Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The Paterson, New Jersey, chief of police and Officer Heffernan’s supervisor were appointed by Paterson’s incumbent mayor, who was running for re-election against Heffernan's friend, Spagnola. Heffernan was not involved in Spagnola’s campaign. As a favor to his bed-ridden mother, Heffernan delivered her Spagnola campaign yard sign. Other officers reported seeing Heffernan at a Spagnola distribution point while holding that sign. The next day, Heffernan’s supervisors demoted him from detective to patrol officer as punishment for “overt involvement” in Spagnola’s campaign. Heffernan filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Affirming the district court, the Third Circuit concluded that Heffernan’s claim was actionable under Section 1983 only if his employer’s action was prompted by Heffernan’s actual, rather than his perceived, exercise of free-speech rights. The Supreme Court reversed. When an employer demotes an employee out of a desire to prevent the employee from engaging in protected political activity, the employee is entitled to challenge that unlawful action under the First Amendment and Section 1983 even if the employer’s actions are based on a factual mistake. An employer’s motive, and the facts as the employer reasonably understood them, matter in determining violation of the First Amendment. The harm— discouraging employees from engaging in protected speech or association—is the same, regardless of factual mistake. The lower courts should decide whether the employer may have acted under a neutral policy prohibiting police officers from overt involvement in any political campaign and whether such a policy would comply with constitutional standards. View "Heffernan v. City of Paterson" on Justia Law

After the 2010 census, Arizona’s Redistricting Commission, with two Republicans, two Democrats, and one Independent, redrew legislative districts. The initial plan had a 4.07% maximum population deviation from absolute equality of districts, but a statistician reported that the Justice Department might not approve the plan under the Voting Rights Act requirement that a new plan, compared to the existing plan, not diminish the number of districts in which minority groups can elect their preferred candidates. The Commission adopted a revised plan with an 8.8% deviation on a 3-to-2 vote, with Republican members dissenting. Under the final plan, a Republican-leaning district became more competitive. The Justice Department approved the plan as consistent with the Act. The Supreme Court upheld the plan, concluding that the “deviations were primarily a result of good-faith efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act . . . though partisanship played some role.” Mathematical perfection is not required. Deviations may be justified by legitimate considerations, including compactness and contiguity, and state interests in maintaining the integrity of political subdivisions, competitive balance among political parties, and, before the Supreme Court’s 2013 Shelby County decision, compliance with the Act. Because the deviation here is under 10%, objectors cannot rely on numbers to show a constitutional violation, but must show that it is more probable than not that the deviation reflects predominantly illegitimate reapportionment factors. Objectors failed to meet that burden: the deviations reflected efforts to achieve compliance with the Act, not to secure advantage for the Democratic Party. View "Harris v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm’n" on Justia Law

American nationals may seek damages from state sponsors of terrorism in U.S. courts, 28 U.S.C. 1605A, but face difficulties enforcing their judgments. Concerned with specific terrorism cases, Congress enacted the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012, making designated assets available to satisfy judgments underlying a consolidated enforcement proceeding (identified by docket number), 22 U.S.C. 8772. Section 8772(a)(2) requires a court to determine,“whether Iran holds equitable title to, or the beneficial interest in, the assets.” Plaintiffs obtained default judgments and sought turnover of about $1.75 billion in bonds held in a New York bank account, allegedly owned by Bank Markazi, the Central Bank of Iran. Bank Markazi maintained that Section 8772 violated the separation-of-powers doctrine, contending that Congress had usurped the judicial role by directing a particular result in a pending enforcement proceeding. The district court, Second Circuit, and Supreme Court disagreed, concluding that Section 8772 permissibly changed the law applicable in a pending litigation. Although Article III bars Congress from telling a court how to apply pre-existing law to particular circumstances, Congress may amend a law and make the amended prescription retroactively applicable in pending cases. Nor is Section 8772 invalid because it prescribes a rule for a single, pending case identified by caption and docket number. Measures taken by the political branches to control the disposition of foreign-state property, including blocking specific foreign-state assets or making them available for attachment, have never been rejected as invasions upon the Article III judicial power. View "Bank Markazi v. Peterson" on Justia Law

