Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

A group of professional auctioneers in Tennessee, including both licensed and unlicensed individuals, challenged a state law requiring auctioneers to obtain a license before conducting extended-time online auctions. The law, originally enacted in 1967 and updated in 2019 to address online auction formats, exempts certain types of online sales, such as fixed-price listings and timed listings that do not extend based on bidding activity. The plaintiffs, who conduct extended-time online auctions, argued that the licensing requirement infringed on their First Amendment rights by restricting their ability to communicate with potential buyers and craft narratives about auction items.Previously, one of the plaintiffs, McLemore, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, challenging the law under both the First Amendment and the Dormant Commerce Clause. The district court granted summary judgment on the Dormant Commerce Clause claim but did not address the First Amendment issue. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit vacated that decision for lack of standing and remanded with instructions to dismiss. Subsequently, McLemore and additional plaintiffs filed a new lawsuit, focusing on the First Amendment claim. The district court dismissed the case, holding that the law regulated professional conduct rather than speech and applied rational basis review, relying on the Sixth Circuit’s prior decision in Liberty Coins, LLC v. Goodman.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that Tennessee’s licensing requirement for auctioneers regulates economic activity and professional conduct, not speech, and that any burden on speech is incidental. The court applied rational basis review and concluded that the law is rationally related to the state’s legitimate interest in preventing fraud and incompetence in auctioneering. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "McLemore v. Gumucio" on Justia Law

Michael and Susan Mockeridge purchased a remote 40-acre property in northern Michigan, where they installed five prefabricated mini-cabins near their main cabin for family use. After neighbors became concerned that the property was being operated as a public campground, they filed complaints with local authorities. In response, three government officials—Harry Harvey, David Schmidt, and Kenneth Gibson—entered the Mockeridges’ property without a warrant or consent, inspected the mini-cabins and their surroundings, and gathered information regarding potential code violations. The officials’ entry was not via the customary driveway but through adjacent private land and dense woods, and at the time, the cabins were unoccupied.The Mockeridges subsequently received a letter from the county classifying their property as a campground and requiring licensing. After applying for permits and being told they would face penalties for prior unpermitted work, the Mockeridges filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Mockeridges on liability, denied qualified immunity to the officials, and found the only remaining issue was damages. The officials appealed the denial of qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. The court held that the officials’ warrantless entry into the curtilage of the Mockeridges’ mini-cabins for the purpose of gathering information about code compliance constituted an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. The court further held that the right to be free from such a warrantless search was clearly established at the time of the officials’ conduct. The court dismissed the Mockeridges’ cross-appeal and denied as moot a motion by Alcona County. View "Mockeridge v. Harvey" on Justia Law

A man in Michigan was found by sheriff’s deputies shooting a rifle in his backyard while intoxicated and under the influence of marijuana. Upon investigation, deputies discovered multiple firearms, three pipe bombs, and a large amount of ammunition in his home. The man admitted to regularly using marijuana and building the pipe bombs himself. He was convicted under state law for possessing a firearm while intoxicated and later pleaded guilty in federal court to possessing unregistered firearms (the pipe bombs).The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, following the Sentencing Guidelines, determined that the defendant was a “prohibited person” under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) due to his unlawful drug use and firearm possession. This resulted in a higher base offense level and a sentencing range of 46 to 57 months; the court imposed a 52-month sentence. The defendant objected, arguing that applying § 922(g)(3) to him violated the Second Amendment, but the district court rejected this argument, finding that he posed a threat to the public.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed whether § 922(g)(3) could constitutionally be applied to the defendant. The court held that, under its precedent and Supreme Court guidance, Congress may disarm groups it deems dangerous, provided individuals have an opportunity to show they are not actually dangerous. The court found that the defendant’s conduct—firing a rifle while drunk and high in a residential area—demonstrated he was dangerous. Therefore, the application of § 922(g)(3) to him was constitutional, and the district court’s sentence was affirmed. View "United States v. VanOchten" on Justia Law

