Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

A man was charged with drug offenses after his car was stopped by police officers in Hagerstown, Maryland. The officers initiated the stop after observing the driver manipulating or pressing the screen of a cell phone mounted to the vehicle’s windshield while the car was in motion. The officers did not provide further details about the driver’s conduct beyond noting these interactions with the phone. The driver was not charged with a mobile phone or texting violation, but he moved to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the stop, arguing that the stop itself was unlawful.The Circuit Court for Washington County denied the suppression motion, holding that simply seeing someone manipulate a phone while driving constituted reasonable articulable suspicion of a mobile phone violation, since the conduct could easily be texting. After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of fentanyl possession and related charges. On appeal, the Appellate Court of Maryland reversed, finding that the officers’ observations were of innocuous conduct and did not provide reasonable suspicion of illegal activity under Maryland’s statutes governing mobile phone use while driving.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and affirmed the Appellate Court’s decision. The Court held that when an officer observes conduct consistent with both lawful and unlawful mobile phone use, the Fourth Amendment requires the officer to identify specific, articulable facts which, together with rational inferences, reasonably indicate a violation of the relevant statutes. Merely seeing a driver manipulate, touch, or press a phone screen, without more, is insufficient to justify a traffic stop. The Court thus concluded that the stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion and that the evidence should have been suppressed. View "State v. Stone" on Justia Law

Law enforcement uncovered a large-scale fentanyl distribution conspiracy involving multiple individuals transporting fentanyl pills from Phoenix, Arizona, to the Twin Cities. The conspirators concealed pills inside stuffed animals and shipped them as birthday gifts, taking measures to evade detection. Da’Shawn Domena participated by coordinating, receiving, and delivering packages he knew contained fentanyl. Police intercepted some packages, but others were shipped undetected. A search of Domena’s apartment revealed fentanyl pills and other evidence linking him to the conspiracy. Domena admitted his involvement, specifically acknowledging the receipt and distribution of multiple packages containing fentanyl.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota accepted Domena’s guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl, an offense carrying a statutory minimum sentence of 120 months under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846. Despite being eligible for safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), which could have avoided the mandatory minimum, Domena chose not to cooperate with the government. The Presentence Investigation Report found him responsible for 30.8 kilograms of fentanyl and calculated a lower guidelines range, but the statutory minimum controlled. At sentencing, Domena argued that the mandatory minimum violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, citing his minor role, lack of criminal history, absence of violence, and personal struggles. The district court rejected this argument, referencing existing Eighth Circuit precedent.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed Domena’s Eighth Amendment challenge de novo. The court held that the mandatory minimum sentence was not grossly disproportionate to the crime and did not violate the Eighth Amendment. The court emphasized that circuit precedent consistently upholds mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses and found Domena’s arguments unpersuasive. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the sentence imposed by the district court. View "United States v. Domena" on Justia Law

A Kentucky citizen who is subject to lifetime sex offender registration due to prior convictions challenged a new state law requiring certain sex offenders to display their full legal names on social media accounts they create or control. The law defines covered offenses as those committed against minors and applies to a wide range of social media platforms, with exceptions for services such as email and search engines. The plaintiff, who uses social media anonymously for personal and political expression, alleged that the law’s disclosure requirement would subject him and his family to harassment and would force him to stop using social media.The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky reviewed the case. Initially, it found the plaintiff was likely to succeed on his claim that the law infringed his First Amendment right to post anonymously and was overbroad, granting a preliminary injunction that barred all Kentucky County Attorneys from enforcing the law. The court later denied class certification, concluding the plaintiff lacked standing to represent absent class members against other County Attorneys and failed to meet requirements for class actions. Consequently, the injunction was narrowed to apply only to the named defendant and protect only the plaintiff.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found the district court erred in its facial overbreadth analysis. The Sixth Circuit held that a proper facial challenge under the First Amendment requires a comprehensive review of the law’s scope and its constitutional and unconstitutional applications, as described in Moody v. NetChoice, LLC. The district court had failed to conduct this thorough analysis and focused too narrowly on the plaintiff’s own circumstances. The Sixth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the proper two-step facial overbreadth approach. View "Doe v. Burlew" on Justia Law

