Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Charles Pittman pleaded guilty to violating a federal law that criminalizes burning or attempting to burn buildings owned by institutions that receive federal funding. He was charged with aiding and abetting others in maliciously damaging and destroying the Market House, a building owned by the City of Fayetteville, which receives federal financial assistance. During his plea hearing, Pittman confirmed his understanding of the charges and admitted to committing acts constituting the elements of the crime.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina accepted Pittman's guilty plea and later sentenced him to 60 months of imprisonment. Before sentencing, Pittman moved to dismiss Count 1, arguing that the statute required a nexus between the federal financial assistance and the damaged property, and that the criminal information failed to allege such a nexus. He also argued that the City of Fayetteville is not an "institution or organization" under the statute. The district court denied the motion to dismiss.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. Pittman argued that his conduct did not violate the statute and that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him. The court held that Pittman waived his statutory construction arguments by pleading guilty, as a guilty plea admits that the conduct violated the statute. The court also found that Pittman's as-applied constitutional challenge was forfeited because he did not timely raise it before the district court, and he failed to show plain error.The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that Pittman's guilty plea waived his statutory arguments and that his constitutional challenge was both forfeited and failed to meet the plain-error standard. View "United States v. Pittman" on Justia Law

Johnnie Franklin Wills, a state prisoner, filed a habeas petition challenging his life sentence under West Virginia’s recidivist statute. He argued that the judicially crafted test for determining whether a recidivist life sentence is proportional to the crime is unconstitutionally vague. Wills was convicted of grand larceny and conspiracy to commit grand larceny in 2016, and due to his prior eight felony convictions, he was sentenced to life imprisonment with parole eligibility after fifteen years under the recidivist statute.The West Virginia courts denied Wills relief, stating that the void-for-vagueness doctrine does not apply to their proportionality test. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed this decision, distinguishing Wills’s case from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Johnson v. United States and Sessions v. Dimaya, which invalidated certain statutory provisions as unconstitutionally vague. The state court maintained that the proportionality test was clear and did not fall under the same scrutiny as the statutes in Johnson and Dimaya.Wills then filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia also denied. The district court found that the state court’s decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. The court noted that the proportionality test serves as a judicial limitation on the recidivist statute, unlike the statutory mandates in Johnson and Dimaya.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the state court’s ruling was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as the U.S. Supreme Court has not extended the void-for-vagueness doctrine to judicially crafted proportionality tests. Therefore, Wills’s habeas petition was denied. View "Wills v. Pszczolkowski" on Justia Law

Three plaintiffs, including a Virginia citizen, a Virginia entity, and an out-of-state entity, challenged Virginia Senate Bill 903, which regulates the retail sale of hemp products based on their total tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration. The plaintiffs argued that the 2018 Farm Bill, which legalized hemp with a delta-9 THC concentration of no more than 0.3%, preempts the more restrictive Virginia law. They also claimed that the Virginia law violates the Dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on their preemption arguments, as the 2018 Farm Bill does not expressly preempt state laws regulating hemp more stringently. The court also concluded that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege that they were licensed processors under Virginia law, thus lacking standing to challenge the provision preventing Virginia processors from selling hemp products to others who would use them in violation of the total THC standard. Additionally, the court rejected the plaintiffs' Dormant Commerce Clause claims, finding no evidence that the Virginia law discriminates against or unduly burdens interstate commerce.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with the district court that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the sales restriction provision, as they did not allege sufficient facts showing they were licensed processors. The court vacated the district court's order regarding this claim and remanded with instructions to dismiss it without prejudice. However, the court affirmed the district court's denial of injunctive relief concerning the total THC standard, finding that the plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on their preemption and Dormant Commerce Clause claims. View "Northern Virginia Hemp and Agriculture, LLC v. Commonwealth of Virginia" on Justia Law

