Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Three former members of a religious organization alleged that the organization intentionally misrepresented its history and the use of member tithing payments. They claimed that, had they known the true facts, they would not have joined or contributed financially. The plaintiffs asserted two main theories under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO): first, that the organization’s leaders made fraudulent statements about the group’s history and beliefs that they did not sincerely hold; and second, that the organization misrepresented how tithing funds would be used, including using them for commercial purposes contrary to representations.The United States District Court for the District of Utah initially dismissed the complaint, finding that the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses and the church autonomy doctrine barred adjudication of claims requiring inquiry into the truth or falsity of religious beliefs. After amendments to the complaint, the district court allowed a RICO claim based on the tithing theory to proceed, viewing it as a secular dispute. However, after further amendments and additional plaintiffs, the district court ultimately dismissed all claims, holding that the church autonomy doctrine barred claims based on religious misrepresentations and that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead reliance or a pattern of predicate acts for the tithing-based RICO claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed. It held that the church autonomy doctrine bars civil RICO claims premised on alleged misrepresentations about religious history or doctrine, as such claims would require courts to adjudicate ecclesiastical questions. Regarding the tithing theory, the court held that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege a causal link between the organization’s statements about tithing and their own financial contributions, as required for a civil RICO claim. The court therefore affirmed the dismissal of all claims. View "Gaddy v. Corp. of the President of the Church of Jesus" on Justia Law

Jeffery Krueger died following a traffic stop in Oklahoma initiated by Wagoner County Sheriff’s Office deputies. The stop began when deputies suspected Mr. Krueger of minor traffic violations and possible intoxication. After Mr. Krueger stopped his car in a turn lane, deputies forcibly removed him from his vehicle, allegedly pulling him by his hair, slamming his head on the pavement, and repeatedly using tasers as they attempted to handcuff him. Additional law enforcement officers arrived and, according to the plaintiffs, either participated directly or failed to intervene as Mr. Krueger, now handcuffed and prone, was further restrained with leg shackles and a hobble tie. Mr. Krueger stopped breathing at the scene and was later pronounced dead at a hospital.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma reviewed the case after the plaintiffs, Mr. Krueger’s parents and estate representatives, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force and failure to intervene in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The defendants, including deputies and police officers, moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity. The district court denied summary judgment for most defendants, finding that, when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, there were sufficient grounds to show clearly established constitutional violations. The court found material disputes regarding the amount and duration of force used, including the number of taser applications and the nature of the prone restraint.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. The Tenth Circuit held that a reasonable jury could find the defendants used excessive force both in the initial removal and restraint of Mr. Krueger and in the prolonged prone restraint after he was subdued. The court also held that the failure to intervene in the use of excessive force was clearly established as a constitutional violation. The district court’s orders denying summary judgment were affirmed. View "Krueger v. Phillips" on Justia Law

In 2024, New Mexico enacted a law requiring a mandatory seven-day waiting period for nearly all consumer firearm purchases, regardless of the buyer’s circumstances or urgency. The law applies even to individuals who have already passed background checks or possess security clearances, and it does not allow for waivers based on personal danger. Exemptions exist for certain categories, such as law enforcement, concealed carry permit holders, and immediate family transfers, but the law broadly prohibits the transfer of firearms before the waiting period ends, with violations constituting misdemeanors.After the law took effect, two individuals, both of whom promptly passed background checks when attempting to purchase firearms, were forced to wait the full seven days solely due to the new statute. They filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, seeking to enjoin enforcement of the law on Second and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. The district court denied their request for a preliminary injunction, reasoning that the right to keep and bear arms did not encompass the right to acquire arms, that waiting periods were longstanding and presumptively constitutional, and that the law fit within historical traditions of firearm regulation. The court also found that the plaintiffs did not meet the other requirements for injunctive relief.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded. The Tenth Circuit held that the waiting period burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment, as the right to keep and bear arms necessarily includes the right to acquire them. The court found that such cooling-off periods are not supported by historical tradition or longstanding regulatory exceptions and that the law imposes an unconstitutional burden. The court concluded that the plaintiffs met all requirements for a preliminary injunction and directed the district court to enter injunctive relief consistent with its opinion. View "Ortega v. Grisham" on Justia Law

