Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Colorado established a Universal Preschool Program (UPK) following a 2020 voter-approved proposition and subsequent legislation. The program provides public funding for voluntary, universal preschool and requires participating preschools to sign a nondiscrimination agreement. This agreement mandates that preschools offer equal enrollment opportunities regardless of characteristics such as race, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, income, or disability. The plaintiffs—two Catholic parishes, their preschools, the Archdiocese of Denver, and two parents—challenged the nondiscrimination requirement, arguing that it conflicted with their religious beliefs, particularly regarding sexual orientation and gender identity, and violated their rights under the First Amendment.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado held a three-day bench trial. The court found that the nondiscrimination requirement did not violate the First Amendment, denied the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief, and dismissed the Archdiocese for lack of standing. However, the court did enjoin the state from enforcing the nondiscrimination requirement as to religious affiliation for as long as a congregation preference existed, a ruling not challenged on appeal. The plaintiffs appealed the denial of injunctive relief and the dismissal of the Archdiocese.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Tenth Circuit held that the nondiscrimination requirement is a neutral law of general applicability and does not target religious status or use. The court found no evidence of religious hostility or individualized exemptions that would undermine general applicability. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ expressive association claim, distinguishing the facts from Supreme Court precedents. Applying rational basis review, the court concluded that the requirement is rationally related to the legitimate government interest of ensuring equal access to preschool. The district court’s denial of injunctive relief was affirmed. View "St. Mary Catholic v. Roy" on Justia Law

Late one night, a homeowner called 911 to report that her security camera showed a Black man and woman taking items from her back porch. Within minutes, a police officer arrived and encountered Michael Campbell near the reported location. Campbell claimed to live at the residence and was uncooperative with the officer’s instructions, repeatedly dropping his hands and reaching for his wallet despite being told not to. The officer noticed what appeared to be a gun magazine in Campbell’s waistband and, after a brief exchange, frisked Campbell, discovering a firearm and a knife. Campbell was subsequently indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma denied Campbell’s motion to suppress the firearm, finding that the officer had reasonable suspicion to detain and frisk Campbell and that this suspicion had not dissipated before the frisk. Campbell was convicted at trial. At sentencing, the district court determined that Campbell’s five prior Oklahoma armed robbery convictions qualified as violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), subjecting him to a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence. Campbell was sentenced to 240 months, above the statutory maximum for the felon-in-possession offense but below the Guidelines range.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the suppression motion and upheld the constitutionality of the felon-in-possession statute. However, the Tenth Circuit held that Oklahoma armed robbery can be committed with a reckless state of mind and therefore does not categorically qualify as a violent felony under the ACCA’s elements clause. The court vacated Campbell’s sentence and remanded for resentencing, while affirming his conviction. View "United States v. Campbell" on Justia Law

A nonprofit advocacy organization challenged an amendment to New Mexico’s Campaign Reporting Act (CRA), which requires certain political committees to disclose the names and addresses of donors who contribute above specified thresholds when the committee makes independent expenditures on advertisements referring to candidates or ballot questions shortly before an election. The organization argued that these disclosure requirements burdened its First Amendment rights and would chill potential donors from contributing, citing concerns about possible harassment or retaliation.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico granted summary judgment to the Secretary of State, finding that the disclosure requirements were substantially related and narrowly tailored to the state’s interest in informing the public about the sources of funding for large, election-related advertisements. The district court concluded that advertisements covered by the law—those referring to candidates or ballot questions and disseminated shortly before elections—were made for a political purpose, and that the law’s temporal, monetary, and geographic limitations, as well as an opt-out provision for donors, ensured the requirements were not overly broad.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the summary judgment decision de novo. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling, holding that the challenged disclosure provision withstands exacting scrutiny. The court determined that the law is substantially related to the important governmental interest of transparency in election-related advocacy and is narrowly tailored through its thresholds and opt-out mechanism. The court also found that the evidence presented by the organization did not establish a reasonable probability of threats, harassment, or reprisals sufficient to invalidate the law on its face. The judgment for the Secretary of State was affirmed. View "Rio Grande Foundation v. Oliver" on Justia Law

