Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

In 1998, Juston Shaw was convicted in Texas state court on a charge of sexual assault. Roughly ten years later, he moved to Oklahoma. When he did, his sexual-assault conviction triggered application of the Oklahoma Sex Offenders Registration Act. Shaw challenged his registration obligation, arguing the Oklahoma Act constituted unconstitutional retroactive punishment. The district court disagreed, holding that the statute's retroactive application didn't amount to punishment. On appeal, the issue presented for the Tenth Circuit's review was whether Shaw’s restrictions on reporting, residency, and loitering constitute retroactive punishment in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. Responding in the negative, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. View "Shaw v. Patton" on Justia Law

J.S. is the mother of M.S., a child covered by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). M.S. was a residential student at the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind (“USDB”). Believing USDB was not complying with IDEA’s procedural requirements and was not providing M.S. with free appropriate public education (FAPE), J.S. sought a due process hearing. Unsatisfied with the relief she obtained in that hearing, J.S. filed a civil action in federal court, and appealed the district court decision granting her additional limited relief. She asserts the district court erred when it: (1) delegated its authority to resolve the propriety of M.S.’s residential placement to members of the team tasked with developing M.S.’s individualized education program (“IEP”); and (2) granted her only a partial award of attorneys’ fees. The Tenth Circuit concluded the district court delegated the issue of M.S.’s residential placement to her IEP team and that such delegation "[was] at odds with" 20 U.S.C. 1415. The Court remanded this case to the district court to resolve the issue of M.S.’s residential placement and reconsideration of the attorney fee award. View "M.S. v. Utah School for the Deaf" on Justia Law

Brian Von Behren was serving a three-year term of supervised release stemming from a 2005 conviction for distribution of child pornography. One of the conditions of his release was modified to require that he successfully complete a sex offender treatment program, including a sexual history polygraph requiring him to answer questions regarding whether he had committed sexual crimes for which he was never charged. Von Behren contended that the polygraph condition violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The district court disagreed and held that the polygraph exam questions did not pose a danger of incrimination in the constitutional sense. Von Behren refused to answer the sexual history questions, thereby requiring the treatment provider to expel him from the program and subjecting him to potential revocation of his supervised release for violating the condition of supervision. The Tenth Circuit reversed on the Fifth Amendment issue. View "United States v. Von Behren" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned two suits: one in state and one in federal court, and statutory limitations on the power of the federal court to enjoin the state court case. In the federal case, the Utah Attorney General and the Board of Tooele County Commissioners sued the federal government under the Quiet Title Act, attempting to quiet title in favor of Utah for hundreds of rights of way in Tooele County, Utah. Five environmental groups opposed this suit, and the federal district court permitted the groups to intervene. In the state court case, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and Mr. Michael Abdo, a Tooele County resident, claimed that the Utah officials lacked authority under state law to prosecute the quiet-title action in federal court. The Utah officials asked the federal court to enjoin the Wilderness Alliance and Mr. Abdo from prosecuting the state-court case. The federal district court granted the request and entered a temporary restraining order enjoining the Wilderness Alliance and Mr. Abdo for an indefinite period of time. The Wilderness Alliance and Mr. Abdo appealed, raising two issues: (1) whether the Tenth Circuit had jurisdiction to hear the appeal; and (2) did the federal district court have the authority to enjoin the state-court suit? After concluding it had jurisdiction to hear this appeal, the Tenth Circuit then concluded that the federal district court did not have authority to enjoin the Utah state court. "The All Writs Act grants a district court expansive authority to issue 'all writs necessary.' But the Anti-Injunction Act generally prohibits federal courts from enjoining state-court suits." An exception exists when an injunction is "in aid of" the federal court’s exercise of its jurisdiction. This exception applies when: (1) the federal and state court exercise in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction over the same res; and (2) the federal court is the first to take possession of the res. These circumstances are absent because the state-court action was neither in rem nor quasi in rem. Thus, the district court’s order violated the Anti-Injunction Act. View "Tooele County v. United States" on Justia Law

