Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Enacted in response to the high incidence of domestic violence against Native American women, 18 U.S.C. 117(a), applies to any person who “commits a domestic assault within . . . Indian country” and who has at least two prior convictions for domestic violence rendered “in Federal, State, or Indian tribal court proceedings.” The Sixth Amendment guarantees indigent defendants appointed counsel in state or federal proceedings in which a term of imprisonment is imposed, but does not apply in tribal-court proceedings. The Indian Civil Rights Act, (ICRA) which governs tribal-court proceedings, includes a right to appointed counsel only for sentences exceeding one year, 25 U.S.C. 1302(c)(2). Supreme Court precedent holds that convictions obtained in state or federal court in violation of a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel cannot be used in subsequent proceedings “to support guilt or enhance punishment for another offense” except for uncounseled misdemeanor convictions for which no prison term was imposed. The Ninth Circuit reversed Bryant’s section 117(a) conviction, finding that the Sixth Amendment precluded use of his prior, uncounseled, tribal-court convictions a predicate offenses. The Supreme Court reversed. Because Bryant’s tribal-court convictions complied with ICRA and were valid when entered, use of those convictions as predicate offenses in a section 117(a) prosecution does not violate the Constitution. Bryant’s sentence for violating section 117(a) punishes his most recent acts of domestic assault, not his prior crimes. He suffered no Sixth Amendment violation in tribal court, so he cannot “suffe[r] anew” from a prior deprivation. ICRA sufficiently ensures the reliability of tribal-court convictions, guaranteeing “due process of law,” providing other procedural safeguards, and allowing a prisoner to challenge the fundamental fairness of proceedings in federal habeas proceedings. View "United States v. Bryant" on Justia Law

Defendants each sold a gun to an undercover police officer. Each was indicted for violation of the Puerto Rico Arms Act of 2000. While those charges were pending, federal grand juries indicted them, based on the same transactions, for violations of analogous U.S. gun-trafficking statutes. Both pleaded guilty to the federal charges and successfully moved to dismiss the Commonwealth charges on double jeopardy grounds. The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico and U.S. Supreme Court upheld the dismissals. The Double Jeopardy Clause bars Puerto Rico and the United States from successively prosecuting a person for the same conduct under equivalent criminal laws. While the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar successive prosecutions brought by separate sovereigns, “sovereignty” in this context does not bear its ordinary meaning. The issue is the “ultimate source” of the power authorizing the prosecutions. The states are separate sovereigns from the federal government and from one another, but U. S. territories, including an earlier incarnation of Puerto Rico, are not sovereigns distinct from the United States. Federal and territorial prosecutors do not derive their powers from independent sources of authority. Although constitutional developments made Puerto Rico “sovereign” in one commonly understood sense of that term, the dual-sovereignty test focuses not on the fact of self-rule, but on where it originated. Congress conferred the authority to create the Puerto Rico Constitution, which confers the authority to bring criminal charges. That makes Congress the original source of power for Puerto Rico’s prosecutors, as it is for the federal government’s. The island’s Constitution does not break the chain. View "Puerto Rico v. Valle" on Justia Law

Williams was convicted of a 1984 murder and sentenced to death. Philadelphia District Attorney Castille approved a request to seek the death penalty. Williams’s conviction and sentence were upheld on direct appeal, state post-conviction review, and federal habeas review. In 2012, Williams filed a successive petition under Pennsylvania’s Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), arguing that the prosecutor had obtained false testimony from his codefendant and suppressed exculpatory evidence. Finding that the prosecutor had committed Brady violations, the court stayed Williams’s execution. The Commonwealth asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, whose chief justice was former District Attorney Castille, to vacate the stay. Without explanation, Castille denied Williams’s motion for recusal and request for referral to the full court; Castille joined an opinion vacating PCRA relief and reinstating Williams’s death sentence. Two weeks later, Castille retired. The U.S. Supreme Court vacated, holding that Castille’s participation violated the Due Process Clause. There is an impermissible risk of actual bias when a judge earlier had significant, personal involvement as a prosecutor in a critical decision regarding the defendant’s case. No attorney is more integral to the accusatory process than a prosecutor who participates in a major adversary decision; the decision to pursue the death penalty is a critical choice. Neither the involvement of multiple actors nor the passage of time relieves the former prosecutor of the duty to withdraw. An unconstitutional failure to recuse constitutes structural error, “not amenable” to harmless-error review, regardless of whether the judge’s vote was dispositive. The Court noted that many jurisdictions, including Pennsylvania, have statutes and professional codes that already require recusal under these circumstances. View "Williams v. Pennsylvania" on Justia Law

