Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

SO Apartments, LLC and Elm Creek, LLC (the “Complexes”) challenged the City of San Antonio’s Proactive Apartment Inspection Program (PAIP), which was created to address property maintenance code violations. The PAIP requires multifamily apartment complexes with five or more units to enroll if they receive three or more code citations over six months that are not cured. Enrolled complexes are subject to monthly inspections and a $100 per-unit, per-year fee. The Complexes received multiple code violation notices, failed to cure them, and were fined and enrolled in the PAIP, resulting in significant fees.The Complexes filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, arguing that the PAIP violated the Fourth Amendment by allowing warrantless inspections, the Eighth Amendment by imposing excessive fines, and the Fourteenth Amendment by denying procedural and substantive due process. The district court denied their request for a preliminary injunction, finding they failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, that the balance of harms favored them, or that an injunction would serve the public interest.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the PAIP does not authorize warrantless searches, as it does not explicitly state that city officials can conduct searches without a warrant. The $100 per-unit fee was found to be administrative rather than punitive, and thus not excessive under the Eighth Amendment. The court also found that the PAIP provided adequate procedural due process through its notice and appeal processes. Lastly, the court determined that the Complexes failed to show that the PAIP’s requirements were so egregious as to violate substantive due process. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction. View "SO Apartments v. City of San Antonio" on Justia Law

In July 2020, Taylor Hildreth was a passenger in a car stopped by police at known narcotics locations. The driver consented to a search, and Hildreth admitted to having drugs in his pant leg, which led to the discovery of methamphetamine, Xanax, and drug paraphernalia. A loaded firearm was found in the glove compartment, which Hildreth admitted was his, knowing he was barred from possessing it due to a prior felony conviction. Hildreth was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm and released on pretrial supervision. He was later arrested for assaulting his father, violating his pretrial conditions, and was ordered to in-patient drug treatment, which he completed after an initial discharge for policy violations.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas reviewed the case. Hildreth pleaded guilty to the firearm possession charge. The presentence investigation report (PSR) calculated a total offense level of eighteen and a criminal history category IV, resulting in a Guidelines range of forty-one to fifty-one months. The PSR recommended no adjustment for acceptance of responsibility due to Hildreth's continued criminal conduct. The district court denied the adjustment and imposed an upward departure, sentencing Hildreth to eighty months' imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. Hildreth raised four challenges: the inclusion of a prior misdemeanor in his criminal history, the denial of an acceptance of responsibility adjustment, the upward departure in sentencing, and the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The court found no clear or obvious error in including the misdemeanor, upheld the denial of the adjustment based on continued criminal conduct, found no abuse of discretion in the upward departure, and rejected the constitutional challenge based on existing precedent. The Fifth Circuit affirmed Hildreth's sentence and conviction. View "U.S. v. Hildreth" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, five Muslim U.S. citizens, allege they have been placed on the Terrorist Screening Dataset, commonly known as the "terrorist watchlist." This list includes the No-Fly List, which prevents individuals from boarding flights, and the Selectee List, which subjects individuals to enhanced security screening. Four plaintiffs claim they are on the Selectee List due to repeated enhanced screenings, while one plaintiff, Adis Kovac, claims he is on both the No-Fly List and the Selectee List. Each plaintiff sought redress through the Department of Homeland Security’s Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (TRIP), but only Kovac received confirmation of his No-Fly List status.The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against various federal agency heads, alleging violations of their constitutional rights and unlawful agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The district court dismissed several claims, including due process and equal protection claims, and later dismissed Kovac’s No-Fly List claims as moot after he was removed from the list. The remaining APA claims were addressed at summary judgment, where the district court ruled that the agencies had statutory authority to maintain the watchlist and that the TRIP procedures were not arbitrary and capricious.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the relevant federal agencies have clear statutory authority to create, maintain, and use the watchlist for screening airline passengers. The court found that the statutory framework, including the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, the Homeland Security Act, and subsequent legislation, provided unambiguous authority for the watchlist. The court did not address whether the major questions doctrine applied, as the statutory authority was clear. The court also concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the watchlist’s use in contexts unrelated to airport security. View "Kovac v. Wray" on Justia Law

