Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The Airline Deregulation Act preempts a cause of action against an air ambulance provider based on a provision of the Florida Motor Vehicle No Fault Law, Florida Statutes 627.730–627.7405. The Eleventh Circuit held that the insured in this case sought to restrict the prices of the air carrier and the ADA preempted it from doing so. The court explained that the McCarran-Ferguson Act did not interfere with preemption because the balance billing provision, on which the action rests, has nothing to do with the relationship between an insurer and an insured and therefore does not regulate the business of insurance. View "Bailey v. Rocky Mountain Holdings, LLC" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit held that this action claiming that the City violated the Establishment Clause when it approved the construction of a religious center near plaintiffs' homes was moot and no longer justiciable. In this case, a state court barred the construction of the center after the lawsuit was commenced. View "Gaglilardi v. City of Boca Raton Florida" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants for violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), 18 U.S.C. 2721-2725. The Eleventh Circuit held that the DPPA permitted punitive damages against municipal agencies; the district court did not abuse its discretion when it assessed liquidated damages for both occasions when Defendant Thomas accessed plaintiff's information; the district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to certify a class action; the district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to grant a new trial; and the district court did not err when it instructed the jury that punitive damages should bear a reasonable relationship to compensatory damages. View "Truesdell v. Thomas" on Justia Law

The State Executive Clemency Board appealed the district court's orders in favor of appellees James Michael Hand and eight other convicted felons who have completed their sentences and sought to regain their voting rights in Florida. The Eleventh Circuit held that the State Executive Clemency Board has made a sufficient showing under Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 426 (2009), to warrant a stay. The court explained that the Fourteenth Amendment expressly empowered the states to abridge a convicted felon's right to vote; binding precedent held that the Governor had broad discretion to grant and deny clemency, even when the applicable regime lacked any standards; and, although a reenfranchisement scheme could violate equal protection if it had both the purpose and effect of invidious discrimination, appellees have not alleged -- let alone established as undisputed facts -- that Florida's scheme has a discriminatory purpose or effect. View "Hand v. Scott" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a writ of habeas corpus vacating his convictions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court held that petitioner was not denied due process or access to the courts because he was unable—due to the unavailability of a transcript of his criminal trial—to prove in collaterally attacking his convictions that his trial attorneys rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court held that the state court's decision affirming the collateral-attack court's denial of relief was not contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established United States Supreme Court precedent. View "Bush v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. The court held that federal habeas relief was not warranted on petitioner's claim that his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation was violated under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). The court held that there was no basis to conclude that the Florida Supreme Court's denial of petitioner's Sixth Amendment self-representation claim was either contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent, or that it resulted from an unreasonable determination of the facts. View "Barnes v. Secretary, Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition, but on different grounds. Petitioner was convicted of murdering Eleventh Circuit Judge Robert Vance and sentenced to death. The court held that petitioner had Article III standing to challenge Alabama's exercise of custody given his previously-imposed federal sentences, and that his second claim did not constitute an unauthorized second or successive section 2254 petition. The court held, however, that petitioner's claims failed on the merits. The court's own precedent foreclosed petitioner's substantive assertion that the Alabama execution could not be carried out until the federal sentences of life imprisonment were complete. View "Moody v. Warden Holman CF" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant, a deputy in the sheriff's office, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights were violated when the deputy seized his iPhone after plaintiff took photos and videos of a car accident crash scene from an interstate grass median. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's determination that the seizure constituted a Fourth Amendment violation. Furthermore, plaintiff's rights were clearly established at the time of the seizure such that defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity. View "Crocker v. Deputy Sheriff Steven Eric Beatty" on Justia Law

The Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) excepts authorized acts of lobbying from its purview. The Eleventh Circuit denied plaintiffs' appeal of an adverse summary judgment granted for defendants, holding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated the DPPA by obtaining and disclosing each plaintiff's driver's license photo for an impermissible purpose. The court held that the distribution of the photos related directly to Defendant Fewless' lobbying efforts, and when he distributed the photos, he was acting on behalf of a Federal, State, or local agency in carrying out its functions. Therefore, the district court correctly determined that defendants were entitled to summary judgment. In the alternative, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity where there was no case law clearly establishing that Fewless' use of the photos was impermissible. Furthermore, plaintiffs were required to show that no reasonable officer in the officers' position could have believed that he was accessing or distributing the photos for a permissible use under the DPPA. View "Baas v. Fewless" on Justia Law

The Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) excepts authorized acts of lobbying from its purview. The Eleventh Circuit denied plaintiffs' appeal of an adverse summary judgment granted for defendants, holding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated the DPPA by obtaining and disclosing each plaintiff's driver's license photo for an impermissible purpose. The court held that the distribution of the photos related directly to Defendant Fewless' lobbying efforts, and when he distributed the photos, he was acting on behalf of a Federal, State, or local agency in carrying out its functions. Therefore, the district court correctly determined that defendants were entitled to summary judgment. In the alternative, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity where there was no case law clearly establishing that Fewless' use of the photos was impermissible. Furthermore, plaintiffs were required to show that no reasonable officer in the officers' position could have believed that he was accessing or distributing the photos for a permissible use under the DPPA. View "Baas v. Fewless" on Justia Law