Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Law enforcement officers responded to a report of an open door at Chad Taylor’s townhouse in Boone County, Kentucky. Inside, they found signs of recently fired gunshots, including bullet holes and spent shell casings. After obtaining search warrants, officers found ammunition and methamphetamine in Taylor’s possession. Taylor admitted to using methamphetamine and exhibited paranoid, erratic behavior, claiming people were watching him. The following day, Taylor was found at his home with a loaded Glock 19, and ballistics matched it to the earlier gunfire. Taylor had prior felony convictions for drug trafficking, intimidation, and misdemeanor domestic battery.A grand jury indicted Taylor for being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky initially detained Taylor but later released him on conditions due to his history of substance abuse and the risk he posed. Taylor moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the statute was unconstitutional both facially and as applied. The district court denied the motion, finding Taylor dangerous based on his prior convictions, and subsequently sentenced him to 30 months’ imprisonment after he pled guilty but reserved his right to appeal the constitutional issue.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) as applied to Taylor in light of recent circuit precedent. The appellate court held that the dangerousness assessment required for firearm disqualification is distinct from the assessment for pretrial detention. Applying the standard set forth in United States v. Williams, the court found that Taylor’s offense conduct and criminal history—including felony drug trafficking, intimidation, and domestic battery—demonstrated that he was dangerous. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to Taylor. View "United States v. Taylor" on Justia Law

A real estate developer purchased a vacant parcel of land in Worthington, Ohio, previously owned by a youth home. The property was primarily zoned for public or institutional uses such as parks, hospitals, and churches. The developer sought to build a mixed-use project and applied for rezoning and development plan approval. After public meetings where concerns about greenspace, traffic, and density were raised, the municipal planning commission tabled the initial application. The developer later reduced the number of proposed residential units, but the commission still declined to recommend approval, and the city council denied the rezoning application. Subsequently, the city amended its comprehensive plan to emphasize greenspace. The developer, having purchased the property after waiving a rezoning contingency, filed suit, alleging constitutional violations due to the city’s refusal to rezone and amend the comprehensive plan.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismissed most of the developer’s claims at the motion-to-dismiss stage, including due process counts, and granted summary judgment to the city on the remaining regulatory takings and declaratory judgment claims. The developer appealed, challenging the dismissal and grant of summary judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment and dismissal de novo. The court held that the city’s actions did not constitute a regulatory taking under the Penn Central factors, as the developer lacked a reasonable investment-backed expectation of rezoning approval and the city’s actions had legitimate public purposes. The court also found that the zoning ordinance was not unconstitutional beyond fair debate and that the developer failed to allege a cognizable property interest or arbitrary government action for its due process claims. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in all respects. View "Lifestyle Communities, Ltd. v. City of Worthington" on Justia Law

A Kentucky citizen who is subject to lifetime sex offender registration due to prior convictions challenged a new state law requiring certain sex offenders to display their full legal names on social media accounts they create or control. The law defines covered offenses as those committed against minors and applies to a wide range of social media platforms, with exceptions for services such as email and search engines. The plaintiff, who uses social media anonymously for personal and political expression, alleged that the law’s disclosure requirement would subject him and his family to harassment and would force him to stop using social media.The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky reviewed the case. Initially, it found the plaintiff was likely to succeed on his claim that the law infringed his First Amendment right to post anonymously and was overbroad, granting a preliminary injunction that barred all Kentucky County Attorneys from enforcing the law. The court later denied class certification, concluding the plaintiff lacked standing to represent absent class members against other County Attorneys and failed to meet requirements for class actions. Consequently, the injunction was narrowed to apply only to the named defendant and protect only the plaintiff.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found the district court erred in its facial overbreadth analysis. The Sixth Circuit held that a proper facial challenge under the First Amendment requires a comprehensive review of the law’s scope and its constitutional and unconstitutional applications, as described in Moody v. NetChoice, LLC. The district court had failed to conduct this thorough analysis and focused too narrowly on the plaintiff’s own circumstances. The Sixth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the proper two-step facial overbreadth approach. View "Doe v. Burlew" on Justia Law