The case involves two nonprofit organizations, the National Federation of the Blind of Texas and Arms of Hope, which use donation boxes to collect items for fundraising. The City of Arlington, Texas, enacted an ordinance regulating the placement and maintenance of these donation boxes, including zoning restrictions and setback requirements. The nonprofits challenged the ordinance, claiming it violated the First Amendment by restricting their ability to place donation boxes in certain areas of the city.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas reviewed the case. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Arlington on several counts, including the constitutionality of the setback requirement and the ordinance not being overbroad or a prior restraint. However, the court ruled in favor of the nonprofits on the zoning provision, finding it was not narrowly tailored and thus violated the First Amendment. The court enjoined Arlington from enforcing the zoning provision against the nonprofits.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 zoning provision, which limited donation boxes to three of the city's 28 zoning districts, was narrowly tailored to serve Arlington's significant interests in public health, safety, welfare, and community aesthetics. The court also upheld the setback requirement, finding it did not burden more speech than necessary and left ample alternative channels of communication. The court concluded that the ordinance's permitting provisions did not constitute an unconstitutional prior restraint.The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment regarding the zoning provision and rendered judgment in favor of Arlington on that part. The rest of the district court's judgment was affirmed. View "National Federation of the Blind of Texas, Incorporated v. City of Arlington" on Justia Law

The case involves a constitutional challenge to the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020 (“HISA”). The Act empowers a private corporation, the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (“Authority”), to create and enforce nationwide rules for thoroughbred horseracing. The plaintiffs, a group of horsemen's associations and other stakeholders in the horseracing industry, argued that the Act violated the private nondelegation doctrine, the Due Process Clause, the Appointments Clause, and the Tenth Amendment.The district court had previously held that an amendment to the Act, which gave the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) the power to abrogate, add to, or modify the Authority’s rules, cured the Act’s constitutional deficiencies. The district court also rejected claims that the Act violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause and the Tenth Amendment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court that the FTC’s new rulemaking oversight meant the agency was no longer bound by the Authority’s policy choices, thereby resolving the nondelegation problem with the Authority’s rulemaking power. The court also agreed that the Act did not violate the Due Process Clause or the Appointments Clause.However, the court disagreed with the district court regarding the Act’s enforcement provisions. The court held that the Act’s enforcement provisions, which empowered the Authority to investigate, issue subpoenas, conduct searches, levy fines, and seek injunctions without the FTC’s approval, violated the private nondelegation doctrine. The court declared these enforcement provisions facially unconstitutional. The court also affirmed the district court’s finding that one of the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring a Tenth Amendment challenge. View "National Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association v. Black" on Justia Law

The case involves the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), which allocated nearly $200 billion to states and the District of Columbia to assist with economic recovery following the COVID-19 pandemic. However, to accept the funds, states had to agree not to use them to "directly or indirectly offset" reductions in state tax revenue. The states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi filed a lawsuit seeking to enjoin the enforcement of this provision, arguing that it was unconstitutionally ambiguous and violated the Spending Clause and the anticommandeering doctrine.The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the states, finding that the provision was unduly coercive and commandeered the states. It held that the amount of money at stake was too great to present the states with a real choice and that the provision unlawfully forced the states to adopt certain tax policies. The court permanently enjoined the enforcement of the provision, and the federal defendants appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the provision was impermissibly ambiguous and fell short of Congress's constitutional obligation to clearly outline the conditions for states accepting federal funding. The court held that the provision violated the Spending Clause's requirement for clarity, as it left states unable to determine the terms of the deal they were agreeing to. The court also affirmed the district court's grant of a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the provision. View "State of Texas v. Yellen" on Justia Law

