Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Massachusetts amended its Reproductive Health Care Facilities Act to make it a crime to knowingly stand on a “public way or sidewalk” within 35 feet of an entrance or driveway to any “reproductive health care facility,” defined as “a place, other than within or upon the grounds of a hospital, where abortions are offered or performed.” Mass. Gen. Laws, 266, 120E½. Exemptions cover “employees or agents of such facility acting within the scope of their employment.” Another provision proscribes knowing obstruction of access to an abortion clinic. Abortion opponents who engage in “sidewalk counseling” sought an injunction, claiming that the amendment displaced them from their previous positions and hampered their counseling efforts; attempts to communicate with patients are also thwarted by clinic escorts, who accompany patients to clinic entrances. The district court denied the challenges. The First Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, first noting the involvement of a traditional public forum. The Court employed “time, place, and manner” analysis, stating that the Act is neither content nor viewpoint based and need not be analyzed under strict scrutiny. Although it establishes buffer zones only at abortion clinics, violations depend not “on what they say,” but on where they say it. The Act is justified without reference to the content of speech; its purposes include protecting public safety, patient access to health care, and unobstructed use of public sidewalks and streets. There was a record of crowding, obstruction, and even violence outside Massachusetts abortion clinics but not at other facilities. The exemption for employees and agents acting within the scope of their employment was not an attempt to favor one viewpoint. Even if some escorts have expressed views on abortion inside the zones, there was no evidence that such speech was authorized by any clinic. The Act, however, burdens substantially more speech than necessary to further the government’s legitimate interests. It deprives objectors of their primary methods of communicating with patients: close, personal conversations and distribution of literature. While the Act allows “protest” outside buffer zones, these objectors are not protestors; they seek to engage in personal, caring, consensual conversations with women about alternatives. Another section of the Act already prohibits deliberate obstruction of clinic entrances. Massachusetts could also enact legislation similar to the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, 18 U.S.C. 248(a), which imposes sanctions for obstructing, intimidating, or interfering with persons obtaining or providing reproductive health services. Obstruction of driveways can be addressed by traffic ordinances. Crowding was a problem only at the Boston clinic, and only on Saturday mornings; the police are capable of ordering people to temporarily disperse and of singling out lawbreakers. View "McCullen v. Coakley" on Justia Law

Riley was stopped for a traffic violation, which led to his arrest on weapons charges. An officer searching Riley incident to the arrest seized a cell phone from Riley’s pants pocket, accessed information on the phone, and noticed repeated use of a term associated with a street gang. At the police station two hours later, a detective specializing in gangs further examined the phone’s digital contents. Based in part on photographs found, the state charged Riley in connection with a shooting and sought an enhanced sentence based on gang membership. The trial court denied a motion to suppress. His conviction was affirmed. Wurie was arrested after police observed him participate in an apparent drug sale. At the station, the officers seized a cell phone from Wurie’s person and noticed that the phone was receiving calls from a source identified as “my house” on its screen. The officers opened the phone, accessed its call log, and traced that number to what they suspected was Wurie’s apartment. They secured a warrant and found drugs, a firearm and ammunition, and cash in the ensuing search. Wurie was charged with drug and firearm offenses. The district court denied a motion to suppress. Wurie was convicted. The First Circuit reversed and vacated the convictions. The Supreme Court reversed as to Riley and affirmed as to Wurie. The police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested. The exception for searches incident to arrest does not apply; such searches must be limited to the area within the arrestee’s immediate control, where it is justified by the interests in officer safety and in preventing evidence destruction. A search of digital information on a cell phone implicates substantially greater individual privacy interests than a brief physical search; data stored on a cell phone cannot itself be used as a weapon to harm an arresting officer or to effectuate an escape. To the extent that a search of cell phone data might warn officers of an impending danger,, such a concern is better addressed under case-specific exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as exigent circumstances. There is little indication that either remote wiping or encryption is prevalent or that the opportunity to perform a search incident to arrest would be an effective solution. View "Riley v. California" on Justia Law

