Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves former President Donald Trump, who was indicted on four counts for conduct that occurred during his presidency following the November 2020 election. The indictment alleged that Trump conspired to overturn the election by spreading knowingly false claims of election fraud. Trump moved to dismiss the indictment based on Presidential immunity, arguing that a President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within his official responsibilities. The District Court denied Trump’s motion to dismiss, holding that former Presidents do not possess federal criminal immunity for any acts. The D.C. Circuit affirmed this decision.The Supreme Court of the United States held that under the constitutional structure of separated powers, a former President is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. He is also entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. However, there is no immunity for unofficial acts. The Court vacated the judgment of the D.C. Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The Court emphasized that the President is not above the law, but under the system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers. View "Trump v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2021, Florida and Texas enacted statutes regulating large social-media companies and other internet platforms. The laws curtailed the platforms' ability to engage in content moderation and required them to provide reasons to a user if they removed or altered her posts. NetChoice LLC, a trade association whose members include Facebook and YouTube, brought First Amendment challenges against the two laws. District courts in both states entered preliminary injunctions.The Eleventh Circuit upheld the injunction of Florida’s law, holding that the state's restrictions on content moderation trigger First Amendment scrutiny. The court concluded that the content-moderation provisions are unlikely to survive heightened scrutiny. The Fifth Circuit, however, disagreed and reversed the preliminary injunction of the Texas law. The court held that the platforms’ content-moderation activities are “not speech” at all, and so do not implicate the First Amendment.The Supreme Court of the United States vacated the judgments and remanded the cases, stating that neither the Eleventh Circuit nor the Fifth Circuit conducted a proper analysis of the facial First Amendment challenges to Florida and Texas laws regulating large internet platforms. The Court held that the laws interfere with protected speech, as they prevent the platforms from compiling the third-party speech they want in the way they want, thus producing their own distinctive compilations of expression. The Court also held that Texas's asserted interest in correcting the mix of viewpoints that major platforms present is not valid under the First Amendment. View "Moody v. NetChoice, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and investment adviser George Jarkesy, Jr., and his firm, Patriot28, LLC. The SEC initiated an enforcement action for civil penalties against Jarkesy and Patriot28 for alleged violations of the "antifraud provisions" contained in the federal securities laws. The SEC opted to adjudicate the matter in-house. The final order determined that Jarkesy and Patriot28 had committed securities violations and levied a civil penalty of $300,000. Jarkesy and Patriot28 petitioned for judicial review. The Fifth Circuit vacated the order on the ground that adjudicating the matter in-house violated the defendants’ Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the in-house adjudication by the SEC violated the defendants' Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. The court applied a two-part test from Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, determining that the SEC's antifraud claims were akin to traditional actions at common law, and thus required a jury trial. The court also concluded that the "public rights" exception did not apply, as the claims were not closely intertwined with the bankruptcy process.The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the Fifth Circuit's decision. The Court held that when the SEC seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial. The Court found that the SEC's antifraud provisions replicate common law fraud, and thus implicate the Seventh Amendment. The Court also concluded that the "public rights" exception to Article III jurisdiction did not apply, as the action did not fall within any of the distinctive areas involving governmental prerogatives where a matter may be resolved outside of an Article III court, without a jury. The Court did not reach the remaining constitutional issues and affirmed the ruling of the Fifth Circuit on the Seventh Amendment ground alone. View "SEC v. Jarkesy" on Justia Law

Idaho enacted a law that prohibits abortions with a narrow exception to prevent the death of the woman. The federal government sued Idaho, arguing that the state could not enforce its abortion ban in certain situations governed by the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. Under EMTALA, a hospital that receives Medicare funding must provide necessary stabilizing treatment in its emergency room to a patient in an emergency medical condition. The federal government argued that this provision prevented Idaho from prohibiting abortions in hospitals when necessary to prevent serious harm to a woman's health, an exception not explicitly included in its abortion law.The district court granted a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the Idaho abortion law in these circumstances. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to stay the injunction. Idaho appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.Initially, the Supreme Court stayed the injunction and granted Idaho's petition for certiorari before judgment. However, in a one-sentence per curiam opinion, it dismissed the writs of certiorari before judgment and vacated the stay that it had entered in January. This left the original district court preliminary injunction in place. View "Moyle v. United States" on Justia Law

