Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Indiana enacted a law prohibiting physicians from altering a child's sex characteristics through medication or surgery as treatment for gender dysphoria. Plaintiffs, including transgender children, their parents, and a physician, argued that the law violated their rights under the Equal Protection Clause, substantive due process, and the First Amendment. The district court found these arguments likely to succeed and issued a preliminary injunction against the law. Indiana appealed the decision.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause and the First Amendment. The court concluded that the law discriminated based on sex and transgender status and that the aiding and abetting provision regulated speech based on its content. The court also found that the balance of harms favored the plaintiffs and that they would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Seventh Circuit held that the law did not classify based on sex or transgender status in a way that warranted heightened scrutiny. The court applied rational basis review and found that the law was rationally related to the state's legitimate interest in protecting children from uncertain and potentially harmful medical treatments. The court also held that the law's aiding and abetting provision did not violate the First Amendment, as it regulated speech integral to unlawful conduct. The court vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "K.C. v. Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board" on Justia Law

In this case, Charles House was involved in drug trafficking activities, traveling to California to obtain large quantities of marijuana and methamphetamine, which he then shipped to addresses in Indiana. In October 2018, FedEx personnel alerted law enforcement to suspicious packages addressed to various locations in Anderson, Indiana. A drug-sniffing dog indicated that five of the twelve packages contained drugs, leading to a state warrant and the discovery of methamphetamine and marijuana. Subsequently, law enforcement installed a pole camera to surveil House’s residence for thirteen months, capturing his activities and patterns related to drug distribution.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana denied House’s motion to suppress the pole camera evidence, relying on the precedent set in United States v. Tuggle, which held that the warrantless use of pole cameras does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. House was found guilty on all counts, including drug distribution and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and was sentenced to 360 months’ imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and reaffirmed the Tuggle decision. The court held that the warrantless use of pole cameras to observe a home does not amount to a search under the Fourth Amendment, as it is consistent with Supreme Court precedent and the rulings of other federal courts. The court emphasized that House did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the activities observable from public thoroughfares. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of House’s motion to suppress the pole camera evidence. View "United States v. House" on Justia Law

In February 2020, a police officer in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, shot and killed a Black teenager, Alvin Cole. Following the incident, community members organized protests against police violence and racism. Anticipating unrest after the district attorney decided not to charge the officer, the mayor imposed a curfew. Plaintiffs, affected by the curfew and police conduct, filed constitutional and state law claims against the City of Wauwatosa and individual defendants.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin dismissed most claims, allowing only First Amendment and Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) claims to proceed. The court later granted summary judgment for the defendants on the First Amendment claims, leaving only the DPPA claims for trial. The jury ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants on the DPPA claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s rulings, holding that the curfew was a permissible time, place, and manner restriction under the First Amendment. The court found that the curfew was content-neutral, served a significant government interest in public safety, was narrowly tailored, and left open ample alternative channels for communication. The court also upheld the dismissal of the plaintiffs' § 1983 claims against individual defendants, agreeing that the claims were inadequately pleaded and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying further amendments. Lastly, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s response to a jury question regarding the definition of “personal information” under the DPPA. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Knowlton v. City of Wauwatosa" on Justia Law

Michael Davis was arrested after a 911 call from a 15-year-old girl in Gary, Indiana, reported that he had threatened to kill her mother and had an assault rifle in his car. Police located Davis following the family's minivan and arrested him. A search of his vehicle revealed a loaded, semi-automatic shotgun with an obliterated serial number. Davis was charged with illegal firearm possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He moved to suppress the shotgun, arguing the search violated the Fourth Amendment, but the district court denied his motion.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana held a two-day evidentiary hearing and found that the warrantless search of Davis's vehicle was justified under both the search incident to arrest and automobile exceptions to the warrant requirement. Davis entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling. He was sentenced to ninety-two months in prison and two years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Davis's motion to suppress, holding that the search of Davis's vehicle was lawful under both the search incident to arrest and automobile exceptions. The court found that the officers had probable cause to arrest Davis based on the credible 911 report and corroborating evidence. Additionally, the court determined that it was reasonable to believe Davis's vehicle contained evidence of the crime, thus justifying the search. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Michael Mogan, a condominium owner, challenged the City of Chicago's Shared Housing Ordinance, which prevented him from listing his unit on short-term rental platforms like Airbnb. Mogan claimed that the Ordinance constituted an unconstitutional taking and inverse condemnation under Illinois law. He also sought a declaratory judgment against the City and his homeowners association, Roscoe Village Lofts Association, to allow him to lease his unit on a short-term basis.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed Mogan's takings and inverse condemnation claims and declined to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims. Mogan appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Mogan lacked standing to challenge the Ordinance because he failed to demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury. The court also found that Mogan's property rights were subject to the Declaration of Condominium Ownership, which prohibited leases of less than 30 days. Therefore, Mogan could not claim that the Ordinance interfered with any reasonable investment-backed expectations or caused any economic impact. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. View "Mogan v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

In Illinois, voters can cast their ballots by mail, and election officials can receive and count these ballots for up to two weeks after Election Day, provided they are postmarked or certified by Election Day. Plaintiffs, including Illinois voters and political candidates, challenged this procedure, arguing it unlawfully extends the voting period and dilutes their votes. They also claimed it forced them to spend additional resources on their campaigns beyond Election Day. The district court dismissed their claims, ruling that Plaintiffs lacked standing to sue and also rejected the claims on the merits.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the case, concluding that Plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the Illinois ballot receipt procedure. The court found that Plaintiffs did not allege a sufficient injury in fact, as their claims of vote dilution and additional campaign expenditures were deemed too speculative and generalized. Plaintiffs appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court held that Plaintiffs lacked standing because they did not allege a concrete and particularized injury. The court found that any potential vote dilution would affect all Illinois voters equally, making it a generalized grievance. Additionally, the court determined that the claimed campaign expenditures were speculative and not directly traceable to the Illinois ballot receipt procedure. Therefore, the court concluded that Plaintiffs did not meet the requirements for Article III standing and affirmed the dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction. View "Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections" on Justia Law