Two Albuquerque police officers stopped a vehicle driven by the defendant after hearing excessive noise, suspecting a violation of city ordinances regarding vehicle mufflers. Upon stopping the car, the officers discovered the defendant had two outstanding misdemeanor bench warrants, which allowed for release upon posting bond. The officers arrested the defendant, citing both the warrants and a concern about possible illegal items in the car after observing ammunition. The defendant requested to pay the bond or have his mother retrieve the car, but the officers proceeded to impound the vehicle, citing its improper parking across two metered spots and concerns about public safety. During an inventory search prior to towing, officers found firearms, cash, and drugs.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence found in the car. The court found that the initial stop was supported by reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation, that the impoundment was justified under community-caretaking functions despite mixed motives, and that the inventory search, though imperfectly documented, largely conformed to department policy. The defendant pleaded guilty but reserved the right to appeal the suppression ruling.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress. The appellate court held that the officers had reasonable suspicion to justify the traffic stop, that the impoundment was permissible under the community-caretaking exception even with mixed motives, and that the inventory search was reasonable despite incomplete documentation, as it was conducted pursuant to standard procedures and not solely for investigatory purposes. The court concluded that none of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated and affirmed the conviction. View "United States v. Ulibarri" on Justia Law

Police in Cheyenne, Wyoming, responded to a call about an unconscious man in a vehicle and arrested Derek Ascherin after finding drug paraphernalia and nearly 24 grams of suspected fentanyl pills. During the investigation, law enforcement suspected that Traquevis Dewayne Hardy was supplying fentanyl to Ascherin. Officers obtained a warrant to search Hardy’s Facebook messages, which revealed communications about fentanyl transactions. Hardy was later arrested in April 2023 with nine fentanyl pills in his possession.A grand jury in the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming indicted Hardy for conspiracy to distribute at least 40 grams of fentanyl between July and December 2022. After a three-day trial, a jury found Hardy guilty. At sentencing, the district court attributed 1,773 grams of fentanyl to Hardy, relying in part on statements from a confidential source, and sentenced him to 168 months in prison. Hardy objected to the drug quantity calculation, arguing it was based on unreliable hearsay, but the district court overruled his objection. Hardy appealed his conviction and sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed three issues: whether Hardy’s absence from an in-chambers evidentiary ruling violated due process, whether the district court erred in admitting evidence of his later possession of fentanyl under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), and whether the sentencing court erred in relying on uncorroborated hearsay to determine drug quantity. The Tenth Circuit held that Hardy’s absence from the in-chambers conference did not violate due process and that any error in admitting the Rule 404(b) evidence did not affect the verdict. However, the court found clear error in the sentencing court’s reliance on uncorroborated hearsay for drug quantity. The Tenth Circuit affirmed Hardy’s conviction, vacated his sentence, and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Hardy" on Justia Law

Raul Guzman was living in a camper trailer parked on property in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where the City had declared two buildings substandard and posted notices prohibiting anyone from residing in the structures or on the property. Despite these warnings, Guzman stayed in the trailer with the property owner’s permission. In September 2022, city code enforcement officers, accompanied by police, inspected the property. Upon finding Guzman in the trailer, officers entered, detained him, and discovered a firearm inside.A grand jury indicted Guzman for being a felon in possession of a firearm. He moved to suppress the evidence, arguing he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the trailer because he had the owner’s permission to stay there and the posted notices did not specifically mention the trailer. The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico held an evidentiary hearing and denied the motion. The court found that, although Guzman may have had a subjective expectation of privacy, this expectation was not objectively reasonable because the posted notices made clear that residing on the property was unlawful. The court also found, in the alternative, that exceptions to the warrant requirement would have justified the officers’ actions. Guzman subsequently pleaded guilty but reserved the right to appeal the suppression ruling.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Tenth Circuit held that Guzman lacked Fourth Amendment standing to challenge the search because he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the trailer. The court reasoned that, given the explicit posted notices prohibiting residence on the property and Guzman’s admission that he read them, society would not recognize his expectation of privacy as reasonable. The court therefore affirmed the denial of the suppression motion. View "United States v. Guzman" on Justia Law

