Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The New Jersey Staffing Alliance, the American Staffing Association, and the New Jersey Business and Industry Association sought to enjoin a New Jersey law designed to protect temporary workers. The law, known as the Temporary Workers’ Bill of Rights, mandates recordkeeping, disclosure requirements, and state certification procedures for staffing firms. It also imposes joint and several liability on clients hiring temporary workers and requires staffing firms to pay temporary workers wages equivalent to those of permanent employees performing similar work.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the preliminary injunction, concluding that the Staffing Associations were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims. The court found that the law did not discriminate against out-of-state businesses, as it imposed the same burdens on both in-state and out-of-state firms. The court also rejected the void-for-vagueness claim, reasoning that the law provided sufficient guidance on its requirements. Additionally, the court determined that the law was a reasonable exercise of New Jersey’s police power, as it was rationally related to the legitimate state interest of protecting temporary workers.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision. The Third Circuit agreed that the Staffing Associations failed to show a likelihood of success on their claims. The court held that the law did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause, as it did not favor in-state businesses over out-of-state competitors. The court also found that the law was not unconstitutionally vague, as it provided adequate notice of its requirements. Finally, the court upheld the law as a permissible exercise of state police power, as it was rationally related to the goal of protecting temporary workers. View "New Jersey Staffing Alliance v. Fais" on Justia Law

Delaware residents and organizations challenged two new state gun laws in federal court. One law bans the possession, manufacture, sale, and transport of "assault weapons," while the other bans magazines that hold more than seventeen rounds. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of these laws, arguing that they violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.The United States District Court for the District of Delaware denied the preliminary injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits because the laws were consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Additionally, the court did not presume that all Second Amendment harms are irreparable and noted that the plaintiffs retained ample alternatives for self-defense. The court did not reach the other factors for granting a preliminary injunction due to the plaintiffs' failure to show a likelihood of success or irreparable harm.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The Third Circuit emphasized that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should not be granted automatically, even if the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits. The court highlighted that the primary purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo and the court's ability to render a meaningful judgment, not merely to prevent harm. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as they did not provide evidence that Delaware had attempted to enforce the laws against them or that they had an urgent need for the banned firearms and magazines. The court also noted that the balance of equities and public interest weighed against granting the injunction, given the importance of respecting state sovereignty and the democratic process. View "Delaware State Sportsmens Association Inc v. Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security" on Justia Law

The case involves Tahjair Dorsey, who was convicted for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Dorsey had previously pleaded guilty to carrying a firearm without a license, a felony under Pennsylvania law. He was paroled in June 2021. In August 2021, during an investigation into suspected gang activity, Dorsey was observed leaving a residence under surveillance and was apprehended after fleeing a vehicle stop. A stolen handgun was recovered nearby, and Dorsey's DNA was found on it. He was subsequently indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm.Dorsey pleaded guilty but later appealed his conviction, arguing that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional as applied to him under the Second Amendment. However, he had not raised this objection at any stage of the District Court proceedings. The District Court sentenced Dorsey to time served and three years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case for plain error. The court referred to its en banc decision in Range v. Attorney General, which held that disarming an individual with a single, almost-thirty-year-old criminal conviction for food stamp fraud was not consistent with the Second Amendment. The court found that Dorsey could not show that he was similarly situated to the appellant in Range for Second Amendment purposes. The court noted that Dorsey's prior conviction was for a state firearm law violation, was more recent, and he was on state parole at the time of the offense. The court concluded that any Second Amendment error inherent in Dorsey’s conviction was not plain and affirmed the lower court's decision. View "USA v. Dorsey" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a local ordinance in the Borough of Camp Hill that regulates the display of signs on private property. The ordinance categorizes signs into about twenty different types, each with its own set of restrictions. Two residents, Katherine Pearson and Caroline Machiraju, displayed political signs on their lawns in the lead-up to the 2022 midterm elections. However, they were told to remove their signs as they violated the local sign ordinance. The ordinance categorized their signs as "Temporary Signs" and further classified them as "Personal Expression Signs," which express a non-commercial message. The ordinance limited the number of such signs a resident could display and the time frame within which they could be displayed.The residents complied with the directive but subsequently sued Camp Hill, challenging the provisions of the ordinance under the First Amendment. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted them summary judgment on their facial challenge, ruling that the provisions were content-based and failed strict scrutiny.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision. The Court of Appeals found that the ordinance was content-based as it classified signs based on their content, favoring commercial expression over noncommercial and holiday messages over non-holiday messages. The court held that such content-based restrictions could only stand if they furthered a compelling government interest and were narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The court found that Camp Hill's interests in traffic safety and aesthetics, while legitimate, were not compelling and that the ordinance was not narrowly tailored to serve those interests. The court concluded that the ordinance was unconstitutional on its face. View "Camp Hill Borough Republican Association v. Borough of Camp HIll" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to New Jersey's primary election ballot design, known as the "county-line" ballot. The plaintiffs, Andy Kim, Sarah Schoengood, and Carolyn Rush, who are all Democratic candidates for various offices, argue that the county-line ballot design infringes their First Amendment rights. They contend that the design unfairly favors candidates endorsed by local party leaders, placing them in prime ballot positions, while disadvantaging those who are not endorsed or choose not to associate with certain candidates.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, where the plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the use of county-line ballots and require the use of office-block format ballots instead. The District Court granted the injunction, finding that the plaintiffs had shown a severe burden on their First Amendment rights and that the state's interests did not outweigh these burdens.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision. The Court of Appeals agreed that the county-line ballot design imposed a severe burden on the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. It also found that the design likely violated the Elections Clause of the Constitution, which limits a state's power to regulate elections. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claims, and that they would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction. The court also found that the balance of harms and the public interest favored the plaintiffs. View "Kim v. Hanlon" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a defendant, Davit Davitashvili, who was charged with violating federal law by transmitting threats to injure his ex-wife, Olga Volosevich, and other unnamed individuals. This was after a long history of abusive behavior towards Volosevich, culminating in threatening messages sent to her via the messaging app Viber. Davitashvili appealed his conviction, arguing that his threats towards unnamed individuals were constitutionally protected speech.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit disagreed with Davitashvili's claim. It noted that Davitashvili's threats towards "others" were not protected speech under the First Amendment, as they targeted particular individuals, supporting a conviction. The court pointed out that the jury instructions required the jury to find that Davitashvili’s communication threatened to "injure a person or a group of people," which accurately reflected the relevant federal law.As for the defendant's argument that his conviction was based on an invalid theory (threatening unspecified "others"), the court held that the jury likely would have convicted Davitashvili based on his threats to Volosevich alone, even if the "kill others" theory was excluded. The court concluded that the trial was error-free and affirmed the judgment of conviction. View "USA v. Davitashvili" on Justia Law

