Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

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

Commercial fishers challenged the constitutionality of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council's actions, specifically targeting the approval and implementation of Amendment 54, which significantly reduced the greater amberjack catch limit. The plaintiffs argued that the Council members were improperly appointed under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and were unconstitutionally insulated from removal. They sought a declaratory judgment and an injunction to set aside the Final Rule implementing the catch limit and to prevent further development of annual catch limits for the greater amberjack fishery.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi consolidated the cases and granted summary judgment to the government. The court found that six of the Council’s seventeen members were improperly appointed as inferior officers. However, it concluded that the plaintiffs were not entitled to relief because the constitutional violation was not the proximate cause of their injuries. The decision to implement Amendment 54 was made by the NMFS Assistant Administrator, not the Council. Additionally, the court noted that the remaining eleven Council members were properly appointed and constituted a quorum.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and remanded it to the district court. The appellate court instructed the lower court to determine whether it had jurisdiction to consider the plaintiffs' request to declare Amendment 54 void and to enjoin the Council from developing further catch limits. The district court was also directed to address whether the NMFS Assistant Administrator’s review and approval of the Final Rule functioned as a ratification of the Council’s actions. The appellate court emphasized the need for a thorough district court analysis of the ratification issue before addressing the validity of the Council members' appointments and the plaintiffs' entitlement to relief. View "Arnesen v. Raimondo" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Sonya Porretto owns Porretto Beach in Galveston, Texas. After filing for bankruptcy in 2009, her case was converted to a Chapter 7 proceeding. In 2020, the bankruptcy trustee abandoned the Porretto Beach property back to her. In 2021, Porretto filed a lawsuit against the City of Galveston Park Board of Trustees, the City of Galveston, the Texas General Land Office (GLO), and its Commissioner, alleging that their actions constituted takings without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment.The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed Porretto’s lawsuit. The court concluded that Porretto lacked standing to sue the GLO and its Commissioner because her complaint did not establish a causal link between their actions and her alleged injuries. The court also found that it lacked bankruptcy jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as Porretto did not invoke 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for her constitutional claims. Additionally, the court denied Porretto leave to amend her complaint and her motion for recusal of the presiding judge.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Porretto’s claims against the GLO and its Commissioner without prejudice, agreeing that Porretto lacked standing. However, the appellate court vacated the district court’s dismissal of Porretto’s claims against the Park Board and the City of Galveston, finding that the district court does have federal question jurisdiction over her constitutional claims despite her failure to cite § 1983. The case was remanded for the district court to consider alternative arguments for dismissal and the issue of supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. The appellate court also affirmed the district court’s denial of Porretto’s motion for recusal and her request for reassignment to a different judge. View "Porretto v. City of Galveston" on Justia Law

In 2023, the City of Mansfield, Texas, enacted ordinances regulating Unattended Donation Boxes (UDBs), which led to enforcement threats against Arms of Hope (AOH), a charitable organization with three non-compliant UDBs. AOH sued, claiming the ordinances infringed on its First Amendment rights. The district court found AOH likely to succeed on the merits and preliminarily enjoined the city's enforcement of the ordinances.The City of Mansfield appealed the preliminary injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, while AOH cross-appealed, arguing the district court should have applied strict scrutiny instead of intermediate scrutiny. During the appeal, the city enacted new ordinances in 2024 that addressed many of the district court's concerns and repealed the 2023 ordinances to the extent they conflicted.The Fifth Circuit determined that the new ordinances rendered the appeal and cross-appeal moot because the 2023 ordinances no longer had any effect. The court noted that the case itself was not moot, as the district court could still address any remaining issues under the new ordinances. The court dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal as moot but did not vacate the preliminary injunction, as the mootness resulted from the city's voluntary actions. View "Arms of Hope v. City of Mansfield" on Justia Law

A group of individuals, declared vexatious litigants under a Texas statute, challenged the constitutionality of the statute. They filed a lawsuit against a state court judge, a state court clerk, and a state official responsible for publishing the list of vexatious litigants. The plaintiffs argued that the statute violated their First Amendment rights and other constitutional protections. They sought a declaration that the statute was unconstitutional, an injunction against its enforcement, nominal damages, and costs and attorney’s fees.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The court assumed the plaintiffs had alleged an injury but concluded they lacked standing because they did not satisfy the causation and redressability elements required for Article III standing. The court also held that there was no case or controversy between the plaintiffs and the state court judge, as the judge was acting in an adjudicatory capacity, not as an enforcer or administrator of the statute.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court agreed that the plaintiffs lacked standing because their injuries were not fairly traceable to the defendants' actions and would not be redressed by a favorable decision. The court also upheld the finding that there was no case or controversy between the plaintiffs and the state court judge, as the judge’s role under the statute was strictly adjudicatory. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' injuries were caused by the independent actions of state court judges who declared them vexatious litigants, not by the defendants' enforcement of the statute. View "Reule v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Three individuals, Jamarr Smith, Thomas Iroko Ayodele, and Gilbert McThunel, were convicted of robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery. The convictions were based on evidence obtained through a geofence warrant, which collected location data from Google to identify suspects. The robbery involved the theft of $60,706 from a U.S. Postal Service route driver, Sylvester Cobbs, who was attacked with pepper spray and a handgun. Video footage and witness testimony linked the suspects to the crime scene, but no arrests were made immediately. Investigators later used a geofence warrant to gather location data from Google, which led to the identification of the suspects.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi denied the defendants' motion to suppress the evidence obtained through the geofence warrant. The defendants argued that the warrant violated their Fourth Amendment rights due to lack of probable cause and particularity, and that the government did not follow proper legal procedures in obtaining additional information from Google. The district court found that law enforcement acted in good faith and denied the motion to suppress. The defendants were subsequently convicted by a jury and sentenced to prison terms ranging from 121 to 136 months.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and held that geofence warrants, as used in this case, are unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment because they resemble general warrants, which are prohibited. However, the court affirmed the district court's decision to deny the motion to suppress, citing the good-faith exception. The court concluded that law enforcement acted reasonably given the novelty of the geofence warrant and the lack of clear legal precedent. Therefore, the convictions were upheld. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law