The case involves two states and five individual social media users who sued several federal officials and agencies, alleging that the government pressured social media platforms to censor their speech in violation of the First Amendment. The plaintiffs' speech was related to COVID-19 and the 2020 election. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction, which was affirmed in part and reversed in part by the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit held that both the state and individual plaintiffs had standing to seek injunctive relief and that the government entities and officials, by coercing or significantly encouraging the platforms’ moderation decisions, transformed those decisions into state action.The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the Fifth Circuit's decision, holding that neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established Article III standing to seek an injunction against any defendant. The Court found that the plaintiffs' theories of standing depended on the platforms’ actions, yet the plaintiffs did not seek to enjoin the platforms from restricting any posts or accounts. Instead, they sought to enjoin the Government agencies and officials from pressuring or encouraging the platforms to suppress protected speech in the future. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs must show a substantial risk that, in the near future, at least one platform will restrict the speech of at least one plaintiff in response to the actions of at least one Government defendant. The Court found that the plaintiffs failed to meet this burden. View "Murthy v. Missouri" on Justia Law

In December 2019, Zackey Rahimi, the respondent, had a violent altercation with his girlfriend, C. M., who is also the mother of his child. Rahimi grabbed C. M., dragged her back to his car, and shoved her in, causing her to hit her head. When a bystander witnessed the incident, Rahimi retrieved a gun from his car. C. M. managed to escape, and Rahimi fired his gun, though it is unclear whether he was aiming at C. M. or the witness. Following this incident, C. M. sought a restraining order against Rahimi, which was granted by a state court in Texas. The order included a finding that Rahimi had committed “family violence” and posed “a credible threat” to the “physical safety” of C. M. or their child. The order also suspended Rahimi’s gun license for two years. Despite the order, Rahimi violated it by approaching C. M.’s home and contacting her through social media. He was later charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon for threatening another woman with a gun.Rahimi was indicted for possessing a firearm while subject to a domestic violence restraining order, in violation of 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(8). Rahimi moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that Section 922(g)(8) violated his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The District Court denied his motion, and Rahimi pleaded guilty. On appeal, he again raised his Second Amendment challenge, which was denied. Rahimi petitioned for rehearing en banc.The Supreme Court of the United States held that when a restraining order contains a finding that an individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner, that individual may—consistent with the Second Amendment—be banned from possessing firearms while the order is in effect. The Court found that since the founding, the nation's firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms. As applied to the facts of this case, Section 922(g)(8) fits comfortably within this tradition. The Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "United States v. Rahimi" on Justia Law

Paul Erlinger pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, a violation of 18 U.S.C. §922(g). At sentencing, the judge found Erlinger eligible for an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), which increases the penalty for a §922(g) conviction from a maximum of 10 years to a mandatory minimum of 15 years when the defendant has three or more qualifying convictions for offenses committed on different occasions. The Seventh Circuit later ruled that two of the offenses used for Erlinger’s sentence enhancement no longer qualified as ACCA predicate offenses. The District Court vacated Erlinger’s sentence and scheduled resentencing. At the resentencing hearing, prosecutors pursued an ACCA sentence enhancement based on a new set of 26-year-old convictions for burglaries committed by Erlinger over several days. Erlinger argued that the burglaries were part of a single criminal episode and did not occur on separate occasions, as required by ACCA. He also argued that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments required that a jury make that assessment. The District Court rejected Erlinger’s request for a jury and issued a 15-year enhanced sentence. On appeal, the government confessed error, admitting that the Constitution requires a jury to decide unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt whether Erlinger’s prior offenses were committed on different occasions.The Supreme Court of the United States held that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a unanimous jury to make the determination beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant’s past offenses were committed on separate occasions for ACCA purposes. The Court noted that the Sixth Amendment promises that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury. The Fifth Amendment further promises that the government may not deprive individuals of their liberty without due process of law. The Court has repeatedly cautioned that trial and sentencing practices must remain within the guardrails provided by these two Amendments. The Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Erlinger v. United States" on Justia Law

