Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves Oakland Tactical Supply, LLC and five Michigan residents who sued Howell Township, Michigan, alleging that the township's zoning restrictions, which prevented Oakland Tactical from constructing and operating a commercial shooting range, violated the Second Amendment. The district court granted the township's motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that the zoning restrictions did not violate the Second Amendment. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The district court's decision was made before the Supreme Court announced a new framework for deciding Second Amendment challenges in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Bruen, and the district court again granted judgment for the township.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that while the Second Amendment protects the right to engage in commercial firearms training as necessary to protect the right to effectively bear arms in case of confrontation, it does not extend to training in a particular location or at the extremely long distances Oakland Tactical seeks to provide. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' proposed conduct—commercial training in a particular location and long-distance commercial training—was not protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment. Therefore, the township's zoning restrictions did not violate the Second Amendment. View "Oakland Tactical Supply, LLC v. Howell Township" on Justia Law

Eight men convicted of sexual offenses between 1982 and 1994 challenged the constitutionality of the 2004 Tennessee Sexual Offender and Violent Sexual Offender Registration, Verification, and Tracking Act (“the Act”) and its subsequent amendments. The Act required them to comply with various reporting requirements and geographical restrictions imposed on all sex offenders. The plaintiffs argued that the laws violated the Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee agreed with the plaintiffs and issued an injunction prohibiting Governor Lee and Director Rausch from enforcing the entire Tennessee code against the plaintiffs. The court also issued a declaratory judgment against unnamed parties who might also enforce the Act.The case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The appellate court disagreed with the district court's decision. The court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue Governor Lee and ordered the lower court to dismiss him from the suit. The court also found that the district court's injunction was overly broad and unjustified. The appellate court reversed in part the district court’s judgment that the Act violates the Ex Post Facto Clause and remanded the case with orders to vacate the declaratory judgment, dissolve the injunction against Governor Lee, dismiss Governor Lee from the suit based on a lack of standing, and to modify the injunction against Director Rausch consistent with its opinion. View "John Doe #1 v. Lee" on Justia Law

The case involves Tommy Kirtdoll, who was under investigation by a multijurisdictional task force in southwest Michigan for leading a drug-trafficking organization. After several undercover drug deals, the task force obtained a search warrant for Kirtdoll's house, which was described in detail in the warrant application. Upon executing the warrant, officers found drugs and distribution equipment, leading to Kirtdoll's indictment on multiple drug offenses.Kirtdoll challenged the validity of the search warrant, citing three errors: the address listed was not his, the tax identification number was incorrect, and the property owner's name was not his. He argued that these mistakes rendered the warrant unconstitutional due to lack of particularity, as required by the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied Kirtdoll's motion, ruling that the warrant's other accurate descriptors were particular enough to satisfy the Fourth Amendment. Kirtdoll pleaded guilty but reserved the right to appeal the district court's decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the warrant's particularity de novo. The court held that the Fourth Amendment does not require perfection in search warrants, but rather enough detail for the executing officer to identify the intended place with reasonable effort. The court found that despite the errors, the warrant contained three descriptors that indisputably applied only to Kirtdoll's house and clearly identified it as the premises to be searched. These included the house's geographic location, a detailed description of the house, and a unique identifier - a red star affixed to its west side. The court concluded that the warrant for Kirtdoll's house was specific enough to meet the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement, and thus, the district court properly denied Kirtdoll's motion to suppress. The court affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. Kirtdoll" on Justia Law

The case involves Norton Outdoor Advertising, a company that operates billboards within the Village of St. Bernard, Ohio. The Village revoked one of Norton's permits after it constructed two variable-message signs. The Village's ordinance regulates signs based on whether what is being advertised is located on or off the premises of the sign. The ordinance also has an exemption that functions beyond this on- and off-premises dichotomy, which is content based.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio ruled in favor of the Village, finding that Norton lacked standing to challenge any provisions of the ordinances other than the ban on variable-message displays. The court found these provisions to be content-neutral regulations under the Supreme Court precedent and that the regulations satisfied intermediate scrutiny.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment. The appellate court found that the Village's ordinance, which included a content-based exemption, must satisfy strict scrutiny. The court concluded that the Village's ordinance was not narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling interest and therefore could not stand as written. The court remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings, including consideration of whether the unconstitutional provision is severable. View "Norton Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Village of St. Bernard" on Justia Law

