Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

In 1989, Stevens randomly shot at people on or near Interstate 580 in Oakland, leaving four people dead and six people injured. Stevens was sentenced to death.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of his petition for habeas relief, 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(2). The court rejected Stevens’ “Batson” claim concerning the prosecutor’s decision to use seven peremptory challenges to strike black prospective jurors. The California Supreme Court reasonably concluded that the prosecutor’s race-neutral justifications for striking prospective jurors were supported by the record. As required by Batson, the court considered the claims on a strike-by-strike basis, in light of “all of the relevant facts and circumstances.” The Ninth Circuit noted that in reviewing a state court’s decision and the trial court’s findings of fact, its role is limited to guarding against “extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems.” Finding no such malfunction the court declined to substitute its judgments for the factual credibility determinations made almost three decades ago by the state trial court. View "Stevens v. Davis" on Justia Law

Four months after passing the bar exam, Shane was appointed as counsel for Rogers in a 1981 capital case involving a triple murder. She was the only attorney in a Nevada State Public Defender's satellite office. Shane recognized that a “not guilty by reason of insanity” (NGRI) argument was her client’s only meaningfully supported defense. Another inexperienced public defender became co-counsel shortly before trial. Counsel failed to prepare their mental health experts for trial and to rebut foreseeable evidence. They did not even consult the expert appointed to address Rogers’s legal sanity at the time of the offense. Rogers was sentenced to death.The Ninth Circuit affirmed a judgment conditionally granting Rogers’s 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition. The ineffective assistance claim was never adjudicated on the merits by the Supreme Court of Nevada. Rogers satisfied the “Strickland” test. Even applying the presumption of reasonableness, counsel’s investigation, preparation, and execution of the insanity defense fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Counsel’s most significant error was failing to consult the expert appointed to assess Rogers’s competency for trial and sanity at the time of the offenses; this error was compounded by the inadequate preparation of counsel’s mental health experts. Counsel's failures to rebut the prosecution’s expert and to explain the NGRI defense to the jury in opening statements fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. There was a reasonable likelihood that Rogers’s NGRI defense would have succeeded if counsel had performed effectively. View "Rogers v. Dzurenda" on Justia Law

Hansen operated AHA, which ran a program that purported to help undocumented immigrants become U.S. citizens through adult adoption. Hansen falsely told victims that many immigrants had become U.S. citizens through the Program. No one had achieved U.S. citizenship through the Program; it is not possible to become a U.S. citizen through adult adoption. At least 471 victims participated in the Program; each paid between $550 and $10,000. Hansen was convicted of 12 counts of mail fraud, three counts of wire fraud, and two counts of encouraging or inducing unlawful immigration for private financial gain.The Ninth Circuit vacated Hansen's convictions for encouraging or inducing an alien to reside in the U.S. for private financial gain, 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv). Subsection (iv) is overbroad and unconstitutional. Subsection (iv) prohibits someone from inspiring, helping, persuading, or influencing, through speech or conduct, one or more specified aliens to come to or reside in the United States in violation of civil or criminal law. The court rejected an argument that subsection (iv) is limited to speech integral to criminal conduct--solicitation and aiding and abetting. Subsection (iv) covers a substantial amount of speech protected by the First Amendment, given that many commonplace statements and actions could be construed as encouraging or inducing an undocumented immigrant to come to or reside in the U.S. Subsection (iv)’s narrow legitimate sweep pales in comparison to the protected expression encompassed by the subsection. View "United States v. Hansen" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal without leave to amend of a complaint brought by plaintiffs, a group of elected local government officials, asserting a pre-enforcement challenge to California Government Code section 3550, which states in part that a public employer shall not deter or discourage public employees from becoming or remaining members of an employee organization.The panel concluded that plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they have suffered an injury in fact sufficient to establish their standing to pursue their preenforcement challenge. The panel explained that section 3550 does not regulate plaintiffs' individual speech, and any restrictions the statute does impose on plaintiffs' ability to speak on behalf of their employers do not injure plaintiffs' constitutionally protected individual interests. In this case, plaintiffs have not shown that they have a well-founded fear that PERB will impute these statements to plaintiffs' public employers, particularly in light of concessions made by PERB in this litigation.However, dismissals for lack of Article III jurisdiction must be entered without prejudice because a court that lacks jurisdiction is powerless to reach the merits. In this case, the district court erred by dismissing the case with prejudice. Accordingly, the panel remanded to the district court to enter judgment dismissing the case without prejudice. View "Barke v. Banks" on Justia Law

