Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Dr. Ronald S. Hines, a retired and physically disabled veterinarian licensed in Texas, provided online pet-care advice without physically examining the animals. Texas law requires veterinarians to establish a veterinarian-client-patient relationship (VCPR) through an in-person examination or a visit to the premises where the animal is kept before offering veterinary advice. Dr. Hines was penalized for violating this requirement, receiving probation, a fine, and being forced to retake a licensing exam. He challenged the law on First Amendment grounds, arguing that it unconstitutionally restricted his speech.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas initially dismissed Dr. Hines's First Amendment claim, but the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for further consideration in light of new Supreme Court precedent. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment for the State, concluding that the law regulated Dr. Hines's speech in a content-neutral way and survived intermediate scrutiny. Dr. Hines appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the physical-examination requirement primarily regulated Dr. Hines's speech rather than his conduct. The court found that the State failed to demonstrate that the harms it sought to address with the law were real and that the law alleviated these harms in a direct and material way. The court also concluded that the law was not narrowly tailored to serve the State's interests, as it burdened substantially more speech than necessary. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case with instructions to enter judgment for Dr. Hines, upholding his First Amendment rights. View "Hines v. Pardue" on Justia Law

The case involves the National Infusion Center Association (NICA) and other plaintiffs challenging the constitutionality of the Drug Price Negotiation Program established by the Inflation Reduction Act. This program requires the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to negotiate drug prices with manufacturers, setting a "maximum fair price" between 40% and 75% of the market price. Manufacturers who do not comply face significant fines or must withdraw from Medicare coverage entirely.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed NICA's lawsuit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The district court reasoned that NICA's claims had to be "channeled" through HHS as required by 42 U.S.C. § 405, which mandates that claims arising under the Medicare Act be decided by the relevant agency before being brought to federal court. The district court also dismissed the remaining plaintiffs due to improper venue without NICA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and found that NICA had standing based on both economic and procedural injuries. The court determined that NICA's claims did not arise under the Medicare Act but rather under the Inflation Reduction Act, and thus did not require channeling through HHS. The court held that the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over NICA's claims and reversed the lower court's dismissal, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "Natl Infusion Center v. Becerra" on Justia Law

On November 4, 2020, San Antonio police officers stopped a car driven by Ronnie Diaz, Jr. They detected a strong odor of marijuana and found empty baggies commonly used for narcotics. Diaz admitted to having ammunition in his pocket and being a convicted felon. A search of the vehicle revealed a .45 caliber pistol, methamphetamine, counterfeit Xanax, and heroin. Diaz had prior convictions, including theft of a vehicle and evading arrest in 2014, and possession of a firearm as a felon in 2018.Diaz was charged in the Western District of Texas with possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, possessing firearms during a drug trafficking crime, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He moved to dismiss the felon-in-possession charge, arguing it violated the Second Amendment. The district court denied the motion, and Diaz was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 120 months for counts one and three, to run concurrently, and 60 months for count two, to run consecutively.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. Diaz raised two claims: that his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, both facially and as applied, and that the statute exceeded Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. The court dismissed the Commerce Clause argument as foreclosed by precedent. Applying the historical analysis required by New York Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, the court found that the regulation of firearm possession by felons is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to Diaz and facially. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit affirmed Diaz’s conviction. View "United States v. Diaz" on Justia Law

Astrid Dariana Lopez Orellana, a noncitizen, entered the U.S. without inspection in 2019, fleeing gang threats in Honduras. In 2022, she was convicted of accessory after the fact to armed robbery under Louisiana law. Subsequently, she was taken into ICE custody and designated as an aggravated felon, leading to expedited removal proceedings.The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a Final Administrative Removal Order (FARO) and a Notice of Intent (NOI) to remove her, alleging her conviction was an aggravated felony. Lopez requested withholding of removal, and an asylum officer found she had a reasonable fear of persecution if returned to Honduras. Her case was referred to an Immigration Judge (IJ). DHS later issued a new NOI and FARO on the same day, claiming her conviction was an aggravated felony related to obstruction of justice. Lopez challenged this, arguing the Louisiana statute did not match the federal definition of obstruction of justice, and that DHS violated procedural regulations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the Louisiana accessory-after-the-fact statute requires only general intent, whereas the federal obstruction of justice offense requires specific intent. Therefore, the state statute is not a categorical match for the federal offense. The court also determined that DHS violated Lopez’s due process rights by not following proper procedures, such as issuing the FARO and NOI on the same day and failing to serve the FARO in a timely manner.The Fifth Circuit granted Lopez’s petition for review, vacated the order of removal, and remanded the case to DHS for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The court directed the government to facilitate Lopez’s participation in these proceedings. View "Orellana v. Garland" on Justia Law

