Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Enriqueta Diaz, a former county judge and resident of Maverick County, opposed the issuance of certificates of obligation for water and sewer improvements by the Maverick County Commissioners Court. She collected signatures on a petition to force an election on the issue. Despite her petition, the commissioners decided to issue the certificates without holding an election. During the meeting, Diaz heckled the commissioners, leading County Judge English Cantu to hold her in contempt and order her removal. Diaz was detained outside in the rain for several hours and later sentenced to 24 hours in jail, though she was released without being confined.Diaz filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, seeking damages for false imprisonment and bystander liability against County Judge English Cantu and three county commissioners. The district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, rejecting their claims of state sovereign immunity, judicial immunity, and qualified immunity. The defendants appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that constitutional county judges in Texas are not entitled to state sovereign immunity as they are considered local rather than state officers. The court also determined that English Cantu was not entitled to judicial immunity because he was acting in an administrative capacity, not a judicial one, during the commissioners court meeting. Additionally, the court found that English Cantu was not entitled to qualified immunity because he acted without discretionary authority in holding Diaz in contempt. However, the court reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity for the commissioners on the bystander liability claims, as the law was not clearly established that they had a duty to intervene. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Diaz v. Cantu" on Justia Law

Spring Siders, a Christian evangelist, sought to share her religious message outside a public amphitheater in Brandon, Mississippi. The City of Brandon had enacted an ordinance restricting protests and demonstrations near the amphitheater during events. Siders challenged the constitutionality of this ordinance after being directed by police to a designated protest area, which she found unsuitable for her activities. She argued that the ordinance infringed on her First Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi denied Siders' request for a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of the ordinance. The court found that Siders had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of her claim, relying on a similar case, Herridge v. Montgomery County, which upheld restrictions on street preaching near a concert venue for public safety reasons.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the ordinance was content-neutral and subject to intermediate scrutiny. It found that the ordinance was narrowly tailored to serve the significant government interest of public safety and traffic control during events at the amphitheater. The court also determined that the ordinance left open ample alternative channels for communication, as Siders could still engage in her activities in the designated protest area and other locations outside the restricted area.The Fifth Circuit concluded that Siders had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of her First Amendment claim. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction. View "Siders v. City of Brandon" on Justia Law

The State of Texas placed a concertina wire fence along part of the border with Mexico in the Eagle Pass area to deter illegal crossings. The United States Border Patrol agents cut the wire multiple times, claiming it was necessary to fulfill their duty of patrolling the border to prevent illegal entry. Texas sued for an injunction, arguing that the Border Patrol was needlessly cutting the wire. The district court found that the Border Patrol was not hampered by the wire and had breached it numerous times without apparent purpose other than to allow migrants easier entrance. However, the court denied the injunction, citing the United States' sovereign immunity against Texas's claims.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas initially denied Texas's request for a preliminary injunction, despite agreeing with Texas on the facts. The court believed that the United States retained sovereign immunity. A motions panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit disagreed and granted a temporary injunction pending appeal. The United States sought relief in the Supreme Court, which vacated the injunction without providing reasons. The case was remanded to the district court to investigate events in Shelby Park, where Texas's actions were alleged to have obstructed Border Patrol operations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that Texas is entitled to a preliminary injunction. The court held that the United States waived sovereign immunity as to Texas's state law claims under § 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court also rejected the United States' arguments that the injunction was barred by intergovernmental immunity and the Immigration and Nationality Act. The court found that Texas satisfied the injunction factors from Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment and granted Texas's request for a preliminary injunction, with modifications based on the district court's supplemental fact findings. View "Texas v. Department of Homeland Security" on Justia Law