A service-disabled veteran and his company, MJL Enterprises, LLC, alleged that the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Section 8(a) Business Development Program discriminated against him based on race. The program uses a race-conscious presumption to determine social disadvantage, which the plaintiffs argued was unconstitutional. They sought a declaration that the program's racial classifications were unconstitutional and an injunction against its enforcement.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the case, ruling it moot due to changes in the 8(a) Program following an injunction in another case, Ultima Services Corp. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture. The district court also found that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to demonstrate economic disadvantage and could not establish social disadvantage without the presumption.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court’s ruling on mootness, agreeing with the plaintiffs that the case was not moot because the changes to the 8(a) Program were not final and could be appealed. However, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal based on lack of standing. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate an injury in fact, as they did not show they were "able and ready" to bid on 8(a) Program contracts due to their inability to meet the program’s social and economic disadvantage requirements. The court also found that the plaintiffs could not establish causation or redressability, as their ineligibility for the program was not solely due to the race-conscious presumption.The Fourth Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to sue and affirmed the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "Hierholzer v. Guzman" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, representing West Virginia Parents for Religious Freedom and others, filed a lawsuit challenging West Virginia's mandatory vaccination requirement for children, claiming it violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The law mandates immunizations for children attending public, private, or parochial schools, with medical exemptions but no religious exemptions. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief against state health officials.The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia applied the Pullman abstention doctrine, deciding not to resolve the Free Exercise claim and staying the case. The court reasoned that a recent state law, the Equal Protection for Religion Act (EPRA), might impact the vaccination mandate and should be interpreted by state courts first. The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' motion to abstain.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court erred in applying the Pullman abstention doctrine because the plaintiffs' claim did not present an unclear issue of state law requiring interpretation. The court emphasized that federal courts have a duty to exercise their jurisdiction and that abstention is only appropriate in special circumstances. The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's abstention ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings, including addressing the defendants' arguments regarding Ex Parte Young and Article III standing, and if necessary, resolving the Free Exercise claim. View "West Virginia Parents for Religious Freedom v. Christiansen" on Justia Law

Matthew Ryan Hunt was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits individuals convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year from possessing firearms. Hunt's 2017 conviction for breaking and entering in West Virginia served as the predicate offense. In May 2022, Hunt pleaded guilty without raising a Second Amendment challenge. On appeal, Hunt argued that § 922(g)(1) violated the Second Amendment both facially and as applied to him. He also contended that the district court erred in applying a four-point enhancement to his offense level under the federal sentencing guidelines.The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia accepted Hunt's guilty plea and applied the four-point enhancement, finding that Hunt had fired a gun inside an apartment building during a domestic violence incident, which constituted wanton endangerment under West Virginia law. Hunt appealed the decision, arguing that the statute was unconstitutional and that the district court's factual findings were erroneous.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reaffirmed that § 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional, consistent with its prior decision in United States v. Canada. The court also rejected Hunt's as-applied challenge, holding that neither the Supreme Court's decisions in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen nor United States v. Rahimi abrogated the Fourth Circuit's precedent foreclosing as-applied challenges to § 922(g)(1). Additionally, the court concluded that § 922(g)(1) would survive Second Amendment scrutiny even if decided anew.The Fourth Circuit also upheld the district court's application of the four-point enhancement, finding no clear error in the factual determination that Hunt fired a gun in the apartment. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "US v. Hunt" on Justia Law