Himmelreich, a federal prisoner, sued the United States, alleging that he was severely beaten by a fellow inmate as the result of negligence by prison officials. The government treated the suit as a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b). The court granted the defendants summary judgment on the ground that the claim fell into the exception for “[a]ny claim based upon . . . the exercise or performance . . . [of] a discretionary function,” namely, deciding where to house inmates. While the motion was pending, Himmelreich filed a second suit: a constitutional tort suit against individual Bureau of Prison employees, again alleging that his beating was the result of officials’ negligence. After the dismissal of Himmelreich’s first suit, the court dismissed the second suit as foreclosed by the FTCA’s judgment bar provision. The Sixth Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed. The FTCA “Exceptions” section’s plain text dictates that the judgment bar does “not apply” to cases that, like Himmelreich’s first suit, are based on the performance of a discretionary function. Had the court dismissed Himmelreich’s first suit because, e.g., the employees were not negligent, it would make sense that the judgment bar provision would prevent a second suit against the employees. Where an FTCA claim is dismissed because it falls within one of the “Exceptions,” the dismissal signals merely that the United States cannot be held liable for the claim; it has no logical bearing on whether an employee can be liable instead. View "Simmons v. Himmelreich" on Justia Law

During jury selection at Foster’s trial, the state (Georgia) used peremptory challenges to strike all four qualified black prospective jurors. Foster was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. The trial court rejected an argument that the strikes were racially motivated, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky. While his state habeas petition was pending, Foster obtained copies of the prosecution’s trial file, including the jury venire list with the names of each black prospective juror highlighted; an investigator's statement comparing black prospective jurors and concluding, “If it comes down to having to pick one of the black jurors, [this one] might be okay”; notes with “N” (for “no”) appearing next to the names of all black prospective jurors; a document with notes about a church, annotated "No. Black Church”; and questionnaires, on which each juror’s response indicating race was circled. The state court denied relief. The Georgia Supreme Court denied a certificate of appeal. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, first holding that it had jurisdiction to review the denial of a Certificate of Probable Cause; there was no indication that denial rested on state law “independent of the merits” of Foster’s Batson claim. The lower court’s application of res judicata depended on a federal constitutional ruling; its decision that Foster failed to show purposeful discrimination was clearly erroneous. Though the trial court accepted the prosecution’s justifications for the strikes, "the record belies much of the prosecution’s reasoning." That a prosecutor’s reasons for striking a black prospective juror apply equally to an otherwise-similar nonblack prospective juror, who is allowed to serve, suggests purposeful discrimination. The Court noted “the prosecution’s shifting explanations, misrepresentations of the record, and persistent focus on race.” Because Batson was decided only months before Foster’s trial, the state argued that the prosecution’s file was an effort to maintain a detailed account should the prosecution need a defense against any suggestion that its reasons were pretextual. That argument, having never before been raised in the 30 years since Foster’s trial, “reeks of afterthought.” View "Foster v. Chatman" on Justia Law

Voters from Virginia’s Congressional District 3 challenged the Commonwealth’s 2013 congressional redistricting plan on the ground that the legislature’s redrawing of their district was unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Three members of Congress from Virginia intervened to defend the plan. The district court struck down the plan and, after remand from the Supreme Court, again held that the plan was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court dismissed a second appeal for lack of standing. A party invoking federal court jurisdiction can establish Article III standing only by showing that he has suffered an “injury in fact,” that the injury is “fairly traceable” to the challenged conduct, and that the injury is likely to be “redressed” by a favorable decision. , Representative Forbes, the Republican incumbent in District 4, has decided to run in District 2, regardless of the litigation's outcome; even if Forbes had standing when he first intervened, he does not have standing now. Representatives Wittman and Brat, the incumbents in Districts 1 and 7, respectively, have not identified any record evidence to support their allegation that the redistricting plan has harmed their prospects of reelection. The allegation of an injury, without more, is not sufficient to satisfy Article III. View "Wittman v. Personhuballah" on Justia Law