In 2004, Graham Stowe was charged with violent offenses against his former girlfriend and her family. He pleaded no contest, claiming insanity, which a state judge accepted, leading to his commitment for 39.5 years unless he recovered earlier. Released in 2007, Stowe was soon re-incarcerated for violating release conditions and later escaped in 2013, using drugs while free. After serving a sentence for escape, Stowe sought release in 2016 under Wisconsin law, which requires clear and convincing evidence of significant risk to deny release. Expert testimony indicated Stowe had a personality disorder and posed a risk of violence, leading the state circuit court to deny his release, a decision affirmed by the state court of appeals.Stowe then sought federal habeas corpus relief, arguing that the Wisconsin statute violated the Due Process Clause as interpreted in Foucha v. Louisiana, by allowing detention without a finding of mental illness. The district court found that Stowe had not preserved an as-applied challenge in state courts and limited the certificate of appealability to whether the statute was facially invalid. The district court upheld the statute, noting it allows consideration of mental history and condition, and thus often includes findings on mental illness.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Stowe failed to show the Wisconsin statute was facially invalid under clearly established federal law, as the statute permits consideration of mental condition and does not inherently violate due process. The court also noted that Stowe's as-applied challenge was not preserved for federal review. Therefore, the court concluded that the Due Process Clause does not entitle Stowe to immediate release. View "Stowe v. Rybroek" on Justia Law

Cameron Johnson, a convicted felon, was found in possession of a firearm on September 15, 2019. He pleaded guilty to this charge. The Government sought an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) based on Johnson's three prior robbery convictions under Indiana law. Johnson argued that two of these robberies, committed on January 22, 2009, occurred on the same occasion and thus should not count as separate offenses under ACCA. He also contended that a jury should determine whether the robberies were committed on different occasions.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana rejected Johnson's argument, relying on Seventh Circuit precedent that did not require a jury to decide the different-occasions question. The court concluded that the robberies were committed on different occasions and sentenced Johnson to fifteen years in prison, the minimum under ACCA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that the Supreme Court's recent decision in Erlinger v. United States established that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments entitle defendants to have a jury decide whether prior offenses were committed on the same or different occasions. Given this precedent, the Seventh Circuit determined that the district court erred in not submitting the different-occasions question to a jury. The court also found that this error was not harmless, as it was not clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found the robberies to be committed on different occasions.The Seventh Circuit vacated Johnson's sentence and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "USA v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to Indiana's ballot access laws by the Indiana Green Party, the Libertarian Party of Indiana, and associated individuals. They argue that the requirements for candidates to collect signatures amounting to 2% of the votes cast in the last Secretary of State election, the process for submitting petitions, and the early deadline for submission are unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. They also challenge the law's indexing of party-level access to the results of the most recent Secretary of State election.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Indiana’s Secretary of State. The district court concluded that the 2% signature requirement and the June 30 deadline for submitting petitions were constitutionally permissible, relying on precedent from the Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit. The court did not address the burdens created by the county-level submission requirement or the challenge to the indexing of the full slate access option.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that Indiana's ballot access requirements do not impose severe burdens on the plaintiffs' rights. The 2% signature requirement, the June 30 deadline, and the county-level submission process were deemed reasonable and justified by the state's interests in preventing voter confusion and ensuring orderly elections. The court also found that the requirement for parties to garner 2% of the vote in the Secretary of State election to maintain full slate access was reasonable, given the alternative petitioning route available to candidates. The court concluded that the state's regulatory interests were sufficient to justify the challenged restrictions. View "Indiana Green Party v. Morales" on Justia Law

David Bernardo-De La Cruz, a Mexican national, has lived in the U.S. without legal authorization for nineteen years. He was pulled over for speeding in 2014, which led to his immigration status being questioned. He conceded removability but applied for cancellation of removal, citing his long-term residence, good moral character, and the potential hardship his removal would cause his U.S. citizen daughters. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied his application, finding that his removal would not cause an "exceptionally high level of hardship" for his daughters. However, the IJ granted him voluntary departure. Bernardo-De La Cruz appealed the denial of cancellation of removal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).The BIA affirmed the IJ's decision. Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge (TAIJ) Gabriel Gonzalez upheld the IJ's findings, including the determination that Bernardo-De La Cruz's daughters would remain in the U.S. after his removal. The TAIJ acknowledged evidence suggesting that one daughter required special educational services but did not find it sufficient to warrant a different outcome. Bernardo-De La Cruz then petitioned for review, arguing that the agency exceeded its authority in promulgating 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(i), the appointment of the TAIJ was unconstitutional, and the IJ and BIA failed to adequately consider the evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(i), which limits voluntary departure for noncitizens contesting a removal order, was within the agency's statutory authority. The court also found that TAIJ Gonzalez was lawfully appointed by the Acting Attorney General, not the EOIR Director, thus complying with the Appointments Clause. Finally, the court determined that the IJ and BIA had adequately considered the evidence regarding the hardship to Bernardo-De La Cruz's daughters. The petition for review was denied. View "Bernardo-De La Cruz v. Garland" on Justia Law