Petitioner-appellant Robert McCormick unsuccessfully petitioned for habeas relief from his conviction for child sexual abuse. He alleged the State of Oklahoma violated his due process rights when the prosecution suppressed evidence regarding the credentials of a witness who testified falsely that she was a certified sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE nurse) at the time of trial. After review of the district court's judgment, the Tenth Circuit concluded that, under the circumstances of this case, the SANE nurse was a member of the prosecution team. As such, the Court imputed her knowledge of her own lack of credentials to the prosecutor, who was obligated to disclose this impeachment evidence to the defense. Accordingly, the Court held the prosecution suppressed favorable, material evidence in violation of McCormick’s rights. The Court reversed the district court and granted McCormick’s petition for habeas relief. View "McCormick v. Parker" on Justia Law

Following the execution of a search warrant, Florentino Villanueva, Jr., was charged with one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court denied his motion to suppress the firearm seized during the search. Villanueva entered a conditional plea of guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress and any sentencing enhancement the district court might impose under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The district court overruled Villanueva’s objections at sentencing, classified him as an armed career criminal, and sentenced him to 210 months imprisonment. On appeal, Villanueva challenged the validity of the warrant on multiple theories. He argued: (1) that the warrant was not issued by a neutral and detached magistrate; (2) that the documents relied on for the search warrant failed to establish probable cause because there was no showing of a nexus between the items sought and the residence searched and the information relied on to establish probable cause was stale; and (3) that the warrant authorized a general search. Finding no problem with the warrant or error in the proceedings regarding Villanueva's conviction or sentence, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Villanueva" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Archie Rachel was a state prisoner who was given 21 days to seek discovery, obtain and review responses that were not even due within the 21-day period, and respond to the defendants’ motion for dismissal or summary judgment. At all times pertinent to this case, Rachel had access to a prison law library for only a few hours per week. Given these circumstances, Rachel asked for additional time to respond to the defendants’ dispositive motion. The district court did not rule on the request for additional time; Rachel had no choice but to respond without the benefit of the requested discovery. The issue on appeal to the Tenth Circuit was reduced to whether the district court should have found good cause for an extension of time for Rachel's responsive pleading. The Court concluded the court should have granted an extension of time. View "Rachel v. Troutt" on Justia Law

In 2013, the Kansas Board of Education (the “Board”) adopted curriculum standards establishing performance expectations for science instruction in kindergarten through twelfth grade. Appellants, Citizens for Objective Public Education, Kansas parents, and school children (collectively, “COPE”), contended that although the standards purported to further science education, their concealed aim was to teach students to answer questions about the cause and nature of life with only nonreligious explanations. COPE also claimed two plaintiffs had standing as taxpayers who objected to their tax dollars being used to implement the Standards. The district court disagreed, and dismissed the suit without prejudice for lack of standing. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded all of COPE's theories of injury failed, and affirmed the district court's dismissal. View "COPE v. KS State Board of Education" on Justia Law

"This appeal is heavy, very heavy, on procedure." Plaintiff-appellee Peggy Walton worked in the New Mexico State Land Office. She was a political appointee of the elected Republican Land Commissioner, Patrick Lyons. Lyons’s decision not to seek reelection for a third term put plaintiff's job at risk: as a political appointee, a new administration could easily dismiss her. To see that she remained employed with the state, Lyons appointed plaintiff to a senior civil service job where she’d be protected by state law against removal for political reasons. A local television reporter ran a report titled “[c]ronies move up as officials move out” - a report highly critical of Lyons and plaintiff. Another reporter introducing the story aired his view that plaintiff was “distinctly unqualified” for her new job and claimed the hiring was “rigged.” Ray Powell, the newly elected Democratic candidate, dismissed plaintiff. Eight days after making the decision to dismiss her but before announcing it publicly, Powell held a meeting with the land office’s advisory board; "glared across the conference table" at plaintiff, spoke of the television news report denouncing her appointment; and, referring to her in all but name, said he “was concerned about . . . ‘protected employees’” who “for some reason didn’t have to meet the leadership criteria” for their appointments. Plaintiff sued when she was dismissed, arguing that she was a protected civil service employee, and under New Mexico Law, Powell had unlawfully retaliated against her for exercising her right to free political association in violation of the First Amendment and 42 U.S.C. 1983. In reply and at summary judgment. Powell claimed qualified immunity. But the district court denied the motion and set the case for trial. Powell appealed, and finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed denial of summary judgment. View "Walton v. NM State Land Office" on Justia Law

Jamis Johnson was convicted of seven counts of mail fraud, nine counts of wire fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and wire fraud, and ten counts of money laundering. He appealed the denial of a motion for a new trial, challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, and alleged several instances of prosecutorial misconduct. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law