Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed from his convictions for multiple bank robberies and contended that his trial violated the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161(b), 3162(a)(1), that the district court erred in limiting the scope of his counsel's closing argument, and that the court further erred in admitting evidence of an additionally, uncharged bank robbery. The court held that the district court did not violate defendant's rights under the Speedy Trial Act when it did not dismiss his indictment pursuant to the 30 day complaint-to-indictment clock where it applied the exception in section 3162(h) and held that May 23, 2008 was an excluded day because the government made an oral motion to commit defendant to the custody of the Attorney General on that day. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the scope of counsel's closing argument regarding the "best practices" standard for law enforcement officers and DNA evidence. The court further held that, even if it were erroneous, the admission of evidence of the uncharged bank robbery in Virginia was harmless because it did not have a "substantial and injurious effect or influence" on the jury's verdict. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was affirmed.

In this Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(3)(A), case, a Texas death-row inmate sought information from the FBI that he alleged might corroborate his claim that four other men actually committed the quadruple homicide for which he was convicted. At issue was whether the FBI's Glomar response was permitted under FOIA Exemption 7(c), which permitted agencies to withhold information contained in law enforcement records to protect against unwanted invasions of personal privacy. The court held that the public had an interest in knowing whether the federal government was withholding information that could corroborate a death-row inmate's claim of innocence and that interest outweighed the three men's privacy interest in having the FBI not disclose whether it possessed any information linking them to the murders. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's approval of the FBI's Glomar response and, with minor exceptions, affirmed the district court's rejection of appellant's other arguments.

The District of Columbia filed this suit to recover its attorneys' fees from a lawyer who brought an administrative complaint against the District on behalf of a student with special educational needs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400(d)(1)(A). At issue was whether the District was a "prevailing party" under the IDEA in this suit. The court held that the facts in this case followed closely in the wake of the court's precedent in District of Columbia v. Straus where that court held that the district was not a "prevailing party" where its own change of position was what had mooted the dispute, causing the case to be dismissed. Therefore, the court held that the District, in this case, was not a "prevailing party" where the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) authorized an independent comprehensive psychological evaluation for the student, which mooted the only issue before the hearing officer. Accordingly, the district court's grant of summary judgment ordering the lawyer to pay attorneys' fees was reversed.

Defendant, a pimp who prostituted underage girls, was convicted of various federal sexual abuse crimes and sentenced to 25 years in prison. Defendant appealed the denial of his request to unseal the records of two material witnesses, claiming that the First Amendment guaranteed a right of access to material witness proceedings. The court assumed arguendo that the qualified First Amendment right of access to judicial proceedings extended to material witness proceedings. The court held that, even so, under the First Amendment access precedents, the public was not entitled to the records here, which contained "substantial amounts of material of an especially personal and private nature relating to the medical, educational, and mental health progress" of the victims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the orders of the district court.

Appellant sued the Metropolitan Police Department ("MPD") and the District of Columbia (collectively, "District"), requesting a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to keep the District from preventing appellant's chalking demonstration in front of the White House pursuant to a Defacement Statute, D.C. Code 22-3312.01. Appellant claimed that the Defacement Statute was unconstitutional on its face, unconstitutional as applied to his efforts to chalk the street in front of the White House, and violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"), 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq. The court held that the Defacement Statute was content neutral, and substantially justified by the District's esthetic interest in combating the very problem appellant's proposed chalking entailed, the defacement of public property. Because the District did not curtail appellant's means of expression altogether, and allowed him to protest in front of the White House in other ways, the Defacement Statute was not unconstitutionally applied. The court also held that appellant's overbreadth challenge failed because he could not show any "realistic danger" that the Defacement Statute actually chilled constitutionally protected speech. The court further rejected appellant's RFRA claims in light of Henderson v. Kennedy. Accordingly, the court affirmed the order of the district court dismissing the case.

