Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

About 20 years ago, Binder pled guilty in a Pennsylvania state court to corrupting a minor, a misdemeanor subject to possible imprisonment for up to five years. Binder was sentenced to three years' probation . Suarez pled guilty in a Maryland state court to unlawfully carrying a handgun without a license, a misdemeanor subject to possible imprisonment for “not less than 30 days and not [more than] three years or a fine.” He received a suspended sentence. Pennsylvania law disqualified both from possessing firearms due to their convictions. The Third Circuit ruled in favor of the men, who brought as-applied challenges to the prohibition. Federal law generally prohibits the possession of firearms by any person convicted of​ a “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year,” 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), excluding “any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less,” and “[a]ny conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored.” The court noted its 2010 “Marzzarella” decision, adopting a framework for deciding facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenges. In its 2011 “Barton” decision, the court held that the section 922(g)(1) prohibition does not violate the Second Amendment on its face. In addressing how a criminal offender may rebut the presumption that he lacks Second Amendment rights, the majority concluded that Marzzarella's two-step test drives the analysis: whether the challenged law imposes a burden on conduct falling within the Second Amendment's scope and, if so, whether it survives intermediate scrutiny. View "Binderup v. Attorney Gen. of thel United States" on Justia Law

On a January 2013 school day, Christina Regusters entered Bryant Elementary School in Philadelphia, where Jane was enrolled in kindergarten. Regusters went directly to Jane’s classroom, where she encountered Littlejohn, Jane’s teacher. Per School District policy, Littlejohn asked Regusters to produce identification and verification that Jane had permission to leave school. Regusters failed to do so. Littlejohn nonetheless allowed Jane to leave with Regusters. Regusters sexually assaulted Jane off school premises, causing her significant physical and emotional injuries. In the early hours of the next morning, a sanitation worker found the child in a playground after hearing her cries. The district court denied a motion to dismiss a "state-created danger" lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, rejecting an assertion of qualified immunity. The Third Circuit affirmed, finding that the allegations sufficiently stated a constitutional violation of the young child’s clearly established right to be free from exposure by her teacher to an obvious danger. It is “shocking to the conscience that a kindergarten teacher would allow a child in his care to leave his classroom with a complete stranger.” View "L.R. v. Philadelphia Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Curry read a newspaper article that stated there was a warrant for his arrest, related to a theft at a Lower Macungie Township, Pennsylvania Wal-Mart store. Wal-Mart security employee Fitcher identified Curry. Curry insists that he had never been in that store. Curry called the store and spoke to a security employee, who refused to review the surveillance video. Curry called Pennsylvania State Trooper Yachera, who informed Curry that the courts would “figure it out.” Curry was arrested. Unable to afford bail, Curry was jailed, While he was in jail, Curry was charged with “theft by deception – false imprisonment” by Exeter Township Detective McClure, unrelated to the Wal-Mart charges. Two months later, McClure admitted Curry was innocent; his charges were dropped, but Curry remained in jail. During his many months in prison, Curry missed his child's birth and lost his job. Fearing loss of his home and vehicle, Curry pleaded nolo contendere. Curry later filed suit, asserting malicious prosecution, false arrest, and false imprisonment. The court determined that the constitutional claims against Yachera, Wal-Mart, and Fitcher were barred bySupreme Court precedent because their success would imply that Curry's conviction was invalid, and that McClure never “seized” Curry. The Third Circuit affirmed with “reluctance,” noting the inequity bail can create. The court clarified that the dismissal was without prejudice; the statute of limitations begins to accrue when “the conviction or sentence is reversed, expunged, invalidated, or impugned.” View "Curry v. Yachera" on Justia Law

A post-settlement possession addendum allowed Black’s mother to remove her possessions from the Montgomery County, Pennsylvania home she had sold two days earlier, while the buyer’s contractors upgraded the wiring. A fire broke out while Black, her mother, and the electricians were working in the house. Deputy Fire Marshal Hand disassembled the electrical outlet where the fire had started and concluded that the fire was intentional and was not an electrical fire. Hand did not preserve the outlet; Hand intentionally misrepresented his findings to support the proposition that the outlet had no power. Others, relying on Hand without conducting an inspection, concluded the damage was caused by an open flame, not by the electrical outlet. During an interrogation, officers accused Black of setting the fire. Black returned home to California, but returned for her arraignment and, as required, at 13 subsequent proceedings. Black’s expert, Lentini, concluded that the fire was unequivocally electrical, not arson. Hand and the prosecutor refused to communicate with Lentini. Black was acquitted. The district court dismissed her suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Third Circuit vacated. Considering the totality of the circumstances alleged, Black sufficiently alleged that her liberty was intentionally restrained by the defendants. Black’s acquittal does not preclude her claim that the defendants intentionally fabricated evidence in violation of the due process clause. View "Black v. County of Montgomery" on Justia Law

The petitioners, 28 women and their minor children, are citizens of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. The entered the U.S. in 2015 and were apprehended close to the border. Each indicated a fear of persecution if returned to their native country, claiming that they had been or feared becoming victims of domestic or gang violence. Following interviews with an asylum officer and review by an immigration judge, their fears were found to be not credible and their expedited removal (8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)) orders became administratively final. Each filed a habeas petition. The Third Circuit affirmed dismissal of the petitions, finding that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 1252.1, which circumscribes judicial review for expedited removal orders issued under section 1225(b)(1). The court rejected an argument under the Suspension Clause of the U.S. Constitution: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” The court noted “Petitioners’ surreptitious entry into this country," and Congress’ and the Executive’s plenary power over decisions regarding the admission or exclusion of aliens, in concluding that the limited scope of review is not unconstitutional, as to petitioners and other aliens similarly situated. View "Castro v. United States Dept. of Homeland Sec." on Justia Law