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has exclusive jurisdiction over interstate wholesale electricity sales. States regulate retail sales. In states that have deregulated their energy markets, “load serving entities” (LSEs) purchase wholesale electricity from generators for delivery to retail consumers. PJM, which manages segments of the electricity grid, operates an auction to identify need for new generation and to accommodate long-term contracts. PJM predicts demand for three years and assigns a share of that demand to each participating LSE. Producers enter bids. PJM accepts bids until it purchases enough capacity to satisfy anticipated demand. All accepted sellers receive the highest accepted rate (clearing price). LSEs then must purchase, from PJM, electricity to satisfy their assigned share. FERC regulates the auction to ensure a reasonable clearing price. Concerned that the auction was not encouraging development of sufficient new in-state generation, Maryland enacted a program, selected CPV to construct a new power plant and required LSEs to enter into 20-year contracts with CPV. Under the contract, CPV sells its capacity to PJM through the auction, but—through mandated payments from LSEs—receives the state price rather than the clearing price. The district court issued a declaratory judgment holding that Maryland’s program improperly sets CPV's rate for interstate wholesale capacity sales to PJM. The Fourth Circuit and Supreme Court affirmed. Maryland’s program is preempted because it disregards the rate FERC requires under its exclusive authority over interstate wholesale sales, 16 U.S.C. 824(b)(1). FERC has approved PJM’s capacity auction as the sole rate-setting mechanism for those sales. Maryland attempts to guarantee CPV a rate distinct from the clearing price, contrary to the Federal Power Act’s division of authority; states may not seek to achieve ends, however legitimate, through regulatory means that intrude on FERC’s authority. View "Hughes v. Talen Energy Mktg., LLC" on Justia Law

Hyatt claims that he moved from California to Nevada in 1991, but the Franchise Tax Board of California claimed that he moved in 1992 and owed California millions in taxes, penalties, and interest. Hyatt sued in Nevada state court, which had jurisdiction over California under the Supreme Court’s 1979 decision, Nevada v. Hall, seeking damages for abusive audit and investigation practices. After the Supreme Court affirmed that Nevada courts, as a matter of comity, would immunize California to the same extent that Nevada law would immunize its own agencies and officials, Hyatt was awarded almost $500 million. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed $1 million of the award and ordered a retrial on another damages issue, declining to apply a $50,000 cap that would apply in a similar suit against its own officials because California’s efforts to control its agencies were inadequate as applied to Nevada’s citizens. The Supreme Court vacated the award, while affirming Nevada’s exercise of jurisdiction. The Constitution does not permit Nevada to apply a rule of Nevada law that awards damages against California that are greater than it could award against Nevada in similar circumstances. The rule applied here is not only “opposed” to California’s law of complete immunity, it is inconsistent with general principles of Nevada immunity law. The Nevada Supreme Court’s decision lacked a “healthy regard for California’s sovereign status.” “Nevada’s hostility toward California is clearly evident in its decision to devise a special, discriminatory damages rule that applies only to a sister state.” View "Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt" on Justia Law

Possession of a firearm by a felon is punishable by up to 10 years' imprisonment, 18 U.SC. 922(g), 924(a)(2), but the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) increases that sentence to a mandatory 15-years-to-life if the offender has three or more prior convictions for a “serious drug offense” or a “violent felony.” The definition of “violent felony” includes a “residual clause,” covering any felony that “otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Welch's ACCA sentence, holding that his prior Florida conviction for robbery qualified as a “violent felony” under the residual clause. The district court denied collateral relief. In Johnson (2013), the Supreme Court held the residual clause unconstitutional for vagueness. The Eleventh Circuit denied Welch a certificate of appealability three weeks before the Johnson opinion. The Supreme Court vacated: Johnson announced a new substantive rule that has retroactive effect in cases on collateral review and, on the record, reasonable jurists could at least debate whether Welch should obtain relief. Substantive rules alter “the range of conduct or the class of persons that the law punishes,” while procedural rules “regulate only the manner of determining the defendant’s culpability.” Since Johnson made the residual clause invalid, it can no longer mandate or authorize any sentence; the decision had nothing to do with the range of permissible methods a court might use to determine whether a defendant should be sentenced. View "Welch v. United States" on Justia Law