Two former Army members, Aaron Wilson and Sean Dillon, were convicted by court-martial for sex crimes committed during their active-duty service. Both had been medically retired from the Army due to disabilities—Wilson in 2012 and Dillon in 2015. After their retirements, each was charged and convicted by court-martial for offenses that occurred while they were on active duty. Both challenged the court-martial’s jurisdiction, arguing that as medically retired servicemembers, they were no longer part of the “land and naval Forces” under the Constitution and thus could not be subjected to military jurisdiction.Wilson and Dillon appealed their convictions through the military justice system. The United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed both convictions, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces denied discretionary review. After exhausting military appeals, both petitioners filed for habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, arguing that the statutory grant of military jurisdiction over medically retired personnel exceeded Congress’s constitutional authority. The district court denied both petitions, holding that military retirees maintain a formal relationship with the armed forces and remain subject to recall, distinguishing them from separated servicemembers.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of habeas relief de novo. The Tenth Circuit held that medically retired servicemembers retain military status because they hold rank, receive pay, may wear the uniform, and are subject to recall. Therefore, they are part of the “land and naval Forces” under Article I, Section 8, Clause 14 of the Constitution. The court concluded that Congress’s statutory grant of court-martial jurisdiction over such retirees is constitutional and affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief. View "Wilson v. Curtis" on Justia Law

Andrew Scott, a professional process server and licensed private investigator in Colorado, was hired to serve a subpoena on State Trooper Charles Hiller. The service attempt became contentious, leading Hiller to file complaints against Scott with both the Colorado Office of Private Investigator Licensure and the Process Servers Association of Colorado. Hiller alleged that Scott endangered his safety by including personal information in an affidavit of service, potentially violating Colorado Revised Statute § 18-9-313(2.7), which prohibits publishing law enforcement officers’ personal information online if it poses an imminent and serious threat. The Office of Private Investigator Licensure dismissed its complaint, but the Association expelled Scott, citing a violation of the statute. Scott subsequently created a website, copscore.org, intending to publish information about police misconduct, but refrained from posting content due to fear of prosecution under the statute.Scott filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against the local District Attorney, seeking a declaration that the statute was unconstitutional both facially and as applied. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing Scott’s complaint on the grounds that he lacked standing for a pre-enforcement challenge. The court found Scott had not demonstrated an injury in fact, reasoning that his conduct was not “arguably proscribed” by the statute, especially since Scott stated in his summary judgment briefing that he did not know of any imminent and serious threat to Hiller’s safety from the intended publication.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that Scott had standing to pursue a pre-enforcement First Amendment challenge because his intended conduct was at least arguably prohibited by the statute, and the credible threat of prosecution chilled his speech. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the merits. View "Scott v. Allen" on Justia Law

The defendant, a young man with a history of firearm-related offenses, was previously adjudicated delinquent for shooting at a person, making him a “Category I restricted person” under Utah law and barring him from possessing firearms. Despite this, he was found in possession of a handgun in April 2022 and was charged with a felony for possessing a dangerous weapon as a restricted person. On the day of his arraignment for that charge, he purchased another firearm. Later, in October 2022, he was found with this new firearm after allegedly firing it at a group of people.Following the October incident, a federal grand jury indicted him for illegal receipt of a firearm by a person under indictment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(n). He moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that § 922(n) is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, as interpreted by New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen. The United States District Court for the District of Utah denied his motion, finding that while the Second Amendment presumptively protected his conduct, § 922(n) was consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court cited historical laws disarming dangerous groups and surety laws as analogues. The defendant then entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal, and was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the constitutionality of § 922(n) de novo. The court held that § 922(n) is facially constitutional, finding it “relevantly similar” to founding-era practices of pretrial detention and bail, which imposed comparable, temporary restrictions on the right to bear arms for those accused of serious crimes. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss and upheld the conviction. View "United States v. Ogilvie" on Justia Law

