Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Richard DeVillier and over 120 other property owners in Texas alleged that the State of Texas had taken their property for stormwater storage without just compensation, in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The state had installed a barrier along a highway median to prevent stormwater from covering the road, which resulted in flooding on the petitioners' land during heavy rainfall. DeVillier argued that the Takings Clause itself authorized him to bring suit, even if the legislature had not affirmatively provided a cause of action.The District Court denied Texas' motion to dismiss the federal inverse-condemnation claim, concluding that a property owner may sue a State directly under the Takings Clause. However, the Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, does not provide a right of action for takings claims against a state.The Supreme Court of the United States vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court found that Texas law provides a cause of action that allows property owners to vindicate their rights under the Takings Clause. Therefore, DeVillier's claims may proceed under Texas' state-law cause of action. The Court did not resolve the question of whether a property owner may sue for just compensation directly under the Takings Clause, as it was not necessary to do so in this case. View "DeVillier v. Texas" on Justia Law

George Sheetz sought to build a small, prefabricated home on his residential parcel of land in El Dorado County, California. However, to obtain a permit, he was required to pay a substantial fee to mitigate local traffic congestion. Sheetz challenged this fee as an unlawful “exaction” of money under the Takings Clause, arguing that the fee amount should be necessary to offset traffic congestion attributable to his specific development. The County’s predetermined fee schedule, Sheetz argued, failed to meet that requirement.The trial court rejected Sheetz’s claim and the California Court of Appeal affirmed. The Court of Appeal asserted that the Nollan/Dolan test, which requires permit conditions to have an “essential nexus” to the government’s land-use interest and “rough proportionality” to the development’s impact on the land-use interest, applies only to permit conditions imposed “on an individual and discretionary basis.” Fees imposed on “a broad class of property owners through legislative action,” it said, need not satisfy that test. The California Supreme Court denied review.The Supreme Court of the United States vacated the judgment of the California Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court held that the Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative permit conditions. The Court found no basis in constitutional text, history, or precedent for affording property rights less protection in the hands of legislators than administrators. The Court did not address the parties’ other disputes over the validity of the traffic impact fee, including whether a permit condition imposed on a class of properties must be tailored with the same degree of specificity as a permit condition that targets a particular development. The case was remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. View "Sheetz v. El Dorado County" on Justia Law

The case involves Yonas Fikre, a U.S. citizen and Sudanese emigree, who brought a lawsuit alleging that the government unlawfully placed him on the No Fly List. Fikre claimed that the government violated his rights to procedural due process and placed him on the list for constitutionally impermissible reasons related to his race, national origin, and religious beliefs. In 2016, the government removed Fikre from the No Fly List, and argued in court that this action rendered Fikre's lawsuit moot. The district court agreed with the government's assessment, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, stating that a party seeking to moot a case based on its own voluntary cessation of challenged conduct must show that the conduct cannot “reasonably be expected to recur.”The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the Ninth Circuit's decision. It held that the government failed to demonstrate that the case was moot. The Court stated that a defendant's "voluntary cessation of a challenged practice" will moot a case only if the defendant can prove that the practice cannot "reasonably be expected to recur." The Court found that the government's declaration that it will not relist Fikre based on "currently available information" did not suffice to demonstrate that Fikre will not be placed on the No Fly List in the future if he engages in the same or similar conduct. Therefore, the government has not borne its burden of proving that the dispute is moot. View "FBI v. Fikre" on Justia Law

In this case, a group of Colorado voters contended that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits former President Donald J. Trump from holding the Presidential office again. The Colorado Supreme Court agreed, ordering the state to exclude Trump from the Republican primary ballot and to disregard any write-in votes cast for him.The case centered around the interpretation of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which disqualifies any person from holding a federal or state office who has previously taken an oath to support the Constitution and subsequently engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States. The voters claimed that Trump's actions following his defeat in the 2020 Presidential election, particularly the incitement of the crowd that breached the Capitol on January 6, 2021, constituted such insurrection.The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court, ruling that the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates. The Court maintained that while the States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office, they lack the power to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, including the Presidency. The Court argued that permitting state enforcement of Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates would invert the Fourteenth Amendment’s rebalancing of federal and state power and would raise serious questions about the scope of that power. The Court concluded that such enforcement would lead to chaos and inconsistency in the electoral process. Therefore, the responsibility for enforcing Section 3 rests with Congress, not the States. View "Trump v. Anderson" on Justia Law