Under the one-person, one-vote principle, jurisdictions must design legislative districts with equal populations. In state and local legislative districting, states may deviate from perfect population equality to accommodate traditional districting objectives. Where the maximum population deviation between the largest and smallest district is less than 10%, a state or local legislative map presumptively complies with the rule. Texas, like all other states, uses total-population numbers from the decennial census when drawing legislative districts. After the 2010 census, Texas adopted a State Senate map that has a maximum total-population deviation of 8.04%. However, measured by a voter-population baseline—eligible voters or registered voters—the map’s maximum population deviation exceeds 40%. Objectors unsuccessfully sought an injunction. The Supreme Court affirmed. The Framers endorsed allocating House seats to states based on total population. Debating what would become the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress reconsidered the proper basis for apportionment and rejected proposals to allocate House seats to states based on voter population. A voter-population rule is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent that states and localities may comply with the one-person, one-vote principle by designing districts with equal total populations. Adopting voter-eligible apportionment would upset a well-functioning approach to districting that all 50 states and countless local jurisdictions have long followed. Representatives serve all residents. Nonvoters have an important stake in policy debates and in constituent services. View "Evenwel v. Abbott" on Justia Law

Michigan law enforcement received an anonymous tip that two white males were traveling on I–96 in a white Audi, possibly carrying cocaine. Officers spotted a vehicle matching that description and pulled it over for speeding. Etherton was driving; Pollie was a passenger. A search uncovered 125.2 grams of cocaine in the driver side door. Pollie testified, with a plea agreement, that he had accompanied Etherton, not knowing that Etherton intended to obtain cocaine; that, in Detroit, Etherton left him alone at a restaurant for 45 minutes; and that, while returning to Grand Rapids, Etherton revealed he had obtained the drugs. Officers described the content of the tip; on the third recounting, Etherton’s counsel objected on hearsay grounds. The prosecutor agreed to move on, but, at closing, again described the tip. The court instructed the jury that “the tip was not evidence,” but was admitted “only to show why the police did what they did.” Etherton’s conviction was affirmed. State courts denied post-conviction relief, rejecting arguments that admission of the tip violated the Confrontation Clause; that counsel was ineffective for failing to object; and that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the Confrontation Clause and ineffective assistance claims. The Sixth Circuit reversed denial of federal habeas relief. The Supreme Court reversed, citing the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1) standard of review. A “fairminded jurist” could conclude that repetition of the tip did not establish that the uncontested facts it conveyed were submitted for their truth and that Etherton was not prejudiced when the tip and Pollie’s testimony corresponded on uncontested facts. It would not be objectively unreasonable for a fair-minded judge to conclude that failure to raise a challenge was because the facts in the tip were uncontested and consistent with Etherton’s defense. View "Woods v. Etherton" on Justia Law

Under 18 U.S.C. 1345(a)(2), a court may freeze, before trial, assets belonging to a defendant accused of violations of federal health care or banking laws, including: property “obtained as a result of ” the crime; property “traceable” to the crime; and other “property of equivalent value.” Luis was charged with fraudulently obtaining nearly $45 million through crimes related to health care. To preserve $2 million remaining in Luis’ possession for payment of restitution and criminal penalties, the government secured a pretrial order prohibiting Luis from dissipating her assets, including assets unrelated to her alleged crimes. The Eleventh Circuit upheld the order. The Supreme Court vacated, holding that the pretrial restraint of untainted assets needed to retain counsel of choice violates the Sixth Amendment. The right to counsel of choice is “fundamental” and the property at issue is untainted--it belongs to Luis. The government’s interest in its punishment of choice and the victim’s interest in restitution are important, but, compared to the right to counsel, “they seem to lie somewhat further from the heart of a fair, effective criminal justice system.” The constitutional line between a criminal defendant’s tainted funds and innocent funds needed to pay for counsel should prove workable. Without pretrial protection for some of a defendant’s assets, the government could nullify the right to counsel of choice, eviscerating the Sixth Amendment’s meaning and purpose. The modern, judicially created right to government-appointed counsel does not obviate those concerns. View "Luis v. United States" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.” The court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” that stun guns are “dangerous per se at common law and unusual,” and that “nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military.” The U.S. Supreme Court, per curiam, vacated, reiterating that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” and that it has rejected the proposition “that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” View "Caetano v. Massachusetts" on Justia Law