The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of South Carolina (ACLU-SC) challenged the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC) policy that prohibits personal contact interviews with inmates. ACLU-SC sought to record and publish interviews with death row inmate Marion Bowman, Jr., and another inmate, Sofia Cano, for a series of audio podcasts and written pieces. The SCDC policy, however, forbids such interviews. ACLU-SC filed a lawsuit alleging that the policy violates the First Amendment both facially and as applied to its planned interviews.The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina dismissed ACLU-SC’s complaint for failure to state a claim and denied its request for a preliminary injunction. The district court found that ACLU-SC has no First Amendment right to access prison inmates to conduct interviews for publication. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents that reject a claimed right to access and interview inmates, concluding that the Constitution does not mandate a right of access to government information or sources of information within the government’s control.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Fourth Circuit held that ACLU-SC has no First Amendment right to interview and record SCDC inmates, as the policy does not place the press in any less advantageous position than the public generally. The court also rejected ACLU-SC’s facial challenge to the policy, finding that the policy does not prohibit a substantial amount of protected speech relative to its plainly legitimate sweep. The court concluded that the district court correctly dismissed ACLU-SC’s complaint and did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction. View "American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of South Carolina v. Stirling" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs in this case are retail pet stores, a dog broker, and a dog breeder who want to sell dogs through physical retail stores in Maryland. However, a Maryland law restricts their ability to do so. The plaintiffs sued, alleging that the Maryland statute is preempted by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, concluding that they failed to state plausible claims. The plaintiffs then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.The Fourth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the AWA does not preempt the Maryland statute because the AWA expressly contemplates state and local regulation on the same subject. The court also found that the Maryland statute does not pose an impermissible obstacle to achieving the purposes and objectives of the AWA.Regarding the Commerce Clause claims, the court held that the Maryland statute does not discriminate against interstate commerce in purpose or effect. The statute applies equally to in-state and out-of-state breeders and brokers, and it does not prohibit the flow of interstate goods or place added costs upon them. The court also found that the statute does not violate the Pike balancing test because the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that the statute imposes a substantial burden on interstate commerce that is clearly excessive in relation to its putative local benefits.In conclusion, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint, holding that the Maryland statute is not preempted by the AWA and does not violate the Commerce Clause. View "Just Puppies, Inc. v. Brown" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Tati Abu King and Toni Heath Johnson were unable to register to vote in Virginia due to felony convictions. King was convicted of felony drug possession in 2018, and Johnson was convicted of multiple felonies, including drug possession, in 2021. Virginia's constitution disenfranchises individuals convicted of felonies unless their civil rights are restored by the Governor or other appropriate authority. King and Johnson argued that this disenfranchisement violated the Virginia Readmission Act, a federal statute from 1870, which they claimed restricted Virginia from amending its constitution to disenfranchise individuals for crimes that were not felonies at common law in 1870.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed three of the four counts in the plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim but allowed one count based on the Virginia Readmission Act to proceed. The defendants, including various state election officials and the Governor of Virginia, moved to dismiss the complaint on sovereign immunity grounds, which the district court rejected.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the plaintiffs' claim met the requirements of the Ex parte Young doctrine, which allows suits for prospective relief against state officials to prevent ongoing violations of federal law. The court affirmed the district court's decision to allow the claim to proceed against most defendants but reversed the decision regarding the Governor of Virginia and the Secretary of the Commonwealth, finding that they lacked enforcement responsibility for the challenged state action. The court concluded that the Governor and Secretary must be dismissed from the case on sovereign immunity grounds. The district court's order was thus affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "King v. Youngkin" on Justia Law

Stephen Bullis was convicted of six federal crimes, including two counts of using a firearm during and in relation to other crimes, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). After serving twenty-three years in prison, the United States Supreme Court struck down the “residual clause” of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) as unconstitutional. This led the district court to set aside Bullis’s two Section 924(c) convictions and resentence him on the remaining four counts. Bullis argued that the resentencing violated his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause because he had fully served his sentence on these counts at the time of the resentencing.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina initially sentenced Bullis to 235 months of imprisonment on each of Counts 1, 2, 4, and 5, all to run concurrently. On Count 3, Bullis was sentenced to 360 months, and on Count 6, he received a lifetime sentence, both to run consecutively to the 235-month concurrent sentences. After the Supreme Court’s ruling, the district court vacated Counts 3 and 6 and resentenced Bullis to 450 months on Count 2 and 240 months on Counts 1, 3, and 5, all to run concurrently.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Bullis’s resentencing did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because his sentences for Counts 1, 2, 4, and 5 were part of a consecutive sentence package that had not been fully served. However, the court found that the district court committed reversible errors by imposing a special condition of supervised release that differed materially from the court’s oral pronouncement and by failing to incorporate clearly the Standard Conditions of Supervision as adopted in the Eastern District of North Carolina. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded the case for resentencing. View "US v. Bullis" on Justia Law