Travis Lester, a convicted felon, was arrested and charged with possession of a firearm after law enforcement officers found a stolen .40 caliber pistol in his motel room. The arrest occurred after Lester violated the terms of his supervised release from a previous conviction for possessing ammunition as a felon. During the arrest, officers found a baggie of crack cocaine and $869 in cash on Lester's person. Lester admitted to having marijuana in his motel room. Based on this information, officers obtained a search warrant for the room, where they found the pistol, a digital scale, and a small bag of marijuana.Prior to his trial, Lester filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the officers' protective sweep of his motel room and his admission about the marijuana, arguing that these violated his Fourth Amendment and Miranda rights. The district court denied this motion, finding that the officers had not violated Lester's rights. At trial, the jury convicted Lester, and the district court sentenced him to 120 months in prison. The court also imposed an additional seventeen-month prison sentence to be served consecutively due to Lester's violation of the supervised-release conditions from his earlier conviction.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Lester argued that his Miranda and Fourth Amendment rights were violated, that there were evidentiary errors, and that there were mistakes in his sentencing. The appellate court disagreed with Lester's claims and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the officer's question during Lester's arrest was not an interrogation under Miranda, and that the protective sweep of Lester's motel room did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights. The court also found no error in the district court's evidentiary rulings or in its sentencing of Lester. View "United States v. Lester" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Gregory Rogers, who was convicted of various drug and firearm-related crimes. The evidence leading to his conviction was obtained from his girlfriend's car, where he was found alone in the passenger seat. Rogers claimed that the evidence was collected in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, arguing that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the vehicle.Previously, the trial court had denied Rogers' motion to suppress the evidence. The court ruled that Rogers lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy in the vehicle as he was neither the owner nor the driver of the car and failed to show that he had permission to occupy it. The court also determined that the search was a valid inventory search. After trial, a jury convicted Rogers on all six counts.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the trial court's decision. The court agreed with the trial court that Rogers had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the vehicle. The court noted that Rogers had not exhibited a subjective expectation of privacy. He was neither the owner nor the driver of the vehicle, and he had not shown that he had "complete dominion and control" over the car. The court also noted that Rogers had twice informed the police that the car was not his and had loudly disclaimed his authority over the vehicle. Therefore, the court concluded that Rogers could not establish that the police had violated his Fourth Amendment rights. View "United States v. Rogers" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Reverend Kenneth Simon, Reverend Lewis W. Macklin, II, and Helen Youngblood, collectively known as the "Simon Parties," filed a lawsuit against the Ohio Redistricting Commission and several of its members. They alleged that Ohio's congressional districts violated section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Fifteenth Amendment. The Simon Parties requested a three-judge court under 28 U.S.C. § 2284, which the Ohio Redistricting Commission opposed, and moved to dismiss the complaint.The district court denied the motion to convene a three-judge court and granted the motions to dismiss. The court also denied all other pending motions. The Simon Parties appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The court found that the district court incorrectly determined that the Simon Parties' Fourteenth Amendment claim did not raise a substantial federal question for jurisdictional purposes. The court stated that the Simon Parties' allegations on this claim were sufficient to establish federal jurisdiction. The court concluded that the district court lacked jurisdiction as a single judge to adjudicate any other pending motion because it was required to convene a three-judge court under 28 U.S.C. § 2284.The court reversed the district court's order denying the motion for a three-judge court, vacated the district court's orders granting the motions to dismiss and denying the motion for temporary restraining order and motion for class certification, and remanded the case to the district court with instructions for it immediately to initiate the procedures to convene a three-judge court under 28 U.S.C. § 2284. View "Simon v. DeWine" on Justia Law

In this case, James R. Fouts, the former mayor of Warren, Michigan, brought a lawsuit against defendants including the Warren City Council and the City Election Commission. He claimed that they violated his First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by applying a new term-limit provision retroactively, which prevented him from running for a fifth term as the city's mayor. The term-limit provision was part of an amendment to the city’s charter, passed by voters, that limited the eligibility of certain city offices to three complete terms or twelve years. Despite having already served four terms as mayor, Fouts attempted to run for a fifth term in 2023, but was disqualified.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Fouts’ claims. The court held that Fouts did not have a fundamental right to run for public office, and thus his First Amendment rights were not violated. The court also ruled that the term-limit provision did not apply retroactively, as it only prohibited Fouts from running for a fifth term, and did not impose new obligations or deprive him of any existing rights based on his past conduct. Therefore, his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights were not violated. Lastly, the court found that Fouts failed to demonstrate that he was intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated without any rational basis, and thus his Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights were not violated. View "Fouts v. Warren City Council" on Justia Law

The case involved Ricardo Alvarado, who was convicted of possessing a firearm as a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). His crime was reported by officers who responded to a call that a man was carrying what appeared to be a machine gun in a mobile home park. Alvarado was found with a Ruger AR-556 semi-automatic rifle, and upon investigation, officers discovered that he had two prior felony convictions. He was sentenced to 104 months' imprisonment, including a four-level sentencing enhancement for reckless endangerment.Alvarado appealed his conviction and sentence. He contended that his conviction violated the Second Amendment based on the standard articulated in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, an issue he raised for the first time on appeal. He also argued that the evidence did not support a sentencing enhancement for reckless endangerment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed Alvarado’s conviction but vacated his sentence and remanded the case to the district court for resentencing. The court found that the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) under Bruen was subject to reasonable dispute and would not disturb Alvarado’s conviction on plain error review. However, the court found that the district court erred in applying a sentencing enhancement for reckless endangerment. Without record evidence of anyone in proximity to Alvarado’s line of fire, or otherwise facing an imminent risk of harm, the Government could not satisfy Tennessee’s zone of danger requirement. Consequently, Alvarado's sentence was vacated. View "United States v. Alvarado" on Justia Law

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Alison Kareem brought a case against the Ohio Secretary of State, the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, and the Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney. Kareem challenged two Ohio state election laws, which prohibited her from displaying her marked ballot to others as a violation of her First Amendment rights. Kareem refrained from displaying a photograph of her marked ballot online due to these laws. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, arguing that Kareem lacked Article III standing.The Appeals Court, however, reversed the district court's order and remanded it for further proceedings. The court held that Kareem had demonstrated a credible threat of enforcement of the Ohio laws, which constituted an injury in fact, a requirement for Article III standing. The court found that Kareem's fear of enforcement, given the possible criminal punishment, the defendants' public statements that displaying marked ballots was illegal, and past instances of enforcement, was not merely subjective or self-imposed. The court also found that Kareem's alleged violation of her First Amendment rights was fairly traceable to the defendants and that the relief she requested was likely to remedy her alleged injury, thus meeting the causation and redressability requirements of Article III standing. The court did not rule on the merits of Kareem's First Amendment claims, leaving that for the district court to decide. View "Kareem v. Cuyahoga County Board of Elections" on Justia Law