Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

In November 2021, a school shooting occurred at Oxford High School in Michigan, resulting in the deaths of four students and injuries to several others. This event had a profound impact on the local community, leading some families to transfer their children to other schools. Plaintiff C.S., a third-grade student at Robert Kerr Elementary School in Durand, Michigan, wore a hat depicting an AR-15-style rifle and the phrase "COME AND TAKE IT" to school during a "Hat Day" event. School officials, concerned about the potential for disruption given the recent shooting and the presence of transfer students from Oxford, asked C.S. to remove the hat.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the school officials, concluding that their actions were justified under the circumstances. The court found that the school officials reasonably forecasted a substantial disruption due to the hat's imagery and message, particularly considering the recent trauma experienced by some students.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the school officials did not violate C.S.'s First Amendment rights by asking her to remove the hat. The court emphasized the unique context of the recent school shooting and the young age of the students, which justified the school officials' concerns about potential disruption. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering the defendants' untimely motion for summary judgment. View "C.S. v. McCrumb" on Justia Law

In 2014, federal law enforcement began investigating a website known as "Playpen," used to distribute child pornography. The Department of Justice obtained a warrant to reveal the IP addresses of Playpen users, leading to the identification of Eric Schuster in Ohio. A search of Schuster's residence uncovered multiple devices containing thousands of images and videos of child pornography. In May 2016, Schuster was indicted on three felony child pornography counts and detained pretrial.The case experienced significant delays in the district court. Initially, Schuster requested several continuances to review discovery and prepare motions. Over the next three years, Schuster's litigation conduct, including filing and withdrawing motions and requesting new counsel, contributed to the delays. In April 2019, Schuster's motions were fully briefed, but the district court took no action for twenty months. In December 2020, Schuster requested a status conference, and the court stayed proceedings for additional discovery. Another eighteen months passed without action on Schuster's motions.Schuster moved to dismiss his indictment in August 2022, arguing the delay violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. The district court initially denied the motion but later reconsidered and dismissed the indictment with prejudice, finding the delay attributable to the court and the impact of incarceration during the COVID-19 pandemic.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and applied the Barker v. Wingo factors. The court found that Schuster was responsible for much of the delay and failed to assert his right to a speedy trial in a timely and consistent manner. Additionally, Schuster did not demonstrate substantial prejudice resulting from the delay. The court concluded that Schuster's Sixth Amendment right was not violated and reversed the district court's decision, allowing the prosecution to proceed. View "United States v. Schuster" on Justia Law

Sonya Kenette Brown, a City Council member in Albion, Michigan, was prosecuted for allegedly violating a City Charter provision that prohibits council members from directing the appointment or removal of city employees. Brown claimed that her political opponents on the City Council engaged in retaliatory prosecution and arrest, malicious prosecution, and conspiracy to violate her civil rights. She also challenged the constitutionality of the City Charter provision.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan dismissed Brown's claims of retaliatory prosecution and arrest, malicious prosecution, and conspiracy, finding that there was probable cause for her prosecution based on her Facebook messages. The court also granted summary judgment to the defendants on Brown's claim that the City Charter provision was unconstitutional.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Brown's claims, agreeing that there was probable cause for her prosecution. The court found that Brown's Facebook messages provided sufficient evidence to believe she had violated the City Charter by directing the removal of a city employee. The court also held that the City Charter provision was not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, as it provided clear standards and did not prohibit a substantial amount of protected speech.The Sixth Circuit concluded that Brown's claims failed because she could not demonstrate an absence of probable cause, and the City Charter provision was constitutionally valid. The court affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Brown v. City of Albion, Mich." on Justia Law

