Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The City of New Orleans (the “City”) implemented a program called the Automated Traffic Enforcement System (“ATES”), which used mail to collect fines for traffic violations captured by street cameras. Plaintiffs alleged that the city violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments by confiscating their property and keeping it without just compensation. The City moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and on interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) certified one question: whether the failure to comply with a state court judgment may be construed as a taking?   The Fifth Circuit answered in the negative. The court reasoned that Plaintiffs do not and could not argue that the extraction of fines under ATES was a taking. The court explained that takings are generally effected through the power of eminent domain. In this case, the City acquired Plaintiffs’ money not through eminent domain nor through any other lawful power, but rather through ultra vires implementation of ATES. That posture makes this case unlike prototypical takings actions. Further, Plaintiffs conceive of the city as “taking” their money in 2019, even when that money had been in the city’s possession since 2010 at the latest. And they insist that the City’s conduct from 2008 to 2010 was necessary to effect a taking that did not actually arise until 2019. Such a theory sits uneasily with a linear conception of time and is not rooted in the text of the Fifth Amendment. Thus, Plaintiffs are left with no plausible allegation that the city has effected a taking of their property. View "Lafaye v. City of New Orleans" on Justia Law

Defendants, ERR, LLC; Evergreen Resource Recovery, LLC (collectively “ERR”), owns and operates a wastewater treatment facility. One of ERR’s spill contractors, Oil Mop, performed oil removal and soil remediation. Oil Mop submitted a claim to the National Pollution Funds Center (“NPFC”) for reimbursement of removal costs after ERR refused to pay. The NPFC reimbursed Oil Mop and billed ERR for what it paid Oil Mop.   ERR refused to pay and the Government then sued ERR for what it paid Oil Mop. The Government moved to strike ERR’s demand for a jury trial.  The district court held a bench trial after concluding that the Government’s Oil Pollution Act (“OPA”) claims sound not in law but in equity.   On appeal, the Fifth Circuit addressed ERR’s Seventh Amendment challenge and held that the Seventh Amendment guarantees ERR’s right to a jury trial of the Government’s OPA claims. The court explained that it must consider two factors when determining whether a right of action requires a jury trial. First, the court compared the statutory action to 18th-century actions brought in the courts of England prior to the merger of the courts of law and equity. Second, the court examined the remedy sought and determined whether it is legal or equitable in nature.   Here, the court concluded that the Recoupment Claim sounds in law and hence triggers ERR’s Seventh Amendment right to a jury. Next, the court held that both the nature of the Government’s action and the type of remedy sound in law. View "USA v. E.R.R." on Justia Law

Petitioner applied for asylum and withholding of removal based on claims he was targeted by gangs for his religious activities. An immigration judge (IJ) disbelieved Petitioner’s story and denied his application. After the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal and denied reconsideration, Petitioner filed two petitions seeking review.   The Fifth Circuit denied Petitioner’s application. The court first held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider this argument because Petitioner has not exhausted it. The court reasoned that Petitioner did not raise the argument initially before the BIA, despite the fact that he was in possession of the pertinent documents.   Next, in regard to Petitioner’s argument that the IJ’s bias denied him due process, the court held that the record does not show “obvious bias” and Petitioner failed to point to record evidence showing the IJ’s “hostility due to extrajudicial sources” or “a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” The court reasoned that IJ occasionally questioned Petitioner about his religious activities, but only because those activities were the basis for his claims.   Finally, Petitioner argued that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. The court held that the evidence does not compel the conclusion that the IJ’s negative credibility determinations were wrong. The court reasoned that IJ may assess credibility based on inconsistencies between an applicant’s testimony and prior statements. Here, the IJ cited “specific inconsistencies” and “identified crucial omissions in statements” by Petitioner and his sister and in the letters he provided. View "Cardona-Franco v. Garland" on Justia Law

Four Defendants were involved in an armored car robbery at a bank automated teller machine. Defendants were each convicted of aiding and abetting robbery, attempted robbery, and aiding and abetting the use of a firearm during a crime of violence causing the death of a person. Defendants each raised multiple issues challenging their convictions and sentences and the Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding that Defendants failed to show that any potential error affected their substantial rights.The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in shackling Defendant. The court reasoned that even taking as true Defendant’s assertion that the jury saw his shackles when he was removed from the courtroom, this was a brief and inadvertent exposure. Therefore, Defendant bears the burden of demonstrating prejudice. He does not present any evidence showing that he was actually prejudiced.Next, the district court did not abuse its discretion in temporarily removing Defendant from the courtroom following his outburst. The court explicitly warned Defendant more than once to cease his disruptive conduct lest he be removed.Moreover, the court found that one of the Defendant’s outbursts falls short of the rare circumstances in which a codefendant’s disruption results in incurable prejudice such that a mistrial is required. Similarly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the co-defendant’s motion to sever because the charges against the co-defendant do not differ dramatically from those against his codefendants. View "USA v. Hill, et al" on Justia Law