The case involves Sandra Muñoz, an American citizen, and her husband Luis Asencio-Cordero, a citizen of El Salvador. The couple sought to obtain an immigrant visa for Asencio-Cordero to live in the United States. After several interviews, a consular officer denied Asencio-Cordero's application, citing a provision that renders inadmissible a noncitizen whom the officer believes seeks to engage in unlawful activity. Asencio-Cordero and Muñoz sued the Department of State, claiming that it had abridged Muñoz’s constitutional liberty interest in her husband’s visa application by failing to give a sufficient reason why Asencio-Cordero is inadmissible under the “unlawful activity” bar.The District Court granted summary judgment to the State Department, but the Ninth Circuit vacated the judgment, holding that Muñoz had a constitutionally protected liberty interest in her husband’s visa application and that the State Department was required to give Muñoz a reason for denying her husband’s visa. The court further held that by declining to give Muñoz more information earlier in the process, the State Department had forfeited its entitlement to insulate its decision from judicial review under the doctrine of consular nonreviewability.The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision, holding that a citizen does not have a fundamental liberty interest in her noncitizen spouse being admitted to the country. The Court noted that while Congress has extended special treatment to marriage in immigration matters, it has never made spousal immigration a matter of right. The Court also noted that the assertion of a procedural due process right in someone else's legal proceeding would have unsettling collateral consequences. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion. View "Department of State v. Munoz" on Justia Law

The case involves the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, which guarantees a criminal defendant the right to confront the witnesses against him. The defendant, Jason Smith, was charged with various drug offenses after law enforcement officers found him with a large quantity of what appeared to be drugs and drug-related items. The seized items were sent to a crime lab for scientific analysis. Analyst Elizabeth Rast ran forensic tests on the items and concluded that they contained usable quantities of methamphetamine, marijuana, and cannabis. Rast prepared a set of typed notes and a signed report about the testing. However, Rast stopped working at the lab prior to trial, so the State substituted another analyst, Greggory Longoni, to provide an independent opinion on the drug testing performed by Rast. At trial, Longoni conveyed to the jury what Rast’s records revealed about her testing, before offering his “independent opinion” of each item’s identity. Smith was convicted. On appeal, he argued that the State’s use of a substitute expert to convey the substance of Rast’s materials violated his Confrontation Clause rights. The Arizona Court of Appeals rejected Smith’s challenge.The Supreme Court of the United States held that when an expert conveys an absent analyst’s statements in support of the expert’s opinion, and the statements provide that support only if true, then the statements come into evidence for their truth. The Court vacated the judgment of the Arizona Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court clarified that the Confrontation Clause still allows forensic experts to play a useful role in criminal trials. However, a state may not introduce the testimonial out-of-court statements of a forensic analyst at trial, unless she is unavailable and the defendant has had a prior chance to cross-examine her. The Court concluded that the State used Longoni to relay what Rast wrote down about how she identified the seized substances, and thus Longoni effectively became Rast’s mouthpiece. If the out-of-court statements were also testimonial, their admission violated the Confrontation Clause. View "Smith v. Arizona" on Justia Law

The case involves Charles and Kathleen Moore, who invested in an American-controlled foreign corporation, KisanKraft. From 2006 to 2017, KisanKraft generated substantial income but did not distribute it to its American shareholders. At the end of the 2017 tax year, the application of the new Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT) resulted in a tax bill of $14,729 on the Moores’ pro rata share of KisanKraft’s accumulated income from 2006 to 2017. The Moores paid the tax and then sued for a refund, claiming that the MRT violated the Direct Tax Clause of the Constitution because it was an unapportioned direct tax on their shares of KisanKraft stock. The District Court dismissed the suit, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the Ninth Circuit's decision. The Court held that the MRT, which attributes the realized and undistributed income of an American-controlled foreign corporation to the entity’s American shareholders, and then taxes the American shareholders on their portions of that income, does not exceed Congress’s constitutional authority. The Court's decision was based on the broad power of Congress to lay and collect taxes, which includes direct taxes—those imposed on persons or property—and indirect taxes—those imposed on activities or transactions. The Court also noted that taxes on income are indirect taxes, and the Sixteenth Amendment confirms that taxes on income need not be apportioned. The Court's holding is narrow and limited to entities treated as pass-throughs. View "Moore v. United States" on Justia Law