Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves a challenge to Kansas's restrictions on private parties partially filling out mail-ballot applications before sending them to registered voters. Plaintiffs, VoteAmerica and Voter Participation Center (VPC), argue that these restrictions violate their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association. They seek an injunction to prevent Kansas officials from enforcing the law.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas ruled in favor of the plaintiffs after a bench trial based on stipulated facts. The court applied strict scrutiny to the law, finding that it violated the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. The court held that the mailing of prefilled applications was protected speech and that the law was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. The court also found that the law infringed on the plaintiffs' associational rights and declared the law unconstitutionally overbroad.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court first determined that the prefilled applications should be considered separately from the cover letter included in the mailings. It then concluded that mailing the prefilled applications constitutes speech protected by the First Amendment. However, the court rejected the application of strict scrutiny under the Meyer-Buckley framework, finding that the law did not restrict access to a fundamental avenue of political discourse. The court also rejected the argument that the law was subject to strict scrutiny due to speaker discrimination, as the law's speaker-based exception did not reflect a content preference.The Tenth Circuit held that the proper level of scrutiny for the law is intermediate scrutiny, as the law is a content-based but viewpoint-neutral regulation. The court reversed the district court's rulings on the overbreadth and freedom-of-association claims, remanding for entry of judgment in favor of the defendants on these claims. The court also remanded the free-speech claim for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, applying intermediate scrutiny. View "VoteAmerica v. Schwab" on Justia Law

the State of Missouri bears no legal liability for any judgment against MOHELA. The Act makes clear that MOHELA’s debts and obligations are not debts or obligations of the State. See MO. REV. STAT. § 173.410. This includes any judgments against MOHELA. The State’s lack of legal liability for MOHELA’s debts and judgments is a strong indicator that MOHELA’s finances are independent from the State’s. See Hess, 513 U.S. at 51; Duke, 127 F.3d at 978.In sum, the third Steadfast factor weighs against arm-of-the-state status. MOHELA receives no direct financial assistance from the State, has the ability to generate its own revenue, retains control over its own funds, and the State bears no legal liability for MOHELA’s debts or judgments.d. Factor Four: State or Local AffairsThe fourth Steadfast factor considers whether the entity is concerned primarily with state or local affairs. This factor examines the entity’s function, composition, and purpose. See Hennessey, 53 F.4th at 528; Steadfast, 507 F.3d at 1253. Here, the district court concluded that this factor weighed in favor of arm-of-the-state status, and we agree.MOHELA’s primary function is to help Missourians access student loans needed to pay for college. See MO. REV. STAT. § 173.360. This is a statewide concern, not a local one. MOHELA’s activities are not confined to any particular locality within Missouri; rather, they are intended to benefit residents across the entire state. See Biden, 143 S. Ct. at 2366 (noting that MOHELA was established to perform the “essential public function” of helping Missourians access student loans).Moreover, MOHELA’s board is composed of members appointed by the Governor and representatives from state agencies, further indicating that its focus is on statewide, rather than local, affairs. See MO. REV. STAT. § 173.360. The fact that MOHELA’s profits are used to fund education in Missouri, including providing grants and scholarships for Missouri students, also supports the conclusion that MOHELA is concerned with state affairs. See Biden, 143 S. Ct. at 2366.In conclusion, the fourth Steadfast factor weighs in favor of arm-of-the-state status.3. The Second Step of the Arm-of-the-State Test: The Twin Goals of the Eleventh AmendmentBecause the Steadfast factors point in different directions, we proceed to the second step of the Hennessey test and consider the twin goals underlying the Eleventh Amendment: avoiding an affront to the dignity of the state and the impact of a judgment on the state treasury. See Hennessey, 53 F.4th at 528.As discussed above, the State of Missouri bears no legal liability for any judgment against MOHELA. This means that a judgment against MOHELA would not impact the state treasury. See Hess, 513 U.S. at 51; Duke, 127 F.3d at 978. The lack of impact on the state treasury is a strong indicator that MOHELA is not an arm of the state. See Hennessey, 53 F.4th at 528.Regarding the dignity of the state, MOHELA operates with substantial autonomy and is financially independent from the State. The State has not clearly demarcated MOHELA as sharing its sovereignty. See Hennessey, 53 F.4th at 529. Therefore, treating MOHELA as an arm of the state would not accord with the dignity interests protected by the Eleventh Amendment.In conclusion, considering the twin goals of the Eleventh Amendment, we determine that MOHELA is not an arm of the state entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Good v. United States Department of Education" on Justia Law