The SEC brought an enforcement action within the agency against Petitioners for securities fraud. An SEC administrative law judge adjudged Petitioners liable and ordered various remedies, and the SEC affirmed on appeal over several constitutional arguments that Petitioners raised.   The Fifth Circuit held that (1) the SEC’s in-house adjudication of Petitioners’ case violated their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial; (2) Congress unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the SEC by failing to provide an intelligible principle by which the SEC would exercise the delegated power, in violation of Article I’s vesting of “all” legislative power in Congress; and (3) statutory removal restrictions on SEC ALJs violate the Take Care Clause of Article II.   The court reasoned that the Seventh Amendment guarantees Petitioners a jury trial because the SEC’s enforcement action is akin to traditional actions at law to which the jury-trial right attaches. Further, the SEC proceedings at issue suffered from another constitutional infirmity: the statutory removal restrictions for SEC ALJs are unconstitutional. View "Jarkesy v. SEC" on Justia Law

Defendant was the passenger of a vehicle stopped for a traffic violation. During the stop, the officer became suspicious, removed the men from the car, and found a firearm in a jacket on the rear floorboard of the vehicle. Initially, Defendant was charged in state court, but when it was later discovered he was an illegal alien, he was charged with a federal firearms offense.The district court denied Defendant's motion to suppress the finding that Defendant lacked standing to challenge the search. Defendant subsequently pled guilty.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress a firearm, albeit on substantive grounds. The court noted that the standing question was a difficult one, that it decided to leave for another day to address. However, because the search was a valid protective sweep, the court affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress. View "USA v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Defendant was a high-ranking member of the Juarez Cartel between 2000 and 2011. He was charged and convicted of three narcotics offenses, and given three life sentences. He appealed his convictions and sentences on various grounds.The Fifth Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences. The district court's empaneling of an anonymous jury was justified based on concerns over juror safety. Reviewing for plain error, the court also rejected Defendant's claims pertaining to the admission of extraneous evidence. prosecutorial misconduct. The court held that the record was insufficient to address Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims and that his sentences were neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable. View "USA v. Castillo-Rubio" on Justia Law

Officers of the Prentiss Police Department arrested Plaintiff for aggravated assault after he and others told the officers that Plaintiff had shot the victim. Plaintiff sued the officers and the City of Prentiss under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for arresting him without probable cause. He argued that the officers lacked probable cause because he told them that he shot the victim in self-defense. The district court granted summary judgment on all claims and awarded fees to the defendants.   On appeal, Plaintiff argued, first, that the Officer and Chief arrested him without probable cause and that they are not entitled to qualified immunity. Second, the Chief intentionally or recklessly omitted material statements in the warrant affidavit, resulting in a warrant lacking probable cause. Third, the City of Prentiss is liable under Monell. Fourth, he established a material fact issue on his state-law malicious-prosecution claim. Finally, Defendants are not entitled to attorneys’ fees.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment order and award of fees to Defendants. The court reasoned it is not enough to invoke the general principle that the Fourth Amendment prohibits a warrantless arrest without probable cause. Therefore, the Officer and Chief would be entitled to qualified immunity even if they lacked probable cause for the initial warrantless arrest. Further, the court concluded that Plaintiff cannot show want of probable cause therefore, his malicious-prosecution claim cannot succeed. Finally, Plainitff has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in granting attorneys’ fees. View "Loftin v. City of Prentiss, MS" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for conspiracy to possess methamphetamine after DEA agents executed a search warrant at his motel room, recovering more than 150 grams of methamphetamine. The indictment alleged two prior convictions to trigger a sentencing enhancement, one related to operating a methamphetamine lab and the other for possessing methamphetamine with the intent to distribute.At trial, the government provided a detailed account of the Defendant's actions that led the DEA to obtain a search warrant, which was a controlled buy to a confidential informant. However, the officer witness who provided this testimony was not present and was merely recounting another officer's observations. Defendant was convicted.The Fifth Circuit reversed Defendant's conviction on Confrontation grounds. If the government intends to present out-of-court statements in an attempt to provide context for its investigation, use of the evidence must be “circumspect” and “limited.” Here, the witness's testimony was not limited or circumspect and provided prejudicial details that deprived him of his right to confront the witnesses against him. View "USA v. Hamann" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of felony aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Petitioner initiated a postconviction proceeding in federal district court. The district court rejected all of Petitioner’s claims of trial error. Petitioner then sought a certificate of appealability.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment and denied Petitioner’s habeas relief. The court held that while certain conduct by the prosecutor during the trial violated the Due Process Clause, Petitioner was not prejudiced by the violation. The court analyzed Petitioner’s collateral attack on his state criminal conviction under the federal Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). Here, at the outset of custodial interrogation following his arrest, the Ranger gave Petitioner the statutorily required warning that he “ha[d] the right to terminate the interview at any time.” Petitioner immediately invoked this right. The prosecutor subsequently relied on that invocation at trial as evidence of Petitioner’s sanity. The State pointed out that, although Miranda established a right to terminate custodial questioning, this was not one of the rights of which the Court held that suspects must be apprised before questioning begins.   The court concluded that the prosecutor violated the Due Process Clause when he used Petitioner’s invocation of his right to terminate custodial interrogation as evidence of sanity. However, the court further held that the fact that Petitioner’s due-process rights were violated does not necessarily mean that he is entitled to habeas relief. Here, he failed to demonstrate prejudice or that the constitutional violation had a substantial effect on the verdict. View "Engle v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law