A man was convicted in Maryland state court for the attempted murder of his girlfriend, who was shot in her apartment. The prosecution presented evidence including a homemade device that appeared to be a silencer and DNA evidence tying the defendant to that device. Witnesses testified about the defendant’s involvement in preparing the device and his motive, which stemmed from the girlfriend’s pregnancy and her threat to seek child support. Additional evidence linked the defendant to the type of firearm used in the shooting. The jury found the defendant guilty as an accessory before the fact, and he was sentenced to life in prison.After his conviction was affirmed on appeal, the defendant sought postconviction relief in Maryland state court, arguing that the prosecution failed to disclose a forensic report about a laptop, which could have impeached a key witness’s testimony regarding the defendant’s online activity. The state postconviction court granted a new trial, but the Maryland Court of Special Appeals reversed, holding that the undisclosed evidence was not material because the other evidence linking the defendant to the crime was strong enough that there was no reasonable probability of a different outcome. The Maryland Court of Appeals denied review.The defendant then sought federal habeas relief. The United States District Court granted his petition, and a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the state court had not properly applied the correct standard for materiality under Brady v. Maryland. The Supreme Court of the United States reversed, holding that the state appellate court correctly applied the materiality standard and that, under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), federal courts must defer to reasonable state court decisions. The Supreme Court found that a fairminded jurist could conclude the withheld evidence was not material, and therefore federal habeas relief was not warranted. View "Klein v. Martin" on Justia Law

While serving a portion of his sentence at the Federal Correctional Complex in Terre Haute, Indiana, Derek Thomas was repeatedly assaulted by his cellmate, suffering serious physical and psychological harm. Thomas initially sought protective custody after other inmates threatened him due to his conviction as a sex offender. Despite being placed in the Special Housing Unit, he experienced continued threats, food tampering, and was eventually housed with an inmate who violently assaulted and allegedly raped him. Thomas reported these incidents through notes to prison staff and verbally to counselors and psychologists, yet he was not removed from his cell until after the alleged rape. Following his removal, Thomas sought medical and psychological care, but claims his injuries and trauma were not adequately addressed.After filing a pro se complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Thomas was allowed to proceed with claims that certain prison officials failed to protect him and were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, both in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The defendants moved for summary judgment, raising qualified immunity as a defense. Thomas’s counsel did not address qualified immunity in the response to the motion, and Thomas later confirmed reliance on counsel’s submission. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding Thomas’s claims either presented a new Bivens context not recognized by precedent or failed because Thomas did not overcome the qualified immunity defense.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that Thomas’s failure-to-protect claim could not proceed because it sought to expand Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics beyond existing precedent. Regarding the deliberate indifference claim, the court held that Thomas forfeited his opposition to qualified immunity by not raising it in the district court and did not meet the criteria for appellate review of a forfeited argument. View "Thomas v. Carmichael" on Justia Law

After the Missouri General Assembly enacted Senate Bill No. 22 (SB 22) in 2025, which made several changes to statutes governing ballot summaries and judicial proceedings, a Missouri resident and taxpayer challenged its constitutionality. SB 22 as introduced focused solely on amending the process for judicial review of ballot summary statements. During the legislative process, SB 22 was amended to include provisions expanding the attorney general’s authority to appeal certain preliminary injunctions, a subject unrelated to ballot summaries, and the bill’s title was changed from “relating to ballot summaries” to “relating to judicial proceedings.” After passage by both legislative chambers and the Governor’s signature, the bill became law.The Circuit Court of Cole County reviewed the case after the plaintiff alleged SB 22 violated the Missouri Constitution’s original purpose, single subject, and clear title requirements, as well as equal protection guarantees. The circuit court found the bill did not violate the procedural constitutional provisions, but it did find that the amendment to section 526.010 (concerning the attorney general’s appellate rights) violated equal protection and was severable from the rest of the bill. The court allowed the remaining portions, primarily those addressing ballot summaries, to stand. The plaintiff appealed, challenging the findings on the procedural requirements, while the State cross-appealed on standing and equal protection.The Supreme Court of Missouri heard the case and held that the plaintiff had taxpayer standing because SB 22’s provisions resulted in a direct expenditure of public funds. Upon de novo review, the Supreme Court found that SB 22 violated the original purpose requirement of article III, section 21 of the Missouri Constitution because the added provision regarding the attorney general’s appellate rights was not germane to the bill’s original purpose. The Court further held that the offending provision could not be severed, and therefore invalidated SB 22 in its entirety, reversing the judgment of the circuit court. View "Nicholson v. State" on Justia Law