Lane, Director of CITY, a program for underprivileged youth operated by Central Alabama Community College (CACC), discovered that Schmitz, a state representative on CITY’s payroll, had not been reporting for work. Lane terminated her employment. Federal authorities later indicted Schmitz on charges of mail fraud and theft concerning a program receiving federal funds. Lane testified, under subpoena, regarding the events that led to Schmitz’s termination. Schmitz was convicted. Meanwhile, CITY experienced significant budget shortfalls. CACC’s president, Franks, terminated Lane and 28 others, citing those shortfalls. Franks rescinded all but two (Lane and another) of the terminations days later. Lane sued Franks in his individual and official capacities under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging retaliation for testifying against Schmitz. The district court granted Franks summary judgment, finding the individual-capacity claims were barred by qualified immunity and the official-capacity claims barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, reasoning that Lane acted pursuant to his official duties when he investigated and terminated Schmitz. A unanimous Supreme Court reversed in part, first holding that Lane’s sworn testimony outside the scope of his ordinary job duties was protected by the First Amendment. Lane’s testimony was speech as a citizen on a matter of public concern. The critical question is whether the speech at issue is itself ordinarily within the scope of an employee’s duties, not whether it merely concerns those duties. Corruption in a public program and misuse of state funds involve matters of significant public concern; the form and context of the speech, sworn testimony in a judicial proceeding, fortify that conclusion. There is no government interest that favors Franks: there was no evidence that Lane’s testimony was false or erroneous or that Lane unnecessarily disclosed confidential information. Franks is entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity. Based on existing Eleventh Circuit precedent, Franks reasonably could have believed that a government employer could fire an employee because of testimony given outside the scope of his ordinary job responsibilities. View "Lane v. Franks" on Justia Law

Abramski offered to purchase a gun for his uncle. Form 4473 asked whether he was the “actual transferee/buyer” of the gun and warned that a straw purchaser (buying a gun on behalf of another) was not the actual buyer. Abramski falsely answered that he was the actual buyer. Abramski was convicted for knowingly making false statements “with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale” of a gun, 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6), and for making a false statement “with respect to the information required ... to be kept” in the gun dealer’s records, section 924(a)(1)(A). The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the misrepresentation was material and rejecting Abramski’s argument that federal gun laws are unconcerned with straw arrangements. While the law regulates licensed dealer’s transactions with “persons” or “transferees” without specifying whether that language refers to the straw buyer or the actual purchaser, read in light of the statute’s context, structure, and purpose, the language clearly refers to the true buyer rather than the straw. The law establishes an elaborate system of in-person identification and background checks to ensure that guns are kept out of the hands of felons and other prohibited purchasers and imposes record-keeping requirements to assist authorities in investigating serious crimes through the tracing of guns tor buyers. The provisions would mean little if they could be avoided simply by enlisting the aid of an intermediary to execute the paperwork. The statute’s language is thus best read in context to refer to the actual rather than nominal buyer. While Abramski’s uncle could, possibly, have legally bought a gun for himself, Abramski’s false statement prevented the dealer from insisting that the true buyer appear in person, provide identifying information, show a photo ID, and submit to a background check. The dealer could not have lawfully sold the gun had it known that Abramski was not the true buyer, so the misstatement was material to the lawfulness of the sale. View "Abramski v. United States" on Justia Law