Three individuals and the State of Texas filed a lawsuit seeking to enjoin federal statutes that criminalize the creation of silencers for personal use without paying a $200 excise tax, applying for permission from the federal government, and, if permission is granted, registering the silencer in a federal database and labeling the silencer with a serial number. The plaintiffs argued that these federal regulations violated their Second Amendment rights. In 2021, Texas had enacted a law stating that a firearm suppressor manufactured in Texas and remaining in Texas is not subject to federal law or regulation.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of the federal government, holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their claims. The court did not address the merits of the plaintiffs' Second Amendment claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the individual plaintiffs failed to demonstrate an injury in fact, a requirement for standing, because they did not express a serious intention to engage in conduct proscribed by law. The court also found that Texas did not have standing to bring the lawsuit. The state's claim that it had a quasi-sovereign interest in its citizens' health and well-being was found to be wholly derivative of the personal Second Amendment interests of its citizens. Furthermore, the court found that Texas's claim that it had a sovereign interest in the power to create and enforce a legal code was not implicated in this case. The court concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the federal statutes. View "Paxton v. Dettelbach" on Justia Law

A group of individuals and businesses challenged the Affordable Care Act's requirement for private insurers to cover certain types of preventive care, including contraception, HPV vaccines, and drugs preventing HIV transmission. The plaintiffs argued that the mandates were unlawful because the agencies issuing them violated Article II of the Constitution, as their members were principal officers of the United States who had not been validly appointed under the Appointments Clause. The district court mostly agreed, vacating all agency actions taken to enforce the mandates and issuing both party-specific and universal injunctive relief.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed that the United States Preventive Services Task Force, one of the challenged administrative bodies, was composed of principal officers who had not been validly appointed. However, the court found that the district court erred in vacating all agency actions taken to enforce the preventive-care mandates and in universally enjoining the defendants from enforcing them. The court also held that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services had not validly cured the Task Force’s constitutional problems.The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court did not rule on the plaintiffs' challenges against the other two administrative bodies involved in the case, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the Health Resources and Services Administration, reserving judgment on whether the Secretary had effectively ratified their recommendations and guidelines. View "Braidwood Mgmt v. Becerra" on Justia Law

A group of patrons of the Llano County library system in Texas sued the county, its officials, and the library's director and board, alleging that their First Amendment rights were violated when seventeen books were removed from the library due to their content. The plaintiffs claimed that the books, which covered topics such as sexuality, homosexuality, gender identity, and the history of racism, were removed because the defendants disagreed with their messages. The district court granted a preliminary injunction, requiring the defendants to return the books and preventing them from removing any other books during the lawsuit.The defendants appealed the decision, arguing that the removal of the books was part of the library's standard process of reviewing and updating its collection, known as the "Continuous Review, Evaluation and Weeding" (CREW) process. They also claimed that the plaintiffs could still access the books through an "in-house checkout system."The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, but modified the language of the injunction to ensure its proper scope. The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim, as the evidence suggested that the defendants' substantial motivation in removing the books was to limit access to certain viewpoints. The court also found that the plaintiffs would likely suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted, as they would be unable to anonymously peruse the books in the library without asking a librarian for access. The court concluded that the balance of the equities and the public interest also favored granting the injunction. View "Little v. Llano County" on Justia Law

The case involves Mid Valley Pipeline Company, an interstate pipeline company, and the Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners. In 1949, the Levee Board granted Mid Valley a permit to construct and maintain two pipelines across a levee in Mississippi. The permit was not limited to a term of years and could be revoked by the Levee Board if Mid Valley failed to comply with any of the permit's conditions. In 2005, Mid Valley was instructed to relocate its pipelines, which it did at a cost of over $700,000. In 2020, the Levee Board informed Mid Valley that it would be charging an annual pipeline crossing fee and would revoke all existing permits for pipelines not currently paying the fee. Mid Valley did not respond to these notices.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi granted summary judgment in favor of the Levee Board, dismissing Mid Valley's claim that the imposition of the annual fee and the revocation of the permit violated the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution. The court reasoned that the 1949 permit was not a contract.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed with the district court that the 1949 permit was not a contract. The court noted that under Mississippi law, a contract requires mutual assent, among other elements. The court found that the permit was a unilateral grant of permission by the Levee Board, and there was no evidence of mutual assent to form a contract. Therefore, the Levee Board's actions did not violate the Contract Clause. View "Mid Valley Pipeline v. Rodgers" on Justia Law