Several minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria, their parents, and a physician challenged an Oklahoma law (SB 613) that prohibits healthcare providers from administering gender transition procedures—including puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones—to individuals under eighteen. The law defines these procedures as medical or surgical interventions intended to affirm a minor’s gender identity when it differs from their biological sex. The statute does not ban mental health counseling or certain other medical treatments. The plaintiffs, all affected by the law’s restrictions, argued that SB 613 violated their constitutional rights.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, finding they had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims. The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. While the appeal was pending, the Tenth Circuit paused proceedings to await the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Skrmetti, which addressed a similar Tennessee law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction. The court held that SB 613 does not violate the Equal Protection Clause because it classifies based on age and medical use, not sex or transgender status, and is subject to rational basis review. The court found Oklahoma’s interest in the health and welfare of minors provided a rational basis for the law. The court also rejected the substantive due process claim, concluding that there is no fundamental right for parents to access gender transition procedures for their children, and that the law is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. The court found no evidence of invidious discriminatory intent by the legislature. View "Poe v. Drummond" on Justia Law

In 2021, Ralph Marcus Hardy, an inmate at Adams County Detention Facility (ACDF) in Colorado, fell from his wheelchair and suffered serious injuries. Despite his repeated requests for medical attention, jail officials allegedly ignored his pleas. Hardy claims that Detention Specialist Daniel DeHerrera ignored emergency distress signals from his cell, and Deputy Dennis Rabie, who later found Hardy in pain, also failed to provide medical assistance.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado reviewed the case. Deputy Rabie and Detention Specialist DeHerrera moved to dismiss Hardy’s claims, asserting qualified immunity. The district court denied their motion, finding that Hardy plausibly alleged violations of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court held that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity, leading to this appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that Hardy sufficiently alleged that both Deputy Rabie and Detention Specialist DeHerrera acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs. The court found that Hardy’s constitutional rights were violated and that these rights were clearly established at the time of the incident. The court concluded that both defendants were aware of Hardy’s serious medical needs and failed to take reasonable measures to address them, thus denying them qualified immunity. View "Hardy v. Rabie" on Justia Law

Cody Byron Teerlink was convicted of making a false statement during the acquisition of a firearm. He had previously pleaded guilty to a third-degree felony for driving under the influence in Utah and completed his probation successfully. Despite being eligible for a reduction of his felony to a misdemeanor under Utah law, he did not apply for it. In 2021, Teerlink attempted to purchase firearms on three occasions, falsely stating on ATF Form 4473 that he had not been convicted of a felony. He was able to purchase a rifle once due to a system glitch but was denied on the other two attempts.The United States District Court for the District of Utah directed the parties to agree on jury instructions. The parties jointly submitted an instruction defining "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," which included language criticized by the Tenth Circuit and the Supreme Court. The jury convicted Teerlink on one count of making a false statement during the acquisition of a firearm and acquitted him on the other counts. He was sentenced to eight months' imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. Teerlink argued that the jury instruction lowered the government's burden of proof, violating his Fifth Amendment rights. However, the court held that Teerlink invited any alleged error by jointly submitting the instruction and failing to object at trial. The court emphasized that parties cannot propose jury instructions and later challenge them on appeal. The court also rejected Teerlink's argument that a footnote in the jury instructions preserved his right to plain-error review, stating that such a footnote cannot immunize a party from the invited-error doctrine. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. Teerlink" on Justia Law

Eric Coomer, Ph.D., the former Director of Product Strategy and Safety at Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., filed a defamation lawsuit against several defendants, including Make Your Life Epic, LLC, Reopen America, LLC, and Clayton Thomas Clark. Joseph Oltmann, a nonparty to the lawsuit, was subpoenaed to testify and produce documents. Oltmann initially appeared for his deposition but left without authorization and later boasted about his actions on his podcast, disparaging the magistrate judge and suggesting violence.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado held Oltmann in civil contempt for failing to comply with the subpoena and court orders. The court imposed a $1,000 per day fine until Oltmann complied and ordered him to pay attorney’s fees and costs. Oltmann appealed the Contempt Order, arguing that he properly invoked the newsperson’s privilege and that his due process rights were violated because the district court did not hold a hearing before issuing the Contempt Order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s Contempt Order. The appellate court held that Oltmann waived his arguments by not raising them specifically in his objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendations. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the Contempt Order without a second hearing, as the material facts were undisputed. The appellate court further imposed sanctions on Oltmann, ordering him to pay Coomer’s reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees and costs associated with the appeal, and remanded the case to the district court to determine the amount. View "Coomer v. Make Your Life Epic" on Justia Law