A former congressman filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission alleging that SBA violated an Ohio law that criminalizes some false statements made during a political campaign. SBA had stated that his vote for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was a vote in favor of “taxpayer funded abortion.” After he lost his re-election bid the complaint was dismissed. SBA pursued a separate challenge on First Amendment grounds. COAST also challenged the law, arguing that it had planned to disseminate a similar message but refrained because of the suit against SBA. The district court consolidated the suits and dismissed them as nonjusticiable, concluding that neither suit presented a sufficiently concrete injury to establish standing or ripeness. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. A unanimous Supreme Court reversed and remanded, finding that the plaintiffs alleged a sufficiently imminent injury under Article III. An “injury in fact” must be “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Challenging a law before enforcement requires alleging “an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution.” The plaintiffs alleged a credible threat of enforcement. Their intended future conduct is arguably proscribed by the statute. The statute sweeps broadly; the Elections Commission already found probable cause to believe that SBA violated the law when it made statements similar to those they plan to make in the future. SBA’s insistence that its previous statements were true did not preclude finding probable cause. The threat of future enforcement is substantial. There is a history of past enforcement; a complaint may be filed by “any person,” not just a prosecutor or agency. Commission proceedings impose a burden on electoral speech. The target of a complaint may be forced to divert significant time and resources in the crucial days before an election. Those proceedings are backed by the additional threat of criminal prosecution. The Court found the “prudential factors” of fitness and hardship “easily satisfied.” View "Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus" on Justia Law

Bond sought revenge for her husband’s affair by spreading toxic chemicals on Haynes’s car, mailbox, and door knob, in hopes that Haynes would develop a rash. Haynes suffered a minor chemical burn that she treated by rinsing with water. Federal prosecutors charged Bond with violating the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, which forbids any person knowingly to possess or use "any chemical weapon,” 18 U.S.C. 229(a)(1). A “chemical weapon” is “[a]toxic chemical and its precursors, except where intended for a purpose not prohibited under this chapter.” A “toxic chemical” is “any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals … regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.” “[P]urposes not prohibited by this chapter” is defined as“[a]ny peaceful purpose related to an industrial, agricultural, research, medical, or pharmaceutical activity or other activity,” and other specific purposes. Bond pleaded guilty but reserved the right to appeal. On remand, the Third Circuit rejected her Tenth Amendment argument and an argument that section 229 does not reach her conduct. The Supreme Court reversed. Section 229 does not reach Bond’s simple assault. Seeing “no need to interpret the scope of the international Chemical Weapons Convention,” the Court stated that Bond was prosecuted under a federal statute, which, unlike the treaty, must be read consistent with the principles of federalism. There is no indication that Congress intended to reach purely local crimes; an ordinary speaker would not describe Bond’s feud-driven act of spreading irritating chemicals as involving a “chemical weapon.” The chemicals at issue here bear little resemblance to those whose prohibition was the object of an international Convention. Pennsylvania’s laws are sufficient to prosecute assaults like Bond’s, and the “global need to prevent chemical warfare does not require the Federal Government to reach into the kitchen cupboard.“ View "Bond v. United States" on Justia Law

After the Supreme Court held that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid the execution of persons with intellectual disability, Hall asked a Florida state court to vacate his sentence, presenting evidence that included an IQ test score of 71. The court denied relief, determining that a Florida statute mandated that he show an IQ score of 70 or below before being permitted to present any additional intellectual disability evidence. The state’s highest court rejected Hall’s appeal, finding the 70-point threshold constitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed. Florida’s rule disregards established medical practice that an individual score is best understood as a range. While nothing in its statute precludes Florida from considering an IQ test’s standard error of measurement, a statistical fact reflecting the test’s inherent imprecision, the interpretation of the Florida Supreme Court takes an IQ score as conclusive evidence of intellectual capacity. The interpretation fails to recognize that measurement’s inherent imprecision and bars consideration of other relevant evidence, e.g., deficits in adaptive functioning, including evidence of past performance, environment, and upbringing. Current thinking does not regard this strict cutoff as proper or humane. When a defendant’s IQ test score falls within the test’s acknowledged and inherent margin of error, the defendant must be able to present additional evidence of intellectual disability, including testimony regarding adaptive deficits. View "Hall v. Florida" on Justia Law

