Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Witzke is currently serving four sentences in the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) for using forged financial instruments. In May 2013, the Parole Board released Witzke on parole for a 15-month term. A year later, authorities arrested him for eight alleged parole violations, including a new criminal conviction for using a fake check. An MDOC agent found probable cause for all eight counts. Witzke pled guilty to two counts. At a second hearing, another MDOC officer dismissed all remaining counts except the fraudulent check violation. Finding Witzke guilty of that violation, the officer recommended revocation of Witzke’s parole. The Parole Board adopted the recommendation. Without seeking relief in Michigan courts, Witzke filed a pro se habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254, alleging violation of his due process rights and requesting a new hearing before the Parole Board. The district court summarily dismissed his petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies. While his appeal was pending, the Parole Board re-released Witzke on parole. He will finish serving his sentence for his underlying criminal conviction in May 2017. The Sixth Circuit dismissed his appeal as moot, stating that there was nothing to remedy. View "Witzke v. Brewer" on Justia Law

Ohio sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, alleging that the federal government illegally collected certain monies from the state in order to supplement the Affordable Care Act’s Transitional Reinsurance Program, 42 U.S.C. 18061. The Program is a premium-stabilization arrangement that aims to combat volatility in the individual market by collecting payments from “health insurance issuers” and “group health plans” and distributing those payments over a three-year period to health insurance issuers that cover high-risk individuals in the individual market. Arguing that the Program’s mandatory payment scheme applies only to private employers and not to state and local government employers, Ohio sought a refund of all payments made on its behalf and a declaration that the Program would not apply to the state in the future. Ohio also argued that application of the Program against the state violated the Tenth Amendment and principles of intergovernmental tax immunity. The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal, holding that the Program applies to state and local government employers just as it applies to private employers, and that the Program as applied to Ohio does not violate the Tenth Amendment. View "Ohio v. United States" on Justia Law

Before his jury trial on charges of murder, Watkins submitted four times to psychiatric evaluation. Though the first evaluator found him incompetent, subsequent evaluators found him competent and criminally responsible for his actions. Despite his bizarre behavior during trial, including exhibiting paranoid beliefs and urinating on a television screen, defense counsel did not request a fifth psychiatric evaluation. A jury found Watkins guilty. Nearly four years after filing a timely habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for “failure to investigate and raise a defense,” Watkins filed an amended petition arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to request another psychiatric evaluation after Watkins’ conduct during trial. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of habeas relief. Watkins cannot establish that his amended petition relates back to his original petition or that he is entitled to equitable tolling; the petition was, therefore, untimely. View "Watkins v. DeAngelo-Kipp" on Justia Law

The Jackson County Michigan Board of Commissioners begins its monthly meetings with a Christian prayer. Bormuth, a non-Christian county resident, attended meetings because he was concerned about environmental issues. During the prayer, Bormuth was the only one in attendance who did not rise and bow his head. Bormuth felt isolated, and worried that the Commissioners would hold against him his decision to stay seated. He later raised the First Amendment issue during a public comment period. The Commissioners reacted with “disgust.” Bormuth filed suit asserting that this prayer practice violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. In the meantime, the Commissioners declined Bormuth’s application to serve on an environmental committee. The district court granted the County summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit reversed. The prayer practice coerced residents to support and participate in the exercise of religion and was well outside the tradition of historically tolerated prayer. View "Bormuth v. County of Jackson" on Justia Law

Moore was convicted in 1994 of kidnapping, robbery, and murder. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed. The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed denial of post-conviction relief. The Ohio Supreme Court denied review. Moore applied to reopen his appeal, claiming ineffective assistance by counsel in his first appeal. The Ohio Court of Appeals denied the application as untimely and based on res judicata. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed. The district court granted federal habeas relief on claims that Moore had received ineffective assistance at sentencing and alleging improper jury instructions in the penalty phase. The Sixth Circuit remanded in part, holding that a 2011 Supreme Court decision precluded the district court from considering additional evidence that Moore had introduced in support of his ineffective assistance claim and rejecting Moore’s argument that the Supreme Court’s 2012 Martinez decision required remand for factual development of the claim. Moore moved to set aside the judgment, arguing that the Supreme Court’s 2013 Trevino decision permitted him to use newly-developed evidence of ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel to establish cause for his failure to present evidence to support his post-conviction claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The district court denied relief. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Trevino expanded Martinez only to cases in which an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim could not have been made meaningfully on direct appeal. Moore made that claim on direct appeal; the Ohio Supreme Court adjudicated it on the merits. View "Moore v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

Turner robbed four Memphis-area businesses at gunpoint in October 2007 and was arrested by officers working with a joint federal-state anticrime task force. He was charged with aggravated robbery under Tennessee law and retained attorney McDaniel. During the pendency of the state proceedings, the U.S. Attorney’s Office told McDaniel that the United States planned to bring federal charges against Turner under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951, for interference with commerce by threats or violence, and for using a firearm during a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. 924(c). Turner rejected a federal plea offer (15 years imprisonment) regarding the uncharged case, but subsequently pled guilty to those charges with a 25-year sentence. He moved, under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to vacate or set aside his federal conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel during federal plea negotiations. The government argued that Turner had no Sixth Amendment right to counsel regarding plea negotiations conducted before the filing of formal charges. The district court denied the motion without reaching the merits of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, citing its precedent holding that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not attach before formal charges are filed. View "Turner v. United States" on Justia Law