After receiving an anonymous tip, law enforcement in Mercer County, Kentucky, stopped Steven Fellmy, who was driving a silver Ford Mustang matching the tip’s description. The stop was based on observed traffic violations, including a non-illuminated license plate and failure to signal a turn. After backup arrived, Fellmy was asked to exit the vehicle. He declined consent for a search, so a trained drug dog was led around the car. The dog briefly jumped up onto the car door and partially sniffed through the open window, ultimately alerting officers to drugs. A subsequent search revealed methamphetamine and heroin, leading to Fellmy’s arrest and charge for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky reviewed and denied Fellmy’s pretrial motion to suppress the drugs. The court found that officers lawfully ordered Fellmy out of the vehicle after a valid traffic stop and that the dog’s actions did not constitute an unlawful search because the officers did not encourage the dog to intrude into the car’s interior. The court also denied Fellmy’s motion in limine to exclude the drug evidence, ruling that concerns about authentication and chain of custody went to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility, and could be addressed during cross-examination. The drugs were admitted, and Fellmy was convicted by jury and sentenced to 300 months’ imprisonment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The Sixth Circuit held that ordering Fellmy out of the car after a valid stop was lawful and that the dog’s brief contact with the car did not amount to a Fourth Amendment search under prevailing legal standards. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the drug evidence or in denying an evidentiary hearing regarding the chain of custody. The conviction and sentence were affirmed. View "United States v. Fellmy" on Justia Law

Dustin Booth, who had a history of stable employment and no prior mental health issues, began exhibiting signs of severe mental illness in early 2022 after changes in his substance use. His erratic behavior escalated over several days, culminating in a violent incident at home and a lengthy standoff with police after he barricaded himself inside his house. Booth’s wife repeatedly sought police intervention, expressing concerns that he was a danger to himself and others, and noted his access to firearms. After attempts to calm Booth and persuade him to leave his house, he eventually left with a friend, taking a gun with him. Police stopped the vehicle, leading to a confrontation in which Booth brandished the firearm and was fatally shot by officers.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted summary judgment to the defendants on all federal claims. The district court held that the proposed accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)—that officers should have used de-escalation techniques—was unreasonable due to the safety risks posed by Booth. The court further found that the officers’ actions during the traffic stop and subsequent use of force, including the deployment of a police dog and takedown maneuver, were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. It also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.Upon review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision. The Sixth Circuit held that, as a matter of law, the ADA did not require officers to accommodate Booth’s disability in the face of objective safety risks. Additionally, the court found the officers had probable cause for a mental-health seizure and acted reasonably under the Fourth Amendment in both the stop and use of force. The judgment in favor of the defendants was affirmed. View "Booth v. Lazzara" on Justia Law

In 1989, a man committed a brutal murder at a Kentucky laundromat, killing a 61-year-old employee after she asked him to leave. After his arrest, he was charged with several crimes, including murder. Five years later, he pleaded guilty to all charges. He sought to have a judge, rather than a jury, decide his sentence, hoping for a more favorable outcome due to the nature of his crimes. After a series of legal maneuvers and a failed attempt to withdraw his guilty plea, a judge ultimately sentenced him to death, despite the presentation of significant mitigating evidence about his abusive childhood and mental health struggles.On direct appeal, the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed both his conviction and sentence, rejecting his arguments that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary and that the sentencing court had failed to consider all mitigating evidence. The court found that while the trial court’s plea colloquy did not specifically enumerate every right waived by pleading guilty, it was sufficient to show that the defendant understood the consequences. The court also concluded that the sentencing judge had considered all mitigating evidence, even if he found it unpersuasive.After exhausting state postconviction remedies, the petitioner filed a federal habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, raising multiple grounds for relief. The district court denied relief and declined to issue a certificate of appealability. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted a limited certificate and reviewed two claims de novo: whether the plea was knowing and voluntary, and whether the trial court failed to consider mitigating evidence.The Sixth Circuit held that the Kentucky Supreme Court had not unreasonably applied clearly established federal law in either respect. The record affirmatively demonstrated the petitioner’s understanding of his rights, and the sentencing court’s consideration of mitigation evidence was constitutionally adequate. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief. View "Johnson v. Plappert" on Justia Law

A former elected county prosecutor in Kentucky’s 21st Judicial Circuit was charged with Honest Services Wire Fraud, violations of the Travel Act, and Federal Program Bribery. The charges stemmed from an arrangement with a young woman, M.H., who repeatedly faced legal troubles. Evidence showed that the prosecutor agreed to help her with matters such as getting warrants withdrawn, charges reduced, and release from jail, in exchange for sexual acts and explicit images. The FBI discovered the scheme, leading to federal prosecution. At trial, the government presented incriminating text messages, testimony from M.H., and law enforcement, while the defendant claimed he did not solicit images and that M.H. was assisting in investigations—a claim disproved by evidence.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky oversaw the jury trial, which resulted in convictions on all counts. The court sentenced the defendant to 41 months in prison and imposed supervised release conditions, including refraining from excessive alcohol use. On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the defendant challenged the exclusion of certain testimony about Kentucky law, sufficiency of the evidence on several elements, the federal funding nexus for the bribery charge, the supervised release condition, and the sentencing court’s refusal to consider “collateral consequences.”The Sixth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion or violate constitutional rights in excluding expert legal opinion testimony and that the jury was properly instructed on the meaning of “official acts.” The court found overwhelming evidence supporting the verdict, including proof of a quid pro quo and an interstate nexus. The federal funding requirement was satisfied by evidence that the state received sufficient funds. The supervised release condition and sentencing decisions were not plainly erroneous. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in all respects. View "United States v. Goldy" on Justia Law