Betterman pleaded guilty to bail jumping after failing to appear on domestic assault charges. He was then jailed for over 14 months awaiting sentence, in large part due to institutional delay. He was eventually sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment, with four of the years suspended. The Montana Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that the Sixth Amendment’s Speedy Trial Clause does not apply to post-conviction, presentencing delay. The Speedy Trial Clause right attaches upon a defendant’s arrest or formal accusation, but detaches upon conviction. Before conviction, the accused is shielded by the presumption of innocence, which the Speedy Trial Clause implements by minimizing the likelihood of lengthy incarceration before trial, lessening the anxiety and concern associated with a public accusation, and limiting the effects of long delay on the accused’s ability to mount a defense. The sole remedy for a violation of the speedy trial right— dismissal of the charges—fits the preconviction focus of the Clause; it would be an unjustified windfall to remedy sentencing delay by vacating validly obtained convictions. View "Betterman v. Montana" on Justia Law

Hinojosa was serving a sentence for armed robbery when, in 2009, prison officials “validated” him as a prison-gang associate and placed him in secured housing (Cal. Penal Code 2933.6). In 2010, the state amended the law so that secured housing prison-gang associates placed could no longer earn future good-time credits. Hinojosa filed a state habeas petition, arguing violation of the Constitution’s prohibition of ex post facto laws. The Orange County Superior Court denied the claim on venue grounds. Challenges to conditions of confinement should be filed in the superior court of county of confinement. Rather than file a new petition, Hinojosa turned to the appellate court, which summarily denied his petition. Hinojosa then sought an original writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court of California, which summarily denied relief. The federal district court denied Hinojosa’s ex post facto claim under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), which requires a state prisoner seeking federal habeas relief to exhaust state remedies, 28 U.S.C. 2254(b)(1)(A). If the state courts adjudicate a federal claim “on the merits,” AEDPA mandates deferential, rather than de novo, review, unless the state-court decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,”, or “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.” The Ninth Circuit decided that the Supreme Court of California’s summary denial was not “on the merits.” The Supreme Court reversed. While, generally, “silence implies consent," strong evidence can refute that presumption. Improper venue could not possibly have been a ground for the high court’s summary denial of Hinojosa’s claim. There is only one Supreme Court of California, so its denial “obviously rested upon some different ground” and was on the merits. View "Kernan v. Hinojas" on Justia Law

Employers must cover certain contraceptives as part of their health plans unless the employer submits a form to their insurer or to the federal government, stating that they object on religious grounds to providing contraceptive coverage. The plaintiff-employers alleged that submitting this notice substantially burdened the exercise of their religion, in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993,, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb. In supplemental briefing, the parties acknowledged that contraceptive coverage could be provided to employees, through insurance companies, without such notice. Plaintiffs “need to do nothing more than contract for a plan that does not include coverage for some or all forms of contraception,” and employees could receive cost-free contraceptive coverage from the same insurance company, seamlessly, with the rest of their coverage. Based on these stipulations, the Supreme Court vacated the judgments below and remanded to determine an approach that will accommodate the employers’ religious exercise while ensuring that women covered by their health plans “receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage.” The Court did not decide whether the employers’ religious exercise has been substantially burdened, whether the government has a compelling interest, or whether the current regulations are the least restrictive means of serving that interest. View "Zubik v. Burwell" on Justia Law

Spokeo operates a “people search engine,” which searches a wide spectrum of databases to gather and provide personal information about individuals to various users, including prospective employers. After Robins discovered that his Spokeo-generated profile contained inaccurate information, he filed a class-action complaint alleging that the company willfully failed to comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970, 15 U.S.C. 1681e(b). The district court dismissed. The Ninth Circuit reversed, reasoning that Robins’ “personal interests in the handling of his credit information are individualized.” The Supreme Court vacated. A plaintiff invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing the “irreducible constitutional minimum” of standing by demonstrating an injury in fact, fairly traceable to the defendant’s challenged conduct, likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. A plaintiff must show that he suffered “an invasion of a legally protected interest” that is “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” The Ninth Circuit’ focused on particularization: the requirement that an injury “affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way,” but an injury in fact must be both concrete and particularized. Concreteness requires an injury to actually exist; a plaintiff does not automatically satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement whenever a statute grants a right and purports to authorize a suit to vindicate it. The violation of a statutory procedural right granted can be sufficient in some circumstances to constitute injury in fact, so that a plaintiff need not allege additional harm beyond the one identified by Congress. The Court did not rule on the correctness of the Ninth Circuit’s ultimate conclusion, but stated that Robins cannot satisfy Article III by alleging a bare procedural violation. View "Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins" on Justia Law