Schlenker pled guilty to second-degree murder, 18 U.S.C. 1111 and 1153(a), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, section 924(c)(1)(A). In his plea agreement, he waived his right to collaterally attack his conviction and sentence, except for ineffective assistance of counsel claims. After his sentencing, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the residual clause of section 924(c)(3), definition of a “crime of violence,” was unconstitutionally vague. The Ninth Circuit then held that second-degree murder is not a “crime of violence” under the elements clause of section 924(c)(3). Schlenker sought to challenge the validity of his section 924(c) sentence in a habeas proceeding but prosecutors responded that the government would consider the filing of such an action to be a breach of the plea agreement.Schlenker then filed a civil action seeking a declaration that filing a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion would not breach the plea agreement and to clarify the terms of the plea agreement. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of his suit. The district court lacked jurisdiction because there was no “case or controversy” as required under Article III. Schlenker’s declaratory action and motion to clarify improperly sought to carve out a collateral legal issue—the validity and scope of the collateral attack waiver—from a potential section 2255 motion, and to use the Declaratory Judgment Act as a substitute to challenge his sentence. View "United States v. Schlenker" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs challenged, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, Oakland’s Uniform Residential Tenant Relocation Ordinance, which requires landlords re-taking occupancy of their homes upon the expiration of a lease to pay tenants a relocation payment. Plaintiffs alleged that the relocation fee is an unconstitutional physical taking of their money for a private rather than public purpose, without just compensation. Alternatively, they claimed that the fee constitutes an unconstitutional exaction of their Oakland home and an unconstitutional seizure of their money under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit. Although in certain circumstances money can be the subject of a physical (per se) taking, the relocation fee required by the Ordinance was a regulation of the landlord-tenant relationship, not an unconstitutional taking of a specific and identifiable property interest. Because there was no taking, the court did not address whether the relocation fee was required for a public purpose or what just compensation would be. The court rejected an assertion that Oakland placed an unconstitutional condition (an exaction), on their preferred use of their Oakland home. The plaintiffs did not establish a cognizable theory of state action; Oakland did not participate in the monetary exchange between plaintiffs and their tenants. View "Ballinger v. City of Oakland" on Justia Law

The district court dismissed a suit alleging that a price plan adopted by Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (SRP) unlawfully discriminated against customers with solar-energy systems and was designed to stifle competition in the electricity market.The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, applying Arizona’s notice-of-claim statute, which provides that persons who have claims against a public entity, such as SRP, must file with the entity a claim containing a specific amount for which the claim can be settled.The district court erred in dismissing plaintiffs’ equal protection claim as barred by Arizona’s two-year statute of limitations. The claim did not accrue when SRP approved the price plan, but rather when plaintiffs received a bill under the new rate structure. The plaintiffs alleged a series of violations, each of which gave rise to a new claim and began a new limitations period.Monopolization and attempted monopolization claims under the Sherman Act were not barred by the filed-rate doctrine, which bars individuals from asserting civil antitrust challenges to an entity’s agency-approved rates. SRP was not entitled to state-action immunity because Arizona had not articulated a policy to displace competition.The Local Government Antitrust Act shielded SRP from federal antitrust damages because SRP is a special functioning governmental unit but the Act does not bar declaratory or injunctive relief. The district court erred in concluding that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege antitrust injury based on the court’s finding that the price plan actually encouraged competition in alternative energy investment. View "Ellis v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District" on Justia Law

In an action brought under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), the district court entered an injunction, requiring Nevada prison officials to allow the plaintiff to possess no more than a half-ounce of scented oil in his cell for personal use with his prayers.The Ninth Circuit affirmed. Noting RLUIPA's expansive protections for religious liberty, the court concluded that Nevada’s regulation banning personal possession of scented oil substantially burdened the plaintiff’s religious exercise and that Nevada failed to show that the regulation was the least restrictive means of serving compelling interests in general prison security and minimizing contraband. The plain language of RLUIPA prohibits courts from evaluating the centrality of a religious practice or belief, 42 U.S.C. 2000cc-5(7)(A); a court can only scrutinize the sincerity of the prisoner’s beliefs. The court, therefore, rejected assertions that scented oil was not “really that important” to the plaintiff’s worship practice or that plaintiff needed to point to textual support or oral history proving that the Prophet Mohammad used scented oil in prayer. The court noted that the regulation prohibited the plaintiff from using scented oil for prayer—the way the plaintiff believes the Prophet Muhammed prayed—for 34 out of his 35 prayers per week. View "Johnson v. Baker" on Justia Law

King ran a heroin distribution ring focusing on San Francisco housing projects in 1976-1980. King was convicted of first-degree murder and firearms crimes in California state court in 1981 and was sentenced to serve 27 years to life in prison. Later that year, King was convicted of federal drug trafficking crimes and was sentenced to 45 years of incarceration in 1982. King began serving his federal sentence in 2019 after completing his separate California sentence.Shortly thereafter, King directly filed a motion for compassionate release under the First Step Act, 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1), arguing that compassionate release was appropriate because he is 77 years old, highly vulnerable to COVID-19 while incarcerated, and has a wife who is struggling with cancer. The district court denied this motion as procedurally improper because it had been filed by King. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. Inmates who committed crimes before November 1, 1987, cannot move for compassionate release under section 3582(c)(1) but are instead subject to the Sentencing Reform Act and can gain compassionate release only if the Bureau of Prisons requests it on the prisoner’s behalf under 18 U.S.C. 4205(g). View "United States v. King" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of defendants' motion for qualified immunity in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law, alleging that police officers used excessive force when they removed plaintiff from a city council meeting where she and others were protesting. When the protest prevented the meeting from continuing, the officers warned the protesters that they had to leave the meeting room or would be arrested. After the protestors refused and passively resisted, the officers handcuffed them and carried or pulled them by their arms from the meeting room.The panel concluded that the officers did not use excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment where the type and amount of force used by the officers was minimal. In this case, the officers did not strike plaintiff, throw her to the ground, or use any compliance techniques or weapons for the purpose of inflicting pain on her. Rather, they held her by her arms and lifted her so they could pull her out of the meeting room after she went limp and refused to leave on her own or cooperate in being removed. Furthermore, the inherent risk of two officers pulling someone who has gone limp and refuses to move by her own power is not significant. The panel also concluded that although the City's interest in forcibly removing plaintiff was low, it was not nonexistent, and the balance of interests favors defendants. Consequently, plaintiff's Bane Act claims also failed. View "Williamson v. City of National City" on Justia Law