The case concerns a defendant who, while driving in Memphis, Tennessee, nearly collided with a police vehicle. When officers attempted to stop him, he fired several shots at them, with one bullet striking the police car and narrowly missing an officer. After a pursuit that ended in a crash, the defendant was arrested. A search of his vehicle revealed a loaded Glock 23 handgun equipped with a device that converted it into a machinegun, as defined by federal law. The defendant did not have a valid registration for the machinegun and did not dispute that the weapon met the statutory definition.A grand jury indicted the defendant for possessing a machinegun in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). He moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the statute was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, both facially and as applied to him, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen. The United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee denied the motion, holding that § 922(o) was constitutional. The defendant then pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 108 months in prison, after which he appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that its prior decision in Hamblen v. United States, which upheld the constitutionality of § 922(o) under District of Columbia v. Heller, remained binding after Bruen because Bruen did not alter the relevant aspects of Heller. The court further conducted an independent analysis under the text-and-history methodology set forth in Heller and Bruen, concluding that § 922(o) is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of prohibiting private possession of dangerous and unusual weapons. The court therefore affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that § 922(o) is constitutional both on its face and as applied to the defendant. View "United States v. Bridges" on Justia Law

After completing a prison sentence for a prior conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm, the defendant began a term of supervised release. Less than two months later, he was arrested after police responded to a report that he had threatened someone with a gun. Officers found a firearm at the scene, and the defendant admitted to possessing it. He was initially charged in state court, but the state charges were dismissed after a federal indictment for being a felon in possession of a firearm was issued. The conduct also constituted a violation of the conditions of his supervised release from the earlier federal conviction.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio handled both the new substantive offense and the supervised-release violation in joint proceedings. The defendant pleaded guilty to the new firearm charge and, at a subsequent hearing, admitted to the supervised-release violation. The district court sentenced him to 96 months for the new offense and 24 months for the supervised-release violation, to be served consecutively. The defendant appealed, arguing that he did not knowingly waive his right to a revocation hearing, that the district court misapplied sentencing factors for the supervised-release violation, and that his sentence for the substantive offense was based on an improper application of the career-offender enhancement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a revocation hearing and that the district court properly applied the career-offender enhancement for the substantive offense. However, the appellate court held that the district court erred by considering retributive and punishment factors, which are not permitted under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) as clarified by the Supreme Court’s decision in Esteras v. United States, when sentencing for the supervised-release violation. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the substantive offense sentence, reversed the revocation sentence, and remanded for resentencing on the supervised-release violation. View "United States v. Hoyle" on Justia Law

Several chambers of commerce, including regional and national organizations, brought a lawsuit on behalf of their pharmaceutical-manufacturer members challenging the constitutionality of the Drug Price Negotiation Program established by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. This federal program authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate prices for certain high-expenditure drugs sold to Medicare and Medicaid. Among the plaintiffs’ members were AbbVie Inc. and its subsidiary Pharmacyclics LLC, manufacturers of a drug selected for the first round of negotiations. Notably, Pharmacyclics joined the Dayton and Ohio Chambers only after the litigation began, while AbbVie had longstanding membership in several chambers.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio reviewed the case after the government moved to dismiss, arguing that the Dayton Chamber lacked associational standing and that venue was therefore improper. The district court allowed limited discovery and permitted the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. Ultimately, the district court dismissed the case, holding that the regional chambers’ purposes were not sufficiently related to the interests at stake in the lawsuit, and thus they lacked associational standing. The court also found that, without standing for the Dayton and Ohio Chambers, venue in the Southern District of Ohio was improper and declined to transfer the case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Sixth Circuit held that the interests asserted in the lawsuit were not germane to the purposes of the Dayton, Ohio, or Michigan Chambers, as their regional missions were too remote from the national pharmaceutical issues at stake. The court further concluded that, with no plaintiff residing in the district, venue was improper. The judgment of dismissal for improper venue was therefore affirmed. View "Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce v. Kennedy" on Justia Law

