now takes a prescription for attacks that occur about every two years. Gray claims that he has also suffered rashes and is given inadequate access to cleaning supplies. Gray has submitted unsuccessful grievances through the prison’s system. The district court granted summary judgment to the warden, finding that none of the conditions Gray described were so bad that they violated the Eighth Amendment. The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that Gray’s individual claims were dismissed prematurely. On remand, the district court can decide how to coordinate the case with a pending class action involving similar allegations. View "Gray v. Hardy" on Justia Law

Citilink, a municipal corporation that provides bus service in Fort Wayne, Indiana, has regulatory authority over advertisements inside the buses and on the buses’ exterior. Health Link, a nonprofit corporation, provides women’s healthcare and wanted to post an advertisement. Citilink refused because it forbids public service ads that “express or advocate opinions or positions upon political, religious, or moral issues.” Although the proposed ad did not express or advocate any such opinion or position, Citilink discovered that Health Link is pro‐life and suggests (not in the ad) that women with unplanned or crisis pregnancies consider health care and related services that provide alternatives to abortion. Even Health Link’s home page does not indicate its position. The ad referred to “life affirming healthcare.” Health Link and Allen County Right to Life share a street address. The Seventh Circuit reversed judgment in favor of Citilink. Once a government entity has created a facility (the ad spaces in and on the buses) for communicative activity, it “must respect the lawful boundaries it has itself set.” Citilink’s refusal to post the ad was groundless discrimination against constitutionally protected speech. View "Women's Health Link, Inc. v. Fort Wayne Pub. Transp. Corp." on Justia Law