The case involves six plaintiffs who are users of Tornado Cash, a cryptocurrency mixing service that uses immutable smart contracts to anonymize transactions. Tornado Cash was sanctioned by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) for allegedly facilitating money laundering for malicious actors, including North Korea. The plaintiffs argued that OFAC exceeded its statutory authority by designating Tornado Cash as a Specially Designated National (SDN) and blocking its smart contracts.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of the Department of the Treasury, finding that Tornado Cash is an entity that can be sanctioned, that its smart contracts constitute property, and that the Tornado Cash DAO has an interest in these smart contracts. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and focused on whether the immutable smart contracts could be considered "property" under IEEPA. The court concluded that these smart contracts are not property because they are not capable of being owned, controlled, or altered by anyone, including their creators. The court emphasized that property, by definition, must be ownable, and the immutable smart contracts do not meet this criterion. Consequently, the court held that OFAC exceeded its statutory authority by sanctioning Tornado Cash's immutable smart contracts.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case with instructions to grant the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment based on the Administrative Procedure Act. The court did not address whether Tornado Cash qualifies as an entity or whether it has an interest in the smart contracts, as the determination that the smart contracts are not property was dispositive. View "Van Loon v. Department of the Treasury" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Clarence Cocroft and Tru Source Medical Cannabis, L.L.C., challenged Mississippi's restrictions on advertising medical marijuana, arguing that the First Amendment protects their right to advertise because the state permits the underlying commercial transactions. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacities.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi dismissed the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court applied the Central Hudson test for commercial speech and held that because federal law criminalizes marijuana, including medical marijuana, the advertising of such transactions does not qualify for First Amendment protection.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that under the Central Hudson test, commercial speech must concern lawful activity to receive First Amendment protection. Since the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) prohibits marijuana nationwide, including in Mississippi, the underlying commercial conduct is illegal. Therefore, the state faces no constitutional obstacle to restricting commercial speech related to unlawful transactions. The court concluded that the First Amendment does not protect the advertising of medical marijuana in Mississippi due to its illegal status under federal law. View "Cocroft v. Graham" on Justia Law

In 2016, the Mississippi legislature passed S.B. 2162, which abolished the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority (JMAA) and created the Jackson Metropolitan Area Airport Authority (Authority). The new Authority would be governed by nine commissioners, with only two selected by the Jackson city government. The JMAA commissioners, along with Jackson’s Mayor and City Council, intervened in a suit to enjoin enforcement of the law, alleging violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Mississippi Constitution. They claimed S.B. 2162 diluted the voting rights of Jackson citizens and altered the airport’s management for race-based reasons.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi initially upheld the plaintiffs' standing and ordered discovery, which the legislators resisted, citing legislative privilege. On the first appeal, the Fifth Circuit held that the plaintiffs lacked standing, as they failed to demonstrate injury to a legally protected interest. The case was remanded with instructions to dismiss without prejudice. Plaintiffs amended their complaint to address the standing issue, and the district court again ordered discovery. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s privilege ruling but later dismissed the appeal as moot when none of the plaintiff-commissioners held their positions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to sue. The court held that the plaintiffs' alleged injuries were institutional rather than personal, as the injury affected the JMAA as an entity. The court also found that the plaintiffs did not have a protected property interest in their positions or the associated per diem and travel reimbursements. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's order and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss. View "Jones v. Reeves" on Justia Law

The case involves a First Amendment challenge to a policy in Caldwell County, Texas, which categorically excludes the press and the public from observing criminal pretrial proceedings known as magistrations. The plaintiffs, two nonprofit news organizations and an advocacy organization, argued that this policy violates their First Amendment right of access to judicial proceedings. The district court agreed, finding the policy unconstitutional and granting a preliminary injunction to prevent its enforcement.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas initially reviewed the case. The district court found that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the policy and demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment claim. The court issued a preliminary injunction, enjoining the County from enforcing its policy of closing magistrations to the press and public, except in extraordinary circumstances and as constitutionally permitted.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case on appeal. The County argued that the district court erred in finding that the plaintiffs had standing and in determining that they were likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, agreeing that the plaintiffs had standing and that there is a presumptive First Amendment right of access to magistrations. The court applied the "experience and logic" test, finding that both historical practice and the positive role of public access in the functioning of bail hearings supported the plaintiffs' claim. The court concluded that the district court did not err in its determinations and upheld the preliminary injunction. View "Texas Tribune v. Caldwell County" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to Texas House Bill 20 (H.B. 20) by NetChoice, L.L.C. and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA). The plaintiffs argue that H.B. 20, which regulates content moderation by social media platforms, violates the First Amendment. The Supreme Court previously emphasized that facial challenges to state laws, especially under the First Amendment, require a thorough exploration of both the law's unconstitutional and constitutional applications. The Supreme Court found the record in this case to be underdeveloped, necessitating further factual discovery to determine who and what activities are covered by H.B. 20 and how these activities burden expression.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas initially reviewed the case. The district court largely agreed with the plaintiffs that the issues were purely legal questions and required the State of Texas to complete discovery in a short period to avoid burdening the plaintiffs. The district court blocked extensive discovery, which the Supreme Court later indicated was necessary for a proper evaluation of the case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is currently reviewing the case. The court remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's instructions. The district court must now determine the full range of activities covered by H.B. 20, identify the actors involved, and assess how content moderation decisions burden expression. The district court must also separately consider the individualized-explanation provisions of H.B. 20 and evaluate whether these provisions unduly burden expressive activity. The Fifth Circuit emphasized that plaintiffs bear the burden of developing a factual record to support their facial challenge to H.B. 20. The case is remanded for further factual development and analysis. View "NetChoice v. Paxton" on Justia Law