In the case at hand, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims brought by a group of students and Children’s Health Defense, Inc. against Rutgers University. The plaintiffs challenged the university's COVID-19 vaccination policy, which required in-person students to be vaccinated or else enroll in online programs or seek exemptions for medical or religious reasons. The court found that the university's policy did not violate the plaintiffs' constitutional or statutory rights.The court held that there is no fundamental right to refuse vaccination. It applied the rational basis review and concluded that Rutgers University had a rational basis for its policy given the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' claim that the policy was ultra vires under New Jersey law, determining that Rutgers was authorized to require COVID-19 vaccinations under state law. Furthermore, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' equal protection claim, concluding that Rutgers had a rational basis for its differential treatment of students and staff, as well as vaccinated and unvaccinated students. View "Children's Health Defense Inc. v. Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over the interpretation of the federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 (LEOSA), which allows certain qualified retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms, and its relation to New Jersey’s more restrictive retired police officer permitting law. The retired law enforcement officers from various agencies claimed that LEOSA provided them with a federal right to carry concealed firearms in New Jersey, superseding the state law. The State of New Jersey argued that LEOSA did not provide an enforceable right and, if it did, it would only apply to officers who retired from federal or out-of-state law enforcement agencies—not to officers who retired from New Jersey law enforcement agencies.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that LEOSA does provide certain retired officers who meet all the statutory requirements with an enforceable right, and that right extends equally to officers who retired from New Jersey agencies and those who retired from federal or out-of-state agencies. The court held that the federal statute also preempts contrary aspects of New Jersey law. Therefore, the court affirmed the District Court’s order granting declaratory and injunctive relief to the retired officers, allowing them to carry concealed firearms. View "Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association v. Attorney General New Jersey" on Justia Law

In a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, a group of former union members alleged that their First Amendment rights were violated when their respective unions continued to deduct membership dues from their paychecks after they had resigned from the unions. The appellants had previously signed union membership applications authorizing the deduction of dues from their paychecks, with the authorizations being irrevocable for a year, regardless of membership status, unless the member provided written notice of revocation within a specified annual window. The appellants resigned from their respective unions after their annual revocation windows had passed, and the unions continued to deduct dues until the next annual revocation window. The appellants argued that the Supreme Court's decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, which held that public-sector unions charging fees to nonmembers is a form of coerced speech that violates the First Amendment, should extend to their situation. The Third Circuit disagreed, holding that Janus was focused on preventing forced speech by nonmembers who never consented to join a union, not members who voluntarily join a union and later resign. The court further rejected the appellants' due process claims, finding that they had not been deprived of any constitutional rights. The court also dismissed the appellants' contract defenses, finding that they had not alleged that the terms of their original membership agreements entitled them to membership in perpetuity. The court affirmed the District Court's orders dismissing the appellants' claims. View "Fultz v. AFSCME" on Justia Law

Appellant Gilroy St. Patrick Stewart was pulled over by Trooper George Tessitore for driving a vehicle with heavily tinted windows and a partially obstructed license plate, both violations of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had to determine whether the officer unconstitutionally prolonged the traffic stop, thereby violating Stewart's Fourth Amendment rights.Upon pulling over Stewart, Tessitore asked for his driver's license and the vehicle’s registration. Stewart produced an Ohio driver's license and a vehicle that was registered to a Hazel Sparkes of Baldwin, New York. Stewart claimed the vehicle belonged to his aunt. Tessitore then questioned Stewart about his travel plans. During the stop, Tessitore discovered that Stewart had a history of arrests, including a money laundering arrest made by the Drug Enforcement Agency. Tessitore also noted that Stewart was driving on I-80, a well-known drug trafficking corridor, and that there was an air freshener hanging from Stewart's rear-view mirror, often used to mask the smell of narcotics.Stewart was subsequently charged with possession of five kilograms or more of cocaine with intent to distribute, after 20 kilograms of cocaine were found in a hidden compartment in his vehicle. Stewart moved to suppress the cocaine as the fruit of an unlawful search, a motion that was denied by the District Court.Upon review, the Court of Appeals held that the officer had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity when he extended the length of the stop, due to a combination of factors including Stewart's evasive and inconsistent answers, the darkly tinted car windows, the car's registration to a third party, Stewart's prior arrests, his travel along a known drug corridor, and the air freshener in his vehicle. As such, the officer did not unconstitutionally prolong the traffic stop, and Stewart's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. The Court affirmed the District Court’s order denying Stewart's motion to suppress evidence from the traffic stop. View "USA v. Stewart" on Justia Law