White County parents formed the Association for Accurate Standards in Education (AASE) to oppose another group advocating for removal of a social studies textbook that includes discussion of Islam. Eight part-time volunteers comprise AASE. It does not have a separate bank account and does not keep regular records. Five or six people have donated to AASE. No individual donation has exceeded $200; total donations have not reached $500. Seats on the Board of Education were up for election in 2016. AASE parents wanted to support and oppose candidates through AASE. They did not want AASE to make direct campaign contributions, but wanted AASE to spend less than $250 on independent expenditures, including yard signs, stickers, and brochures. They learned that the Tennessee Registry of Election Finance had fined Williamson Strong, an unincorporated group that disseminates information about candidates and issues in Williamson County, $5,000 for failing to certify a treasurer or file financial disclosure statements under Tenn. Code 2-10-102(12)(A), which defines a political campaign committee as: A combination of two or more individuals . . . to support or oppose any candidate. They sued the Registry’s officials in their official capacities under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming that the Act violates their First Amendment, equal protection, and due process rights. The district court stayed the case pending the outcome of the state administrative proceedings in the Williamson Strong case. The Sixth Circuit reversed. Abstention was improper in this case, in light of the Act’s alleged chilling effects. View "Jones v. Coleman" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs each owned real property in Van Buren County, Michigan in but failed to pay property taxes for 2011. In 2012, the properties became subject to forfeiture and foreclosure. In 2014, the circuit court issued a foreclosure judgment; title to the properties passed in fee simple absolute to the county. Months later, the county sold the properties at an auction. The minimum bid for each of the properties was calculated by totaling “[a]ll delinquent taxes, interest, penalties, and fees due on the property” plus the “expenses of administering the sale, including all preparations for the sale.” Wayside Church’s former property had a minimum bid of $16,750, but sold for $206,000. The minimum bid for the Stahl property was $25,000; the property sold for $68,750. The Hodgens property required a minimum bid of $5,900, but sold for $47,750. Plaintiffs sought return of the surplus funds, citing 42 U.S.C. 1983, and alleging that they had a cognizable property interest in their foreclosed properties and in the surplus proceeds generated by the sales, so that Defendants were required to pay just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. The Sixth Circuit vacated dismissal for failure to state a claim and remanded for dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. the district court erred in finding that the claims were not barred by the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. 1341, and the doctrine of comity. View "Wayside Church v. Van Buren County" on Justia Law

The Michigan Campaign Finance Act, Mich. Comp. Laws 169.254, generally bars corporations and labor unions from contributing to political candidates and organizations, but permits them to form and contribute to political action committees (PACs), which may make political contributions. A recent amendment defines a prohibited expenditure to include the administrative expenses of operating a payroll deduction program unless the deductions go to the corporation’s or union’s own PAC or a PAC established by a nonprofit corporation of which that entity is a member. Unions challenged the restriction under the Contracts Clause and First Amendment. Unions do not employ the bulk of their authorized donor base. To obtain payroll deductions in the past, unions secured agreements from employers to deduct PAC contributions from union members’ wages. The district court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the law on both grounds. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the Contracts Clause ruling and reversed the First Amendment ruling. The Contracts Clause, prohibits the state from enforcing the contested provision with respect to pre-existing PAC check-off obligations through the end of the relevant collective bargaining agreements. The state’s “decision not to subsidize the exercise of a fundamental right” did not itself infringe that right. View "Michigan State AFL-CIO v. Schuette" on Justia Law

King confessed to an acquaintance and to a Tennessee Bureau of Investigation agent that, after drinking large amounts of alcohol, ingesting LSD, and Quaaludes, and engaging in sexual intercourse, King drove Smith to a wooded area and shot her in the back of the head. King’s trial counsel suspected that King had brain damage as a result of a childhood head injury and substance abuse. An expert report concluded that King did not manifest evidence of psychotic thought process nor organic brain syndrome, but recommended an electroencephalogram and psychological testing. The expert later testified that an electroencephalogram was not necessary; the court denied a motion for such testing. Defense counsel suggested in his opening statement that King’s intoxicated state influenced his actions. The defense changed strategy after King’s former girlfriend testified about his violence against her. There was testimony about King sniffing gasoline “several times a week.” The jury found King guilty of first-degree murder and recommended death by electrocution, which the trial court imposed. King’s appeals and petitions for state post-conviction relief, based on ineffective assistance of counsel, were unsuccessful. The Sixth Circuit affirmed denial of a federal habeas petition, rejecting arguments that counsel was ineffective for failing to present testimony about King’s intoxication at the time of the murder and failing to investigate adequately King’s mental health and to obtain expert assistance in a timely manner. View "King v. Westbrooks" on Justia Law