In 2012, Damian McElrath, a young man diagnosed with multiple serious mental health disorders, killed his mother. Georgia charged McElrath with three crimes: malice murder, felony murder, and aggravated assault. At trial, McElrath asserted an insanity defense. The jury found him not guilty by reason of insanity on the malice-murder charge but guilty but mentally ill on the felony-murder and aggravated-assault charges. The state courts, however, decided that these verdicts were "repugnant" because they required contradictory conclusions about McElrath's mental state at the time of the crime. They therefore nullified both the "not guilty" and "guilty" verdicts and authorized McElrath’s retrial.The Supreme Court of the United States held that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment prevents the State from retrying McElrath for the crime that had resulted in the “not guilty by reason of insanity” finding. The court clarified that a jury’s determination that a defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity is a conclusion that “criminal culpability had not been established,” just as much as any other form of acquittal. Despite the seemingly inconsistent findings, the court emphasized that, once rendered, a jury’s verdict of acquittal is inviolate, and the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits second-guessing the reason for a jury’s acquittal. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia and remanded the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with its opinion. View "McElrath v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Smith, wanting to expand her graphic design business to include wedding websites, worried that the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act would require her to create websites celebrating marriages that defy her belief that marriage should be between one man and one woman. Smith intends to produce a story for each couple using her own words and original artwork, combined with the couple’s messages. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of Smith’s request for an injunction.The Supreme Court reversed. The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs conveying messages with which the designer disagrees. The First Amendment protects an individual’s right to speak his mind regardless of whether the government considers his speech “misguided.” Generally, the government may not compel a person to speak preferred messages. The wedding websites Smith seeks to create involve her speech and are pure speech protected by the First Amendment. Colorado seeks to put Smith to a choice prohibited by precedent. If she wishes to speak, she must either speak as Colorado demands or face sanctions for expressing her own beliefs.Public accommodations laws are vital to realizing the civil rights of all Americans; governments have a “compelling interest” in eliminating discrimination in places of public accommodation. States may protect gay persons, just as they protect other classes of individuals. However, public accommodations laws are not immune from the demands of the Constitution. Smith does not seek to sell an ordinary commercial good but intends to create “customized and tailored” expressive speech “to celebrate and promote the couple’s wedding.” Speakers do not shed their First Amendment protections by accepting compensation or employing the corporate form to disseminate their speech. Smith will gladly conduct business with those having protected characteristics when the product she is creating does not violate her beliefs. View "303 Creative LLC v. Elenis" on Justia Law

Groff, an Evangelical Christian who believes that Sunday should be devoted to worship and rest, took a mail delivery job with the Postal Service (USPS). USPS subsequently began facilitating Amazon’s Sunday deliveries. To avoid working Sundays on a rotating basis, Groff transferred to a rural USPS station. After Amazon deliveries began at that station, Groff received progressive discipline for failing to work on Sundays. He eventually resigned. Groff sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, asserting that USPS could accommodate his Sunday Sabbath practice “without undue hardship" to its business, 42 U.S.C. 2000e(j). The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of USPS, reasoning that under Supreme Court precedent, “requiring an employer ‘to bear more than a de minimis cost’ to provide a religious accommodation is an undue hardship.”The Supreme Court vacated. Title VII requires an employer that denies a religious accommodation to show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantially increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. After tracing Establishment Clause and Title VII jurisprudence, the Court concluded that showing “more than a de minimis cost,” as that phrase is used in common parlance, does not establish “undue hardship” under Title VII. Undue hardship is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of the business–a fact-specific inquiry. Courts must consider all relevant factors, including the accommodations at issue and their practical impact, given the nature, size, and operating cost of an employer. Impacts on coworkers are relevant only to the extent those impacts affect the conduct of the business. Title VII requires that an employer “reasonably accommodate” an employee’s practice of religion, not merely assess the reasonableness of a particular possible accommodation. An employer must do more than conclude that forcing other employees to work overtime would constitute an undue hardship; other options must be considered. View "Groff v. DeJoy" on Justia Law