In April 2023, Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed a law raising the minimum age for purchasing firearms in Colorado from 18 to 21. The law was set to take effect on August 7, 2023. Plaintiffs, including two individuals and a firearms advocacy group, filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the law from taking effect. The district court granted the injunction on the day the law was to take effect, halting its enforcement. Governor Polis appealed the decision.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado initially found that the plaintiffs had standing, except for the advocacy group, and determined that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their Second Amendment challenge. The court concluded that the law was not consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation and that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction. Governor Polis appealed the district court's decision, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing and that the law was consistent with historical firearm regulations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Tenth Circuit held that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their Second Amendment claim. The court found that the law was a presumptively lawful regulation imposing conditions on the commercial sale of firearms, which did not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment's protections. The court also determined that the plaintiffs did not establish irreparable harm and that the balance of harms and public interest favored the enforcement of the law. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit remanded the case with instructions to dissolve the preliminary injunction. View "Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Polis" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, consisting of individuals and advocacy organizations, challenged a New Mexico Department of Health (NM DOH) Public Health Order (PHO) that restricted firearm carry in public parks and playgrounds in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County. They argued that the PHO violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico initially issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against parts of the first PHO. After the NM DOH amended the PHO, the plaintiffs sought preliminary injunctions against the amended order. The district court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the plaintiffs' appeal regarding the public parks restriction was moot because a separate case, Springer v. Grisham, had already granted a preliminary injunction against the same restriction. The court determined that any relief granted would not have a real-world effect since the plaintiffs had already received the relief they sought.Regarding the playgrounds restriction, the court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The court noted that existing city and county regulations independently restricted firearm carry in playgrounds, and the plaintiffs did not demonstrate how enjoining the PHO would allow them to lawfully carry firearms in those areas. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to show that a favorable decision would redress their alleged injuries.The Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal, finding that the plaintiffs' claims were either moot or lacked standing. View "We the Patriots v. Grisham" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, including Free Speech Coalition, Inc. and others, sought to prevent Utah officials from enforcing a law requiring age verification for online pornography. They argued that the law violated the First Amendment and other constitutional rights. The law allows private parties to sue commercial entities that fail to verify users' ages. Plaintiffs claimed this law imposed unconstitutional restrictions on free speech and sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the Attorney General of Utah and the Commissioner of the Utah Department of Public Safety.The United States District Court for the District of Utah dismissed the case, ruling that the defendants were entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court found that the defendants did not enforce or give effect to the law, thus the Ex parte Young exception to sovereign immunity did not apply. The district court also noted that the Commissioner’s oversight of a mobile driver's license program did not constitute enforcement of the law, as the program did not yet provide for online age verification.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court agreed that neither the Attorney General nor the Commissioner enforced or gave effect to the law. The court held that the Ex parte Young exception did not apply because the law placed enforcement authority with private individuals, not state officials. The court also found that the Commissioner’s management of the mobile driver's license program was too attenuated to constitute enforcement of the law. Consequently, the court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint based on Eleventh Amendment immunity. View "Free Speech Coalition v. Anderson" on Justia Law

Scott Lowe was convicted of drug trafficking and unlawful possession of a firearm. He argued that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when Denver Police Department officers searched a storage unit in his apartment building without a warrant. The search revealed evidence linking him to drug trafficking. Lowe moved to suppress the evidence, claiming a possessory interest in the unit that required a warrant. The district court denied the motion.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado reviewed the case. Lowe had previously pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon and was on supervised release. His probation officer received tips from a confidential informant about Lowe using a storage unit for hiding narcotics and firearms. Despite Lowe's denials and the property manager's confirmation that he did not rent a storage unit, officers found incriminating evidence in a storage unit on the eighth floor of his apartment building. Lowe was arrested and charged with possession with intent to distribute MDMA, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and possession of a firearm as a felon. The district court denied Lowe's motion to suppress the evidence, ruling that he lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the storage unit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Lowe failed to establish a legitimate expectation of privacy in the storage unit. The court found sufficient evidence to support his conviction and found no legal error in his sentencing. The court also addressed Lowe's challenges regarding the sufficiency of the evidence and the reasonableness of his sentence, ultimately affirming the lower court's rulings. View "United States v. Lowe" on Justia Law