A Michigan landlord who owns several rental properties in Oak Park challenged the city’s housing code, specifically its requirement that landlords consent to property inspections as a condition for obtaining a rental license. The city’s code mandates that landlords apply for a license and certificate of compliance, which involves an initial inspection and periodic re-inspections. The landlord refused to sign the consent form for inspections, resulting in the city withholding his license and issuing fines for renting without one. Despite these penalties, he continued to rent out his properties.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in favor of the city. The district court found that the landlord lacked standing to bring a Fourth Amendment claim because there had been no warrantless, nonconsensual inspection. It also ruled that the city’s licensing and inspection regime did not violate the Fourth Amendment or impose unconstitutional conditions, and that the landlord’s Equal Protection claim was without merit.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the landlord did have standing to challenge the licensing scheme under the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine, as the denial of a license for refusing to consent to inspections constituted a cognizable injury. However, the court concluded that the city’s requirement of consent to an initial inspection as a condition of licensing was reasonable and did not violate the Fourth Amendment, drawing on Supreme Court precedent distinguishing between reasonable conditions for public benefits and coercive mandates. The court also found that the city’s inspection requirements for one- and two-family rentals did not violate the Equal Protection Clause, as the classification was rationally related to legitimate public health and safety goals. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Herschfus v. City of Oak Park" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, including Mike Yoder and his company Drone Deer Recovery, LLC (DDR), along with hunter Jeremy Funke, challenged a Michigan law that bans the use of drones to hunt or collect downed game. DDR uses drones equipped with infrared cameras to locate downed game and provide hunters with GPS coordinates. Plaintiffs argued that the law prevents DDR from operating in Michigan, violating their First Amendment rights to create, disseminate, and receive information.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan dismissed the complaint, holding that Plaintiffs lacked standing and failed to state a claim. The court found that the law did not prohibit the dissemination of location information but only the use of drones to locate game, which it deemed non-speech conduct. The court also concluded that the alleged injury was not redressable because the law would still prohibit drone use even if the requested injunction was granted.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and found that Plaintiffs had standing but failed to state a claim. The court determined that Plaintiffs' intended conduct of using drones to create and share location information was arguably affected with a constitutional interest and that there was a credible threat of enforcement under the Michigan law. However, the court applied intermediate scrutiny, finding the law content-neutral and justified by substantial governmental interests in conservation and fair-chase hunting principles. The court concluded that the law was narrowly tailored to achieve these interests and did not violate the First Amendment.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint, holding that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. View "Yoder v. Bowen" on Justia Law

In the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, Ohio ordered the closure of "non-essential businesses." A group of dance-studio owners filed a lawsuit in federal court, alleging that various state and local officials had violated their constitutional rights by issuing these orders. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed this dismissal on August 22, 2022. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing against all defendants except former Ohio Director of Public Health Amy Acton and that the plaintiffs' substantive-due-process and equal-protection claims failed under rational-basis review. The court also affirmed the district court's rejection of the plaintiffs' takings claim.After the appellate court affirmed the dismissal, the district court issued a sanctions order against the plaintiffs' attorneys, Thomas B. Renz and Robert J. Gargasz, for their extensive legal failings throughout the case. The attorneys appealed the sanctions order. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision to impose sanctions. The appellate court agreed that the attorneys had violated Rule 11 by presenting a complaint that was haphazard, incomprehensible, and littered with factual and legal errors. The court also upheld the imposition of sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, finding that the attorneys had unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the proceedings with frivolous claims.The appellate court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting sanctions and awarding attorney's fees and costs. The court emphasized that the attorneys' conduct fell short of the obligations owed by members of the bar and that the extreme sanction of attorney's fees was warranted given the egregious nature of their legal failings. The appellate court affirmed the district court's holding that the attorneys violated Rule 11 and section 1927 and upheld the grant of attorney's fees and costs. View "Bojicic v. DeWine" on Justia Law

Matthew Warman, a former graduate student at Mount St. Joseph University (MSJU), objected to taking the COVID-19 vaccine on religious grounds. When MSJU required all students and employees to be vaccinated, Warman applied for a religious exemption. He was allegedly detained by two MSJU Police Department officers who attempted to convince him to get vaccinated and disparaged his religious beliefs. Warman later sued MSJU, MSJPD, and several individual employees.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismissed Warman’s complaint. The court dismissed his free exercise, equal protection, and disability discrimination claims with prejudice and dismissed MSJPD from all counts with prejudice. Warman appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Warman’s free exercise, equal protection, and disability discrimination claims. However, the court found that Warman plausibly pleaded that the two officers who detained him violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Consequently, the court reversed the district court’s dismissal of Warman’s wrongful detention claim and reinstated the claim against those defendants. The court also vacated the district court’s declination of supplemental jurisdiction over Warman’s state-law claims and remanded for reconsideration.In summary, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of most of Warman’s claims but reinstated his Fourth Amendment wrongful detention claim against the two officers and remanded the state-law claims for further consideration. View "Warman v. Mount St. Joseph University" on Justia Law