Heffernan joined the Paterson Police Department in 1985 and became a detective. In 2006, Heffernan’s friend, Spagnola, a former Paterson police chief, sought to unseat the incumbent mayor. Heffernan was unable to vote in the city, did not work on the campaign, and did not consider himself “politically involved.” At the request of his bedridden mother, Heffernan picked up a Spagnola campaign sign, to replace one that had been stolen from her lawn. A member of the Mayor’s security staff observed Heffernan with Spagnola's campaign manager. The next day, Heffernan was demoted to a “walking post” because of his “overt[] involvement in a political election.” Heffernan sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983. His free-association claim resulted in a jury verdict of $105,000. The judge retroactively recused himself and vacated the verdict. A new judge granted the defendants summary judgment; on remand, another judge concluded that Heffernan did not establish that he actually exercised his First Amendment rights. The Third Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed. In remanding for trial, the Third Circuit stated that, if, when Heffernan was disciplined, the city had in effect (written or unwritten) a neutral policy prohibiting officers assigned to the Office of the Chief of Police from overt involvement in political campaigns, such a policy meets constitutional standards. The district court must then determine whether Heffernan was aware or reasonably should have been aware of such a policy and whether he was disciplined for what reasonably appeared to be a violation. View "Heffernan v. City of Paterson" on Justia Law

In 2011, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People submitted an ad for display at the Philadelphia International Airport, offering to pay the prevailing market rate for the ad, which read: “Welcome to America, home to 5% of the world’s people & 25% of the world’s prisoners. Let’s build a better America together. NAACP.org/smartandsafe.” The City of Philadelphia rejected the ad, based on informal practice, While the NAACP’s lawsuit was pending, the city, which owns the airport, adopted the formal policy, preventing private advertisers from displaying noncommercial content at the Airport. Paid advertisements are allowed. The city argued that the policy helps it further its goals of maximizing revenue and avoiding controversy. The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment, finding the ban unconstitutional. The court noted that the city acknowledged “substantial flaws” in the city’s justifications. The ban is unreasonable, violates the First Amendment and cannot be enforced as written. View "Nat'l Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. City of Philadelphia" on Justia Law

Watson claims that during a 2011 cell search Officer Kline pulled the antenna of Watson’s radio so that it broke off. Kline claims the antenna was already broken and secured with tape. Kline explained that a broken radio was considered contraband that had to be confiscated. Watson accompanied Kline to fill out the confiscation paperwork. Watson asked Kline to prepare an incident report documenting that Kline broke the antenna. Kline refused. Watson then unsuccessfully requested a grievance form. Later that day Watson was summoned to the security office where he was reprimanded for giving officers a “hard time” and was told that he would receive a misconduct. Watson then obtained a form from another prison and filed his grievance against Kline. Watson was ultimately found guilty of misconduct. The penalty was confiscation of Watson’s radio. The Department of Corrections’ Program Review Committee denied an appeal. The district dismissed Watson’s 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims, reasoning that prison officials would have issued the misconduct regardless of Watson’s protected activity. The Third Circuit affirmed in part, but remanded the retaliation claims. Not every violation of prison protocols supported by some evidence will bar a First Amendment retaliation claim, particularly relatively minor offenses, such as a radio antenna secured by tape. View "Watson v. Rozum" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first-degree murder. The jury sentenced Defendant to death. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the convictions on appeal, rejecting Defendant’s claims that the prosecution violated Brady v. Maryland. The Supreme Court denied Defendant’s application for postconviction relief. Defendant then filed an application under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The district court granted Defendant a conditional writ of habeas corpus and directed the Commonwealth to retry Defendant or release him, concluding that the prosecution had breached its obligations under Brady by withholding three pieces of exculpatory and material information. The Third Circuit initially vacated the district court’s order, but subsequently, acting en banc, affirmed. The suppressed Brady material—a receipt corroborating Dennis’s alibi, an inconsistent statement by the Commonwealth’s key eyewitness, and documents indicating that another individual committed the murder — effectively gutted the Commonwealth’s case against Dennis. The withholding of these pieces of evidence denied Dennis a fair trial in state court. View "Dennis v. Sec'y PA Dept. of Corrs." on Justia Law

In 2001, Mary Edmond was shot near a North Philadelphia gas station. She died from her injuries. During the investigation, Garcia gave a confession to the police that was self-incriminating, but indicated that Lambert pulled the trigger. When Lambert and Garcia are jointly tried in Pennsylvania state court, Garcia declined to testify, depriving Lambert of the ability to cross-examine him about the confession. The judge redacted the confession in an effort to comply with the Supreme Court holding in Bruton v. United States (1968). When the jury heard Garcia’s confession, Lambert’s name was replaced with terms like “the other guy.” During closing arguments, however, the prosecutor made statements that the defense believed revealed that Lambert was “the other guy.” The judge denied a motion for mistrial, but instructed the jury that the confession could only be used against Garcia and must not be considered as evidence against Lambert. Both were convicted. The Third Circuit reversed and granted habeas relief, based on the Sixth Amendment violation caused by the closing arguments. The error was not harmless. View "Brown v. Greene" on Justia Law