Martinez was indicted in 2006 on charges of aggravated battery and mob action against the state. After significant delays, caused by both sides, his trial was set to begin on May 17, 2010. His counsel was ready; the prosecution was not because it was unable to locate its complaining witnesses. The court delayed swearing the jurors, but ultimately told the state that it could at that point either have the jury sworn or move to dismiss its case. After several hours, the court swore in the jury and asked the state to present its first witness. It declined to present any evidence or participate in the trial. Martinez successfully moved for a directed not-guilty verdict. The court rejected a motion for a continuance, noting that the prosecution had named other witnesses and that the missing witnesses should have been relatively easy to locate. The Illinois Supreme Court allowed the state’s appeal, on the theory that jeopardy never attached because Martinez “was never at risk of conviction.” The Supreme Court reversed, citing the ”bright-line rule” that “jeopardy attaches when the jury is empaneled and sworn.” Martinez may not be retried. View "Martinez v. Illinois" on Justia Law

After a traffic stop, Rickard refused to produce identification or step out of the car, but led police officers on a high-speed chase. After a spin-out in a parking lot, Rickard continued to accelerate, even though his bumper was flush against a patrol car. An officer fired three shots into Rickard’s car. Rickard managed to drive away, almost hitting an officer. Officers fired 12 more shots as Rickard sped away, striking him and his passenger, both of whom died from a combination of gunshot wounds and injuries suffered when the car crashed. Rickard’s minor daughter filed a 42 U.S.C.1983 action, alleging excessive force. The district court denied the officers’ motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, holding that their conduct violated the Fourth Amendment and was contrary to clearly established law. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. After holding that the Sixth Circuit properly exercised jurisdiction, the Supreme Court reversed. The officers acted reasonably in using deadly force. Rickard’s outrageously reckless driving, lasting more than five minutes, exceeded 100 miles per hour, and included passing more than two dozen other motorists. The conduct posed a grave public safety risk. Under the circumstances when the shots were fired, all that a reasonable officer could have concluded from Rickard’s conduct was that he was intent on resuming his flight, which would pose a threat to others on the road. The officers did not fire more shots than necessary to end the public safety risk. During the 10-second span when all the shots were fired, Rickard never abandoned his attempt to flee and eventually managed to drive away. A passenger’s presence does not bear on whether officers violated Rickard’s Fourth Amendment rights. View "Plumhoff v. Rickard" on Justia Law

While campaigning for a second term, President George W. Bush planned to spend the night at a Jacksonville, Oregon, cottage. Local law enforcement permitted supporters and protesters to assemble on opposite sides of a street along the motorcade route. The President made a last-minute decision to have dinner at an Inn’s outdoor patio before going to the cottage. Protesters moved to the front of the Inn, within weapons range of the President. Supporters remained in their original location, where a building blocked sight of, and weapons access to, the patio. At the direction of the Secret Service, police moved protesters two blocks away. They did not require guests already inside the Inn to leave, avoid the patio, or go through security screening. After the President dined, his motorcade passed the supporters, but the protesters were beyond his sight and hearing. Protesters sued, alleging that the agents engaged in viewpoint discrimination, violating the First Amendment. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court, holding that the protesters failed to state a claim under the Bell Atlantic and Iqbal decisions (rendered after they filed suit). On remand, protesters added allegations that the agents acted pursuant to unwritten Secret Service policy of working with the Bush White House to inhibit expression of disfavored views at presidential appearances. The district court denied a motion to dismiss. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding that viewpoint discrimination could be inferred, absent a legitimate security rationale for different treatment of the groups. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the agents are entitled to qualified immunity. At the time of the incident, the Court had addressed a constitutional challenge to Secret Service actions only once, recognizing the overwhelming importance of safeguarding the President. There was no precedent indicating that agents engaged in crowd control bear a First Amendment obligation to make sure that groups with conflicting views are at all times in equivalent positions. Maintenance of equal access would not make sense in the situation the agents confronted, where only the protesters, not the supporters, had a direct line of sight to the President. A map shows that, because of the protesters’ location, they posed a potential security risk, while the supporters did not. The agents could keep a close watch on the small number of people already inside the Inn, surveillance that would have been impossible for the hundreds of people outside the Inn. View "Wood v. Moss" on Justia Law