Jason Florence, while on supervised release for a prior federal child pornography conviction, was found in possession of a smartphone containing child pornography during an unscheduled home visit by his probation officer. The conditions of his supervised release prohibited him from possessing such devices without his probation officer's knowledge. A forensic analysis of the confiscated phone revealed over one hundred images and two videos of child pornography, some accessed shortly before the search. Florence admitted ownership of the phone and provided its passcode, and other evidence linked him to the device and the illicit materials.This case was tried before the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The parties stipulated to Florence’s prior convictions and the terms of his supervised release. After a two-day trial, a jury convicted Florence of possessing child pornography and found that the material depicted minors under 12 years old. At sentencing, the district court determined that Florence’s prior conviction triggered a statutory mandatory minimum sentence of ten years’ imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(2), and imposed a life term of supervised release. Florence objected, arguing that Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights required the jury to find the fact of his prior conviction, and he challenged the admission of his probation officer’s credibility testimony and the reasonableness of his sentence.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the district court did not err in finding the fact of Florence’s prior conviction and applying the mandatory minimum, citing the narrow exception in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, which allows a judge to find the fact of a prior conviction. The court found any error in admitting the probation officer’s credibility testimony harmless, given the overwhelming evidence of guilt. Finally, the Sixth Circuit held that the life term of supervised release was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Florence" on Justia Law

On the evening of Black Friday in 2021, two employees at a T-Mobile store in Columbus, Ohio were robbed at gunpoint by a masked individual who forced them into a back room, demanded phones and money, and sprayed them with mace before fleeing. Unbeknownst to the robber, a bait phone with a GPS tracker was included among the stolen items, allowing police to quickly locate and apprehend him after a high-speed chase. The suspect, Kevin Daniels, was arrested and, after waiving his Miranda rights during interrogation, admitted to the crime. A search of his vehicle found the stolen goods, a gun, and the disguise used in the robbery.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio presided over Daniels’s trial. He was indicted on three counts: Hobbs Act robbery, brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, and felon-in-possession of a firearm. After a jury convicted him on all counts, the district court calculated a sentencing guidelines range of 78 to 97 months for the robbery and possession offenses, and imposed the mandatory minimum 7-year sentence for the firearm offense, resulting in a total sentence of 181 months. Daniels raised various pretrial and sentencing challenges, including suppression of statements, issues with counsel, discovery violations, and objections to guideline enhancements.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed Daniels’s appeal, which included constitutional, evidentiary, instructional, and sentencing claims. The court held that Daniels knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights, that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying substitution of counsel, and that there was no reversible error related to discovery or jury instructions. The court also affirmed the application of the physical-restraint and bodily-injury enhancements, and found no error in the calculation of Daniels’s criminal history score. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Daniels" on Justia Law

HRT Enterprises owned an 11.8-acre parcel adjacent to Detroit’s Coleman A. Young International Airport, with about 20 percent of the property falling within a regulated runway “visibility zone” that restricted development. Over time, the City of Detroit acquired other properties in a nearby area for airport compliance but did not purchase HRT’s. By late 2008, HRT’s property had become vacant and vandalized, and HRT alleged it could no longer use, lease, or sell the property due to City actions and regulatory restrictions.HRT first sued the City in Michigan state court in 2002, alleging inverse condemnation, but the jury found for the City; the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. In 2008, HRT sued in federal court, but the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed the action without prejudice because HRT had not exhausted state remedies. HRT then filed a second state suit in 2009, which was dismissed on res judicata grounds; the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. HRT did not seek further review.In 2012, HRT filed the present action in federal court, alleging a de facto taking under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court denied the City’s preclusion arguments, granted summary judgment to HRT on liability, and held that a taking had occurred, leaving the date for the jury. A first jury found the taking occurred in 2009 and awarded $4.25 million; the court ordered remittitur to $2 million, then a second jury, after a new trial, awarded $1.97 million.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings, holding that HRT’s claim was ripe, not barred by claim or issue preclusion, that the district court properly granted summary judgment on liability, and that its remittitur decision was not an abuse of discretion. View "HRT Enterprises v. City of Detroit" on Justia Law