Plaintiffs, four Afghan and five Iraqi citizens captured and subsequently held in Afghanistan and Iraq, respectively, by the United States military sued defendants, seeking damages and declaratory relief as the result of their treatment while in U.S. custody. Each plaintiff asserted two Bivens claims, namely, defendants tortured him in violation of his due process right under the Fifth Amendment and defendants' conduct constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiffs also brought claims under the ATS based on defendants' alleged infliction of "prolonged arbitrary detention," "torture," and "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment." Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their constitutional claims and ATS claims. The court held that defendants were protected from plaintiffs' constitutional claims by qualified immunity. The court also held that, even if defendants were not shielded by qualified immunity and plaintiffs could claim the protections of the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, the court would decline to sanction a Bivens cause of action because special factors counseled against doing so. The court further held that plaintiffs' claim under the ATS alleged a violation of the law of nations, not of the ATS, and therefore, did not violate a statute of the United States within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 2679(b)(2)(B). The court finally held that because plaintiffs have not alleged a cognizable cause of action, they have no basis upon which to seek declaratory relief. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment of dismissal.

Plaintiff ("appellant"), a former official of the District of Columbia Office of the Inspector General ("OIG"), was fired after five years on the job purportedly for poor performance. Appellant sued the OIG and alleged that defendants conspired to deter his testimony in a subordinate's employment discrimination trial and ultimately fired him in retaliation for his refusal to help sabotage his fellow employee. At issue was whether the district court erred in entering judgment in favor of defendants on appellant's 42 U.S.C. 1985(2) conspiracy claim, a related claim under 42 U.S.C. 1986 for failure to prevent the conspiracy, and his First Amendment retaliation claim. After a trial on appellant's Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., retaliation claim, the jury found in favor of defendants. The court vacated the dismissal of appellant's sections 1985(2) and 1986 conspiracy claims because the district court erroneously required an invidious, class-based motive for the alleged conspiracy and because the district court concluded, without support, that Title VII was the exclusive remedy for this type of retaliation. Accordingly, the court vacated these claims and remanded for further proceedings and affirmed in all other respects.

Since 2005, appellant, a dual citizen of Jordan and the United States, had pursued a habeas corpus petition to block his transfer to Iraq's government where the United States military had detained him in Iraq based on evidence that he participated in al Qaeda's terrorist activities there. Appellant argued that he could not be transferred to the custody of Iraqi officials because he was likely to be tortured after his transfer. At issue was whether the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 ("FARR"), 8 U.S.C. 1231, which had been supplemented by the REAL ID Act of 2005, 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(4), gave him a right to judicial review of conditions in the receiving country before he could be transferred. Also at issue was whether appellant was entitled under the Constitution's habeas corpus guarantee to judicial review of his likely treatment in the receiving country. The court held that the FARR Act and the REAL ID Act did not give military transferees such as appellant a right to judicial review of their likely treatment in the receiving country. The court also held that the Supreme Court had already ruled when considering appellant's case in Munaf v. Geren, that the Constitution's guarantee of habeas corpus did not encompass a guarantee to judicial review. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's denial of appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus and in so doing, recognized that the policy arguments supporting appellant's position were not insubstantial. The court noted that Congress remained free to provide military transferees such as appellant with a right to judicial review of conditions in the receiving country before they were transferred.

Appellant alleged that he was transferred to a position of less responsibility within the District of Columbia Department of Mental Health ("District") in retaliation for his statements corroborating a claim of racial discrimination against a District official. At issue was whether the district court properly granted summary judgment for the District on the ground that appellant failed to show that his transfer was a materially adverse action. The court held that appellant had provided sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that he suffered a materially adverse employment action and to conclude that the District's proffered reasons for transferring him were pretextual and that he was transferred in retalaition for supporting his direct supervisor's complaint. Accordingly, the court erred in granting summary judgment for the District and the judgment was reversed and remanded.

Plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of a provision of the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act ("FTEPA"), 49 U.S.C. 44729, which allowed some pilots, but not him, to take advantage of Congress's decision to raise the mandatory retirement age from 60 to 65. Plaintiff also alleged that his former employer and former union violated a state law banning age discrimination in employment by failing to place him in a position at work that would have allowed him the benefit of the new retirement age. At issue was whether the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's state age discrimination claims. The court concluded that plaintiff did not make clear in his complaint that he was suing his former employer for its failure to demote him to a status that might help him take advantage of the new age limit in the FTEPA and his complaint never alleged that he requested a demotion, that he was qualified for such a position, or that such positions were available, all facts he would need to prove to make out a prima facie case of age discrimination for failure to demote under the state discrimination statute. Accordingly, the court declined to pass on the merits of an argument the district court had no chance to consider and affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's suit.