In the Harvard College admissions process, “race is a determinative tip for” a significant percentage “of all admitted African American and Hispanic applicants.” University of North Carolina (UNC) also considers the applicant’s race. SFFA challenged both systems.The Supreme Court held that both programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court first held that SFFA complies with the standing requirements for organizational plaintiffs as a voluntary membership organization with identifiable members who support its mission and whom SFFA represents in good faith.Tracing the history of Fourteenth Amendment precedent, the Court acknowledged its "role in that ignoble history,” and subsequent efforts to eliminate racial discrimination. The core purpose of the Equal Protection Clause is to eliminate all governmentally-imposed discrimination based on race. Any exceptions must survive strict scrutiny. which asks whether the racial classification is used to advance compelling governmental interests and whether the use of race is narrowly tailored--necessary to achieve that interest. Previous holdings permitted race-based college admissions only in compliance with strict scrutiny and acknowledged that, eventually, they must end.The admissions programs at issue are not sufficiently measurable to permit strict scrutiny. The identified "compelling" interests include training future leaders, acquiring new knowledge based on diverse outlooks, promoting a robust marketplace of ideas, and preparing engaged and productive citizens. The question of whether a particular mix of minority students produces those results is standardless. The systems fail to articulate a meaningful connection between the means they employ and those goals; they use racial categories that are overbroad, arbitrary or undefined, or underinclusive.The systems also use race as a “negative” and employ stereotypes. College admissions are zero-sum. A benefit provided to some applicants is necessarily at the expense of others. The systems employ “the offensive and demeaning assumption" that students of a particular race think alike. The systems lack a “logical endpoint. View "Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College" on Justia Law

From 2014-2016, Counterman sent hundreds of Facebook messages to C.W., a local musician. Each time C.W. tried to block him, Counterman created a new Facebook account and resumed contacting C.W. Several of his messages envisaged violent harm. C.W. stopped walking alone, declined social engagements, canceled performances, and eventually contacted the authorities. Counterman was charged under a Colorado statute making it unlawful to repeatedly make any form of communication with another person in a manner that would cause a reasonable person to suffer serious emotional distress, that does cause that person to suffer serious emotional distress. Colorado courts rejected Counterman’s First Amendment argument.The Supreme Court vacated. In true-threat cases, the prosecution must prove that the defendant had some subjective understanding of his statements’ threatening nature.The First Amendment permits restrictions upon the content of speech in a few areas, including true threats--serious expressions conveying that a speaker means to commit an act of unlawful violence. The existence of a threat depends on what the statement conveys to the person receiving it but the First Amendment may demand a subjective mental-state requirement shielding some true threats because bans on speech have the potential to deter speech outside their boundaries. In this context, a recklessness standard, a showing that a person consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his conduct will cause harm to another, is the appropriate mental state. Requiring purpose or knowledge would make it harder for states to counter true threats, with diminished returns for protected expression. View "Counterman v. Colorado" on Justia Law

The U.S. Constitution's Election Clause requires the legislature of each state to prescribe rules governing federal elections. Following the 2020 decennial census, North Carolina’s General Assembly drafted a new federal congressional map. The map was challenged under the North Carolina Constitution as impermissible partisan gerrymandering. The North Carolina Supreme Court acknowledged that gerrymandering claims are outside the reach of federal courts but held that such questions were not beyond the reach of North Carolina courts. The court enjoined the use of the maps but subsequently addressed a remedial map adopted by the trial court, repudiated its holding that gerrymandering claims are justiciable under the state constitution, and dismissed the suits without reinstating the 2021 maps.The Supreme Court first held that it had jurisdiction to review the Elections Clause holding. The court’s decision to withdraw its second decision and overrule the first did not moot the case; it did not amend the judgment concerning the 2021 maps nor alter the first decision’s analysis of the federal issue.The Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections. In prescribing such rules, they remain subject to state judicial review and to state constitutional constraints. When legislatures make laws, they are bound by the documents that give them life. When a state legislature carries out its federal constitutional power to prescribe rules regulating federal elections, it acts both as a lawmaking body created and bound by its state constitution and as the entity assigned particular authority by the U.S. Constitution. Both constitutions restrain that exercise of power. Federal courts must not abandon their duty to exercise judicial review. The Court declined to decide whether the North Carolina Supreme Court strayed beyond the limits derived from the Elections Clause. View "Moore v. Harper" on Justia Law