Customs and Border Patrol officers seized Sergio Ruiz at the Columbus, New Mexico port of entry with 20.8 kilograms of methamphetamine and an active GPS tracker hidden in his truck’s spare tire. The government used testimony from a confidential informant, Eric Weaver, who identified Ruiz as “Tire Man,” a known narcotics courier. Ruiz argued that the identification should be suppressed due to a suggestive pretrial photo array.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico denied Ruiz’s motion to suppress the identification. The court found that although the photo array might lean towards being suggestive, Weaver’s identification was reliable under the totality of the circumstances. Weaver had multiple opportunities to observe Ruiz closely and provided consistent and accurate descriptions of him before the photo array. The jury subsequently convicted Ruiz on all counts.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court applied a two-part test to determine if the identification violated Ruiz’s due process rights. First, it assessed whether the photo array was unduly suggestive. Second, it evaluated the reliability of the identification using the Biggers factors. The court concluded that even if the photo array was suggestive, Weaver’s identification was reliable. Weaver had multiple encounters with Ruiz, paid close attention to his appearance, provided accurate descriptions, and expressed confidence in his identification. The court found no substantial likelihood of misidentification and affirmed the district court’s denial of Ruiz’s motion to suppress. View "United States v. Ruiz" on Justia Law

A licensed professional counselor in Colorado challenged the state's Minor Conversion Therapy Law (MCTL), which prohibits mental health professionals from providing conversion therapy to minors. Conversion therapy is defined as any practice attempting to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity. The plaintiff argued that the MCTL violates the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment and sought a preliminary injunction to prevent its enforcement.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado denied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiff had standing but failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of her First Amendment claims. The court concluded that the MCTL regulates professional conduct that incidentally involves speech and is therefore subject to rational basis review, which it survives.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The Tenth Circuit held that the MCTL regulates professional conduct by prohibiting a specific therapeutic treatment (conversion therapy) provided by licensed mental health professionals to minors. The court found that the MCTL does not target speech based on its content but regulates the practice of conversion therapy, which incidentally involves speech. The court concluded that the MCTL is subject to rational basis review and serves legitimate state interests in protecting minors from harmful and ineffective therapeutic practices and maintaining the integrity of the mental health profession. The court found that the MCTL is rationally related to these interests, as the record showed that conversion therapy is harmful to minors and lacks clinical utility. View "Chiles v. Salazar" on Justia Law

Two defendants, Kevin Lewis and Otis Ponds, were involved in a large-scale drug trafficking conspiracy in Wichita, Kansas. Lewis was convicted at trial, while Ponds pleaded guilty but reserved the right to appeal on specific issues. Both defendants challenged the government's actions, including alleged violations of their Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial and the validity of wiretap evidence used against them.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas initially set Lewis's trial for May 2020, but delays ensued due to the complexity of the case and the COVID-19 pandemic. The court declared the case complex, which extended the timeline for discovery. A significant delay was attributed to the FBI's use of a pole camera that recorded over 10,000 hours of footage, which defense counsel had to review. Ponds was arrested later and joined the case in March 2021. Both defendants filed motions to dismiss the indictment on speedy-trial grounds, which the district court denied, citing the complexity of the case and lack of specific prejudice to the defendants.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that while the delay was presumptively prejudicial, it was not unreasonable given the case's complexity. The court held that the government was responsible for some delay due to the extensive pole-camera footage but noted that the defendants failed to show specific prejudice from the delay. The court also upheld the district court's denial of the motions to suppress wiretap evidence, finding that the wiretap application was properly authorized by a statutorily approved DOJ official, despite challenges to the legibility of the signature.The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, including Lewis's 420-month sentence, finding it substantively reasonable given his significant role in the drug conspiracy and criminal history. View "United States v. Lewis" on Justia Law

Omar Godinez, a minor at the time of his conviction, is serving a 32-years-to-life sentence in Colorado state prison for kidnapping and sexually assaulting two victims. After exhausting state appeals, he sought federal habeas relief, arguing that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment as interpreted in Graham v. Florida, which prohibits life imprisonment without parole for non-homicide offenses committed by minors without a meaningful opportunity for release based on maturity and rehabilitation.The state trial court rejected Godinez's interpretation of Graham, concluding that the Colorado Sex Offender Lifetime Supervision Act (SOLSA) allows the parole board to consider maturity and rehabilitation, even if not explicitly mandated. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence on different grounds, and the Colorado Supreme Court denied certiorari. Godinez then filed a habeas petition in the District of Colorado, which was denied. The district court agreed with the state trial court that the parole board could consider the Graham factors.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. They had previously certified a question to the Colorado Supreme Court, which clarified that SOLSA permits consideration of maturity and requires consideration of rehabilitation. The Tenth Circuit denied Godinez's habeas petition, holding that he could not show that the Colorado courts unreasonably applied federal law. The court concluded that the parole board's ability to consider maturity and rehabilitation when Godinez becomes eligible for parole in 2034 meets the requirements set forth in Graham. The court also noted that any future failure by the parole board to adhere to constitutional requirements could be challenged at that time. View "Godinez v. Williams" on Justia Law