Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Christopher Grimes, a California state inmate, was convicted of second-degree murder. The conviction was based, in part, on statements Grimes made to an undercover jailhouse informant after he had invoked his Fifth Amendment right to counsel. Grimes appealed his conviction, arguing that his statements to the informant should have been suppressed because they were obtained in violation of his right to counsel.The California Court of Appeal affirmed Grimes' conviction. It held that the statements were admissible because law enforcement is not required to give Miranda warnings to a suspect before placing them in a jail cell with an undercover informant. This decision was based on the U.S. Supreme Court case Illinois v. Perkins, which held that the policy underlying Miranda is not implicated when a suspect makes statements to an individual they believe is a fellow inmate. Grimes' petition for review before the California Supreme Court was denied without comment.Grimes then filed a federal habeas petition, arguing that the California Court of Appeal misapplied Edwards v. Arizona, which held that law enforcement must cease custodial interrogation when a suspect invokes their right to counsel unless they subsequently waive that right. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Grimes' habeas petition. The court held that because the Supreme Court has never squarely addressed whether the Fifth Amendment precludes an undercover jailhouse informant posing as an inmate to question an incarcerated suspect who has previously invoked his right to counsel, the California Court of Appeal’s decision is not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as defined by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. View "Grimes v. Phillips" on Justia Law

A group of firefighters from the City of Spokane filed a lawsuit against the city and state officials, alleging that a COVID-19 vaccination mandate violated their rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The mandate, issued by Washington Governor Jay Inslee, required all state agency workers to be fully vaccinated, but the firefighters claimed that their requests for religious exemptions were denied. They were subsequently terminated for failing to get vaccinated. The firefighters also alleged that the city used firefighters from neighboring departments, who were granted religious exemptions by their respective departments, to fill the gaps left by their termination.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington granted judgment on the pleadings to the city and state defendants, dismissing the firefighters' claims. The court held that the city's vaccination requirement survived both strict scrutiny and rational basis review, and that accommodating unvaccinated firefighters would impose an undue hardship.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the firefighters' claims for retrospective and prospective relief were not moot, despite the rescission of the Proclamation. The court found that the city's implementation of the vaccination policy was not generally applicable, as it exempted certain firefighters based on a secular criterion while holding firefighters who objected to vaccination on religious grounds to a higher standard. The court also held that the city's application of the Proclamation was not narrowly tailored to advance the government's compelling interest in stemming the spread of COVID-19. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Bacon v. Woodward" on Justia Law

The case involves Leopoldo Rivera-Valdes, a Mexican citizen who unlawfully entered the United States in 1992. In 1994, Rivera-Valdes failed to appear at his deportation hearing and was ordered deported in absentia. He was finally deported in 2006 after being apprehended. After being deported, Rivera-Valdes again unlawfully entered the United States. In 2019, he was charged with illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He challenged the indictment, alleging that his 1994 in absentia deportation order violated due process. The district court denied the motion, and Rivera-Valdes entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving the right to appeal the constitutional challenge to his deportation.The district court denied Rivera-Valdes's motion to dismiss the indictment, ruling that his 1994 in absentia deportation order did not violate due process. Rivera-Valdes had argued that immigration authorities violated his due process rights by ordering him deported in absentia despite the notice of the deportation hearing being returned as undeliverable or unclaimed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the deportation in absentia did not violate due process. The court found that whether Rivera-Valdes actually received the notice, the government followed its statutory obligations and reasonably attempted to inform him of the hearing by mailing notice to his last (and only) provided address. The court rejected Rivera-Valdes's argument that additional steps to notify him of his deportation hearing were required under Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006). The court concluded that even if Jones's "additional reasonable steps" standard did supersede the constitutional adequacy of notice as recognized in this court’s cases, the government still satisfied due process because no additional reasonable steps existed that were practicable for it to take. View "USA V. RIVERA-VALDES" on Justia Law

John Russell Howald was convicted for a federal hate crime under 18 U.S.C. § 249(a)(2) and discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Howald had fired shots at a local woman's house in Basin, Montana, with the intent to "rid" the town of "lesbians and gays." The firearms and ammunition used in the offense had traveled across state lines.In the United States District Court for the District of Montana, Howald moved to dismiss both counts of the indictment, arguing that § 249(a)(2) exceeded Congress’s Commerce Clause power and that his § 249(a)(2) hate crime conviction was not a predicate crime of violence for § 924(c)(1)(A). The district court upheld the charges and rejected Howald's arguments.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Howald reiterated his arguments. The appellate court held that the jurisdictional element in § 249(a)(2)(B)(iii) defeated the facial challenge to the statute's constitutionality. The court also rejected the as-applied challenge because the government had proven that the firearms and ammunition used in the offense had traveled across state lines. Furthermore, the court held that § 249(a)(2) is divisible, and that Howald’s offense is categorically a crime of violence because an attempt to kill in violation of § 249(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II) necessarily involves the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another per § 924(c)(3)(A). Therefore, the court affirmed Howald's convictions. View "United States v. Howald" on Justia Law

The case involves two separate actions brought by B&L Productions, Inc., an operator of gun shows in California, against state officeholders tasked with enforcing various California statutes that bar the sale of guns on state property. B&L argued that these statutes violated its rights under the First and Second Amendments. In the first case, B&L challenged a ban on firearm sales at the Del Mar Fairgrounds. In the second case, B&L challenged bans on firearm sales at the Orange County Fairgrounds and on all state property.In the first case, the district court dismissed B&L’s lawsuit, holding that B&L had failed to state a claim that the ban violates its constitutional rights. In the second case, the district court granted B&L’s motion for a preliminary injunction, holding that B&L was likely to succeed on the merits of all its claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of B&L’s claims in the first case and vacated the district court’s order granting B&L’s motion for a preliminary injunction in the second case. The court held that the challenged statutes do not infringe on B&L’s constitutional rights. The court found that the statutes solely restrict nonexpressive conduct—contracting for the sale of firearms—and are not subject to First Amendment scrutiny. Furthermore, the court determined that the plain text of the Second Amendment does not cover B&L’s proposed conduct—namely, contracting for the sale of firearms and ammunition on state property. View "B & L PRODUCTIONS, INC. V. NEWSOM" on Justia Law