Independent candidates and minor political parties in Texas challenged several provisions of the Texas Election Code, arguing that these provisions, when combined, violate their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by imposing severe and unequal burdens on non-wealthy Independents and Minor Parties. The provisions in question include requirements for obtaining ballot access through primary elections, party nominations, or nominating petitions, as well as restrictions on petitioning methods and timelines.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court granted in part and denied in part the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court found that the requirement for candidates to submit hardcopy signatures for ballot access petitions was unconstitutional, reasoning that it imposed an unequal burden on the plaintiffs compared to Major Parties, which could use electronic methods. The court enjoined the enforcement of the paper-petitioning process but stayed its injunction pending appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and applied the Anderson-Burdick framework to evaluate the constitutionality of the ballot-access laws. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the challenged provisions imposed severe burdens on them. The court upheld the numerical signature requirement, the costs associated with obtaining signatures, the time constraints on petitioning, and the restrictive petitioning procedures as justified by legitimate state interests. The court also upheld the filing fee or petition requirement for Minor Party candidates and rejected the claim that the provisions imposed more severe restrictions on presidential Independents.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's finding that the paper-petitioning requirement was unconstitutional, noting that all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, must obtain petition signatures through hardcopy methods. The court affirmed the constitutionality of the challenged provisions and rendered judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Miller v. Nelson" on Justia Law

Michael Ray Senn was convicted in a Texas state court of sexual assault and prohibited sexual conduct with his intellectually disabled daughter, Brenda, who has an IQ of 64 and the competence of a preteen. In 2011, Senn raped Brenda, resulting in her pregnancy and the birth of a child in January 2012. DNA testing confirmed Senn as the biological father. A Texas jury found Senn guilty and applied a sentencing enhancement under Texas Penal Code Section 22.011(f), which increased the maximum sentence to life imprisonment because Senn was already married at the time of the assault.Senn's conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal by the Texas Court of Appeals. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals vacated the initial appellate decision and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of its decision in Arteaga v. State. On remand, the appellate court initially found insufficient evidence for the enhancement but was later overruled by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Lopez v. State, which clarified that the enhancement applied if the defendant was married to someone other than the victim at the time of the assault. Senn's subsequent appeals, including an equal protection challenge, were rejected by the Texas courts.Senn then filed a federal habeas corpus petition, arguing that the application of the sentencing enhancement violated the Equal Protection Clause. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied his petition, holding that the state court's decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Senn failed to demonstrate that the state court's application of the law was unreasonable or contrary to clearly established federal law, specifically noting that the enhancement had a rational basis in protecting children and vulnerable individuals from sexual exploitation. View "Senn v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law

Paola Connelly, a non-violent marijuana user, was charged after El Paso police responded to a "shots fired" call at her home. Her husband, John, was found firing a shotgun at a neighbor's door and was arrested. Paola admitted to occasionally using marijuana for sleep and anxiety. A search of their home revealed drug paraphernalia and several firearms, including a pistol owned by Paola. She was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) for possessing firearms as an unlawful user of a controlled substance and 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3) for providing firearms to an unlawful user.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas initially denied Paola's motion to dismiss the charges. However, after the Fifth Circuit's decision in United States v. Rahimi, the District Court reconsidered and found that §§ 922(g)(3) and 922(d)(3) were facially unconstitutional and that § 922(g)(3) was unconstitutional as applied to Paola under the Second Amendment. The government appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that while historical and traditional regulations may support some limits on a presently intoxicated person's right to carry a weapon, they do not support disarming a sober person based solely on past substance usage. The court affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the charges against Paola as applied to her but reversed the facial challenges to §§ 922(g)(3) and 922(d)(3). The court concluded that there are circumstances where these statutes could be constitutionally applied, such as banning presently intoxicated individuals from carrying firearms. View "United States v. Connelly" on Justia Law