Cedric Allen Ricks was convicted of capital murder in Texas state court for killing his girlfriend and her eight-year-old son and was sentenced to death. After his direct appeal and state habeas petition were denied, Ricks filed a federal habeas petition, which the district court also denied, including a certificate of appealability (COA).Ricks sought a COA from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on several claims. The district court had denied his Batson claim, which alleged racial discrimination in jury selection, finding no prima facie case of discrimination and accepting the prosecution's race-neutral justifications. The district court also found no pattern of racially disparate questioning. The Fifth Circuit agreed, noting that reasonable jurists would not find the district court's assessment debatable or wrong, and thus denied the COA on this claim.Ricks also claimed ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for not raising the Batson claim on appeal. The state court had denied this claim on the merits. The Fifth Circuit found that since the Batson claim was meritless, the appellate counsel's failure to raise it was neither unreasonable nor prejudicial, and denied the COA on this claim as well.Ricks argued that his due process rights were violated when the jury saw him in shackles. The district court rejected this claim, noting that Ricks exposed his shackles himself and failed to show any substantial influence on the jury's verdict. The Fifth Circuit found this claim procedurally defaulted because it was not raised on direct appeal and was barred by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Consequently, no COA was issued for this claim.Lastly, Ricks claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel for not objecting to the shackling and for not challenging the State's peremptory strikes against female venire members. The Fifth Circuit found the trial counsel's decisions reasonable and strategic, and thus denied the COA on these claims.The Fifth Circuit denied the motion for a COA on all claims. View "Ricks v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law

Alex Francois, a Haitian national, left Haiti in 1979 to reunite with his U.S. citizen father. He has lived in New York City, raised six U.S. citizen children, and suffers from severe mental illnesses, including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Francois has been hospitalized multiple times for his mental health and has had several encounters with law enforcement, often related to his mental illness. In 2017, he was arrested for trespassing in Texas, found incompetent to stand trial, and subsequently transferred to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody. The Department of Homeland Security charged him with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i).The Immigration Judge (IJ) initially granted Francois withholding of removal, finding that he would likely be persecuted in Haiti due to his mental illness. The IJ based this decision on expert testimony and country conditions evidence, which highlighted the dire conditions and violent treatment of mentally ill individuals in Haitian prisons. The government appealed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded the case for further factfinding, questioning whether Francois would be singled out for persecution and whether there was a pattern of persecution against similarly situated individuals.The IJ, on remand, reversed the initial decision, denying Francois's claims for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ found that Francois had not proven he would be targeted for persecution in Haiti based on his mental illness. The BIA affirmed this decision, finding no clear error in the IJ's findings. Francois then filed a petition for review with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.The Fifth Circuit held that the BIA deprived Francois of due process by violating its own regulations, specifically by remanding for further factfinding instead of reviewing the IJ's initial findings for clear error. The court granted Francois's petitions for review, vacated the BIA's orders, and remanded the case for the BIA to review the IJ's initial order under the proper standards of review. View "Francois v. Garland" on Justia Law