In March 2020, Idaho enacted the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, a law that categorically bans transgender women and girls from participating in women's student athletics. The Act also provides a sex dispute verification process, which allows any individual to dispute the sex of any student athlete participating in female athletics in the State of Idaho and require her to undergo intrusive medical procedures to verify her sex. Lindsay Hecox, a transgender woman who wished to try out for the Boise State University women’s track and cross-country teams, and Jane Doe, a cisgender woman who played on high school varsity teams and feared that her sex would be disputed under the Act due to her masculine presentation, filed a lawsuit against the Act.The United States District Court for the District of Idaho granted a preliminary injunction against the Act, holding that it likely violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court found that the Act subjects only students who wish to participate in female athletic competitions to an intrusive sex verification process and categorically bans transgender girls and women at all levels from competing on female teams. The court also found that the State of Idaho failed to provide any evidence demonstrating that the Act is substantially related to its asserted interests in sex equality and opportunity for women athletes.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the Act likely violates the Equal Protection Clause. The court found that the Act discriminates on the basis of transgender status and sex, and that it is not substantially related to its stated goals of equal participation and opportunities for women athletes. The court remanded the case to the district court to reconsider the appropriate scope of injunctive relief. View "Hecox v. Little" on Justia Law

Seattle Pacific University (SPU), a religious institution, filed a lawsuit against the Washington Attorney General, alleging First Amendment violations arising from the Attorney General's investigation into the university's employment policies and history under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). SPU prohibits employees from engaging in same-sex intercourse and marriage. After receiving complaints, the Attorney General requested documents related to SPU's employment policies, employee complaints, and job descriptions. SPU sought to enjoin the investigation and any future enforcement of WLAD.The district court dismissed the suit, citing lack of redressability and Younger abstention. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court held that SPU failed to allege a cognizable injury for its retrospective claims, as the Attorney General's request for documents carried no penalties for non-compliance. However, the court found that SPU had standing for its prospective pre-enforcement injury claims, as SPU intended to continue employment practices arguably proscribed by WLAD, the Attorney General had not disavowed its intent to investigate and enforce WLAD against SPU, and SPU's injury was redressable. The court also held that Younger abstention was not warranted as there were no ongoing enforcement actions or any court judgment. The case was remanded to the district court to consider prudential ripeness. View "SEATTLE PACIFIC UNIVERSITY V. FERGUSON" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of private prisons in Arizona. The plaintiffs, the Arizona State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and two former prisoners, argued that private prisons, driven by profit, compromise safety and security and reduce programming and services. They also claimed that private prisons have a financial incentive to keep prisoners incarcerated longer by manipulating disciplinary proceedings.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed the case, leading to an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The district court held that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that private prisons violate prisoners' procedural due process rights, the Thirteenth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the NAACP had standing to bring the suit. However, it held that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that private prisons violate prisoners' procedural due process rights. The court also found that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit incarceration in a private prison, and that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that confinement in a private prison violates the Eighth Amendment. Finally, the court held that the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses do not prohibit incarceration in a private prison. View "NIELSEN V. THORNELL" on Justia Law

The case involves Steven Duarte, who was convicted for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), a law that prohibits anyone previously convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for over a year from possessing a firearm. Duarte, who had five prior non-violent state criminal convictions, was charged and convicted under this law after police saw him discard a handgun from a moving car.Duarte appealed his conviction, arguing that § 922(g)(1) violated his Second Amendment rights. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with Duarte, finding that the law was unconstitutional as applied to him, a non-violent offender who had served his time in prison and reentered society. The court held that under the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, § 922(g)(1) violated the Second Amendment as applied to Duarte. The court concluded that Duarte's weapon, a handgun, is an "arm" within the meaning of the Second Amendment, and that the government failed to prove that § 922(g)(1)'s categorical prohibition, as applied to Duarte, is part of the historic tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the Second Amendment right. As a result, the court vacated Duarte's conviction and reversed the district court's judgment. View "USA V. DUARTE" on Justia Law

Five registered gun owners in California challenged a state law, Assembly Bill 173 (AB 173), which permits the California Department of Justice (DOJ) to share information from its databases about firearm and ammunition purchasers and concealed carry weapon (CCW) permit holders with accredited research institutions. The plaintiffs argued that the law violated their right to informational privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment, their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, and the federal Privacy Act.The district court dismissed the case, finding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for violation of the right to informational privacy. The court reasoned that the personal information in the DOJ's databases was not highly sensitive or intimate and that the plaintiffs had no reasonable expectation that such information would never be disclosed. The court also found that AB 173 did not restrict conduct protected by the Second Amendment, as it did not impede the plaintiffs' ability to purchase, keep, carry, or use firearms. The court further held that AB 173 was not unconstitutionally retroactive, as it did not attach new legal consequences to past conduct. Finally, the court rejected the plaintiffs' claim that the Privacy Act preempted two California statutes relating to CCW permit applications, as neither statute required the disclosure of social security numbers.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing with its findings and reasoning. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for violation of the right to informational privacy, the Second Amendment, or the Privacy Act. View "JANE DOE V. BONTA" on Justia Law