Lathfield Investments, LLC, Lathfield Holdings, LLC, and Lathfield Partners, LLC (collectively, "Lathfield") own three commercial buildings in Lathrup Village, Michigan, rented to various commercial tenants. The City of Lathrup Village and its Downtown Development Authority (collectively, the "City") require landlords to obtain a rental license and list each tenant's name and principal business. Lathfield applied for a landlord rental license in July 2020 but did not list the required tenant information, leading to the denial of their application and their tenants' business license applications. Lathfield sued the City, alleging unlawful compulsion to apply for unnecessary licenses and make unnecessary property improvements, bringing eleven claims, nine against the City.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment to the City on all nine claims. Lathfield appealed, arguing that the City improperly required site plan approval, violated due process and equal protection rights, and engaged in inverse condemnation, among other claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Lathfield's request for declaratory relief regarding site plan approval was moot since the site plan process was already completed. The court also found that Lathfield was required to obtain a general business license under the City Code and that the City Code's tenant registration requirement applied to Lathfield. The court rejected Lathfield's due process claims, noting that the City’s adoption of the Michigan Building Code was a legislative act not subject to procedural due process requirements. The court also dismissed Lathfield's equal protection claim due to a lack of evidence of differential treatment and found no basis for the Contracts Clause claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Lastly, the court concluded that Lathfield failed to establish an inverse condemnation claim or a civil conspiracy. View "Lathfield Investments, LLC v. City of Lathrup Village, Mich." on Justia Law

Police stopped Prince Irell Seuell in Van Buren County, Michigan, in November 2023, discovering drugs, a semiautomatic pistol, and an outstanding warrant. Seuell pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon, and the government dropped the drug distribution charge. The presentence report calculated a Guidelines range of 70 to 87 months, and the district court sentenced Seuell to 70 months.Seuell challenged his conviction and sentence. He argued that the felon-in-possession statute violated the Second Amendment as applied to him, but he waived this argument at sentencing. The district court offered to appoint new counsel to file a motion challenging the statute, but Seuell chose to proceed with sentencing without raising the motion. The court found this waiver binding.Seuell also contested the base offense level set by the presentence report, arguing that he did not know his pistol could carry a large capacity magazine. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the relevant Guideline does not contain a state-of-mind requirement and applies whenever the firearm qualifies. The court noted that the Sentencing Commission knew how to add a state-of-mind requirement when it wished to do so and rejected Seuell's argument.Additionally, Seuell challenged the district court’s enhancement for using a firearm in connection with another offense. The Sixth Circuit found no clear error in the district court’s finding that Seuell committed another felony offense and connected his pistol to drug trafficking. The court noted that the drugs and drug paraphernalia were found in close proximity to the loaded pistol, supporting the enhancement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed Seuell’s conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Seuell" on Justia Law

Three federal prisoners, Jason Bricker, Ellis McHenry, and Lois Orta, sought compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), citing a new policy statement by the Sentencing Commission, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6). This policy allows for sentence reductions based on nonretroactive changes in the law if certain conditions are met, including serving at least 10 years of an "unusually long sentence" and a "gross disparity" between the actual and hypothetical sentences under current law.In the Northern District of Ohio, the district court granted Bricker's motion for compassionate release, finding that his sentence would be significantly shorter under current law. The court acknowledged a Sixth Circuit precedent, United States v. McCall, which held that nonretroactive changes in the law are not "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for sentence reduction, but asserted that the Sentencing Commission had overruled this precedent. The government appealed this decision.In McHenry's case, the district court denied his motion for compassionate release, stating that applying the new policy would require disregarding the statutory mandatory minimum and the binding precedent set by McCall. Similarly, in Orta's case, the district court denied the motion, relying on McCall to conclude that nonretroactive changes in sentencing law do not constitute "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for release. Both McHenry and Orta appealed these decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the consolidated appeals and held that the Sentencing Commission overstepped its authority with U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6). The court concluded that the policy statement was invalid as it conflicted with the statute and the separation of powers. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's decision in Bricker's case and affirmed the denials in McHenry's and Orta's cases, denying compassionate release for all three prisoners. View "United States v. Bricker" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Ohio voters and members of an initiative petition committee, sought to amend the Ohio Constitution through two ballot initiatives. The Ohio Attorney General, David Yost, rejected their proposed summaries eight times, preventing them from collecting signatures. Plaintiffs argued that this violated their First Amendment rights. The district court agreed, issuing a preliminary injunction ordering Yost to certify the summaries. However, the district court stayed the injunction pending appeal.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio initially denied preliminary injunctive relief, but a panel of the Sixth Circuit reversed, finding that the fair-and-truthful review process likely violated Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. The en banc Sixth Circuit later vacated this decision, deeming the case moot as the targeted election had passed. Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint and sought a second preliminary injunction, which the district court granted, but stayed pending appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and agreed with the district court that Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights were likely violated. The court found that the fair-and-truthful certification process allowed the Attorney General to exercise editorial control over the petition summaries, which constituted a severe burden on Plaintiffs' core political speech. The court also determined that the other stay factors did not favor Yost. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit granted Plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay, allowing them to proceed with their petition efforts. View "Brown v. Yost" on Justia Law