In October 2022, law enforcement officers stopped and searched a vehicle in which the defendant was a passenger. During the search, they discovered an Anderson Manufacturing AM-15 machinegun, a .357 caliber Glock handgun, and a “Glock switch” device capable of converting a handgun to fire automatically. Video evidence showed the defendant firing a Glock handgun equipped with the switch, operating as a fully automatic weapon. The defendant was subsequently indicted on two counts of knowingly and unlawfully possessing a machinegun, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o).The United States District Court for the District of Kansas reviewed the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment, which argued that § 922(o) violated the Second Amendment as applied to him. The district court agreed, finding that both the AM-15 machinegun and the Glock switch were “bearable arms” within the plain text of the Second Amendment. The court further concluded that the government had not demonstrated that § 922(o) was consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, and therefore dismissed the indictment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. The Tenth Circuit held that the defendant failed to meet his burden under the first step of the framework established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen. Specifically, the court found that the defendant did not show that the machineguns he possessed were “arms” in “common use” for self-defense by law-abiding citizens, as required by District of Columbia v. Heller and subsequent precedent. As a result, the Tenth Circuit concluded that § 922(o) is constitutional as applied to the defendant, reversed the dismissal of the indictment, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "United States v. Morgan" on Justia Law

Police officers in Oklahoma conducted a warrantless search of a storage unit rented by an individual whose email and payment information were on the rental agreement, though the agreement was signed by another person. Employees of the storage facility initially entered the unit after finding its door ajar, observing what appeared to be drugs and firearms, and then notified police. Upon arrival, officers looked into the unit, with one officer peeking his head inside to observe suspected contraband, and another officer later entering the unit and opening a drawer before a warrant was obtained. The officers then used their observations to obtain a search warrant for the storage unit, which led to the discovery of drugs and firearms. Based on this evidence, they secured a second warrant to search the renter’s home, where additional contraband was found.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma denied the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence from both searches, finding no Fourth Amendment violation in the officers’ actions. The defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to drug and firearm charges, reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling, and was sentenced to 188 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the officers’ warrantless entry and search of the storage unit violated the Fourth Amendment. The court determined that, after excising the unconstitutionally obtained information from the search warrant affidavit, the remaining content failed to establish probable cause. The court also found that the good faith exception did not apply because the affidavit was so facially deficient that officers could not reasonably rely on it. Consequently, the evidence from both the storage unit and the home was ordered suppressed. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the suppression motion, vacated the conviction and sentence, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Blasdel" on Justia Law

A 17-year-old defendant was charged with ten serious offenses, including murder and assault, after a violent confrontation at the home of his rivals. The incident stemmed from a feud with a classmate and escalated when the defendant, accompanied by his family, armed himself and attacked the victims’ home. The attack resulted in the death of one individual and severe injuries to others. The defendant, an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation, was charged under federal law for crimes committed within the Cherokee Nation Indian Reservation.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma first reviewed the case. The government moved to transfer the defendant from juvenile to adult criminal proceedings under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. After an evidentiary hearing, the magistrate judge recommended granting the transfer, and the district court adopted this recommendation after conducting a de novo review. The district court weighed the statutory factors, including the defendant’s age, social background, psychological maturity, prior delinquency record, past treatment efforts, and the availability of rehabilitative programs, and found that most factors favored transfer to adult status.On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion. The appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the statutory transfer factors and found no clear error in its factual findings. The court also rejected the defendant’s Eighth Amendment argument that transfer was unconstitutional due to the potential punishments, holding that the challenge was unripe under circuit precedent. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order transferring the defendant to adult criminal proceedings. View "United States v. J.D.V., Jr." on Justia Law

A man was stopped by police in Lawton, Oklahoma, for a traffic violation. During the stop, officers smelled marijuana and, after searching his car, found a loaded revolver and various marijuana products. The man did not have a medical marijuana card and was arrested on state charges for marijuana possession, paraphernalia, and a traffic offense. Subsequently, a federal grand jury indicted him for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which prohibits firearm possession by anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment. The district court found that the Second Amendment’s text covered the defendant’s conduct and held that applying § 922(g)(3) to non-intoxicated marijuana users was inconsistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court reasoned that historical regulations only permitted disarming those who had acted dangerously in the past, not those merely believed to pose a risk of future danger. The government appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. After the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Rahimi clarified the methodology for Second Amendment challenges, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the historical tradition supports disarming individuals believed to pose a risk of future danger, not just those who have acted dangerously before. However, the appellate court found that the government must show that non-intoxicated marijuana users pose such a risk. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the government can meet this burden. View "United States v. Harrison" on Justia Law