Jose Paz Medina-Cantu was charged with possession of a firearm and ammunition as an illegal alien, violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5)(A) and 924(a)(2), and illegal reentry into the United States, violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). He moved to dismiss the firearm possession charge, arguing that the statute was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen. The district court denied his motion, referencing the Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Portillo-Munoz, which held that the Second Amendment does not extend to illegal aliens.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied Medina-Cantu’s motion to dismiss, holding that Bruen did not abrogate the precedent set by Portillo-Munoz. Medina-Cantu then pleaded guilty to both counts without a plea agreement but preserved his constitutional argument for appeal. He was sentenced to fifteen months of imprisonment followed by two years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. Medina-Cantu argued that the Supreme Court’s decisions in Bruen and United States v. Rahimi abrogated Portillo-Munoz. However, the Fifth Circuit held that neither Bruen nor Rahimi unequivocally overruled Portillo-Munoz. The court emphasized that under its rule of orderliness, it could not overturn another panel’s decision unless there was an unequivocal change in the law by the Supreme Court or an en banc decision. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, upholding the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) under the Second Amendment. View "USA v. Medina-Cantu" on Justia Law

The case involves a long-standing litigation concerning the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office and the conditions at Orleans Parish Prison. Plaintiffs, including detainees and the United States, argued that the jail provided constitutionally inadequate housing and medical care. In 2013, a district court approved a consent decree to address these issues, which included a plan to construct a mental health annex, known as Phase III. Despite years of delays, the district court ordered the construction to proceed. No party appealed these orders at the time.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana oversaw the case initially. In 2016, the parties entered a stipulated order to develop a plan for appropriate housing for prisoners with mental health issues. The Compliance Director later proposed the construction of Phase III, which was agreed upon by the former Sheriff and the City. However, the City later sought to explore alternatives, leading to further court orders in 2019 to proceed with Phase III. The City’s subsequent motion to halt the project was denied, and this decision was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Anderson v. City of New Orleans.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is currently reviewing the case. The new Sheriff, Susan Hutson, moved to terminate all orders concerning Phase III, arguing that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) prohibits the construction of a new jail facility. The district court denied this motion, and the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that it could review the denial of the motion but not the underlying orders, as the Sheriff’s motion was not a proper procedural mechanism under the PLRA to challenge the 2019 Orders and Stipulated Order. The appeal was dismissed, and the construction of Phase III continues. View "Anderson v. Hutson" on Justia Law

Tesla, Inc. and its affiliates challenged a Louisiana law that prohibits automobile manufacturers from selling directly to consumers and performing warranty services for cars they do not own. Tesla alleged that the law violated federal antitrust law, due process rights, and equal protection rights. The defendants included the Louisiana Motor Vehicle Commission, its commissioners, the Louisiana Automobile Dealers Association (LADA), and various dealerships.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana dismissed Tesla's claims. The court found that the private defendants were immune from antitrust liability, Tesla had not plausibly pleaded a Sherman Act violation against the governmental defendants, there was insufficient probability of actual bias to support the due process claim, and the regulations passed rational-basis review for the equal protection claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the dismissal of Tesla's due process claim, finding that Tesla had plausibly alleged that the Commission's composition and actions created a possible bias against Tesla, violating due process. The court vacated and remanded the dismissal of the antitrust claim, noting that the due process ruling fundamentally altered the grounds for Tesla's alleged antitrust injury. The court affirmed the dismissal of the equal protection claim, holding that the regulations had a rational basis in preventing vertical integration and controlling the automobile retail market.In summary, the Fifth Circuit reversed the due process claim dismissal, vacated and remanded the antitrust claim dismissal, and affirmed the equal protection claim dismissal. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion. View "Tesla v. Louisiana Automobile Dealers" on Justia Law