Dwayne Robinson was convicted by a jury for unlawfully possessing a firearm as a felon. The district court imposed the Armed Career Criminal Act’s (ACCA) minimum punishment, finding that Robinson had three prior qualifying offenses committed on different occasions. Robinson appealed, raising four claims: a Sixth Amendment violation due to the district court responding to a jury note without his counsel’s input, the court’s failure to grant a mistrial after detectives implied he had shot at someone, incorrect jury instructions regarding gun ownership and possession, and the district court’s application of the ACCA without a jury determination on whether his prior offenses occurred on different occasions.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville initially reviewed the case. Robinson did not properly object to the court’s response to the jury note, the failure to grant a mistrial, or the jury instructions, leading to a review for plain error. The district court found Robinson’s three prior offenses occurred on different occasions, thus applying the ACCA’s mandatory minimum sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Robinson’s failure to object to the jury note response, mistrial denial, and jury instructions meant these issues were reviewed for plain error. The court found no obvious mistakes in these areas. Regarding the ACCA application, the court acknowledged intervening Supreme Court precedent requiring a jury to determine if prior offenses occurred on different occasions. However, the court found this error harmless because the record clearly showed Robinson’s offenses were separated by many years. Thus, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Robinson" on Justia Law

Fathiree Ali, a Muslim inmate, requested the Michigan Department of Corrections to provide him with a halal diet, which is required by his religion. The prison chaplain directed him to apply for the vegan meal option, but another official rejected his application after discovering that Ali had purchased over one hundred non-halal items from the prison commissary. Ali then sued the chaplain, the special activities coordinator, the warden, and the Michigan Department of Corrections under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), the Free Exercise Clause, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan dismissed Ali’s claims against the Department of Corrections and granted summary judgment in favor of the officials. Ali appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and dismissed Ali’s appeal in part for lack of jurisdiction and affirmed the rest of the district court’s decision. The court held that RLUIPA does not authorize money-damages claims against officials sued in their official or individual capacities. The court also found that Ali’s claims for injunctive relief against the chaplain and warden were moot because they no longer had the power to adjust his meal plan after his transfer to a different prison. Additionally, the court held that Ali’s claim for injunctive relief against the special activities coordinator was moot because the coordinator no longer worked for the Department of Corrections.The court concluded that Ali did not have a cognizable claim for injunctive or declaratory relief under RLUIPA because he had alternatives to access halal meat and could reapply for the vegan meal plan. The court also found that Ali failed to state a claim against the Michigan Department of Corrections as he did not identify a policy that violated RLUIPA. Finally, the court held that the officials were entitled to qualified immunity on Ali’s Free Exercise Clause claims under § 1983. View "Ali v. Adamson" on Justia Law

Faytima Howard failed to pay her property taxes, leading Macomb County, Michigan, to seize and sell her property in 2023. Howard sued, claiming the county violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment by keeping proceeds exceeding her tax debt. Previously, Michigan's foreclosure regime was found unconstitutional for not compensating property owners for the surplus from foreclosure sales. However, Michigan amended its law in 2020 to allow property owners to claim any surplus value from foreclosed properties. Howard did not utilize this process.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed Howard's complaint for failure to state a claim. The court noted that Michigan's amended law provided a procedure for property owners to claim surplus proceeds, which Howard did not follow. The district court concluded that because Howard did not take advantage of the process, her claim was invalid.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Michigan's procedure for claiming surplus proceeds from foreclosure sales complies with the Takings Clause, as it provides property owners with a reasonable opportunity to claim any surplus. The court distinguished this case from others where no such process was available, emphasizing that Howard's failure to follow the state procedure meant no taking occurred. The court also rejected Howard's arguments that the process was overly burdensome and that the lack of interest and attorney's fees constituted a taking. The court concluded that Michigan's procedures are constitutionally sound and do not violate the Fifth Amendment. View "Howard v. Macomb Cnty., Mich." on Justia Law