After receiving an anonymous tip, law enforcement in Mercer County, Kentucky, stopped Steven Fellmy, who was driving a silver Ford Mustang matching the tip’s description. The stop was based on observed traffic violations, including a non-illuminated license plate and failure to signal a turn. After backup arrived, Fellmy was asked to exit the vehicle. He declined consent for a search, so a trained drug dog was led around the car. The dog briefly jumped up onto the car door and partially sniffed through the open window, ultimately alerting officers to drugs. A subsequent search revealed methamphetamine and heroin, leading to Fellmy’s arrest and charge for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky reviewed and denied Fellmy’s pretrial motion to suppress the drugs. The court found that officers lawfully ordered Fellmy out of the vehicle after a valid traffic stop and that the dog’s actions did not constitute an unlawful search because the officers did not encourage the dog to intrude into the car’s interior. The court also denied Fellmy’s motion in limine to exclude the drug evidence, ruling that concerns about authentication and chain of custody went to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility, and could be addressed during cross-examination. The drugs were admitted, and Fellmy was convicted by jury and sentenced to 300 months’ imprisonment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The Sixth Circuit held that ordering Fellmy out of the car after a valid stop was lawful and that the dog’s brief contact with the car did not amount to a Fourth Amendment search under prevailing legal standards. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the drug evidence or in denying an evidentiary hearing regarding the chain of custody. The conviction and sentence were affirmed. View "United States v. Fellmy" on Justia Law

Ten nonprofit organizations that received federal grants through the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ “Citizenship and Integration Grant Program” filed suit after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) froze and subsequently terminated their grant funding. The freeze and termination followed an executive order issued by the incoming President in January 2025 directing DHS to pause and review grants that funded services to undocumented immigrants, with the aim of ensuring compliance with law and preventing waste, fraud, or abuse. DHS notified grantees of the freeze in February 2025 and terminated the grants in March 2025, prompting the plaintiffs to seek a preliminary injunction to restore the program and funding.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The court determined that the plaintiffs’ claims were essentially contractual—seeking disbursement of funds based on grant agreements—and thus fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States Court of Federal Claims pursuant to the Tucker Act. The court also found that the plaintiffs had not identified a reviewable “final agency action” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Additionally, it concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to provide adequate legal authority for their ultra vires and separation-of-powers claims.Reviewing the appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Fourth Circuit held that the relief sought by the plaintiffs was materially indistinguishable from relief denied in recent Supreme Court cases, Department of Education v. California and National Institutes of Health v. Public Health Association. It concluded that claims seeking to enforce contractual obligations to pay money must be brought in the Court of Federal Claims and that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on their alternative constitutional or statutory claims. The district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction was therefore affirmed. View "Solutions in Hometown Connections v. Noem" on Justia Law

A man was convicted in California of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the killing of a homeowner during a burglary in 1985. The prosecution established that the defendant entered the victim’s home, stole property, and shot the victim in the back as he was fleeing. The case against the defendant was supported by fingerprint evidence, eyewitnesses, and testimony about his actions and statements before and after the crime. At trial, the defense argued alternative theories, including that another individual was the actual killer and that the shooting lacked intent. During the penalty phase, the prosecution presented evidence of the defendant’s prior felonies, while the defense offered extensive mitigating evidence regarding his abusive childhood and mental health issues.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of California affirmed the conviction and death sentence. The defendant subsequently filed state and federal habeas petitions, raising claims about his competency to stand trial, the effectiveness of his counsel, and alleged jury coercion. The California Supreme Court summarily denied these claims, and the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied his federal habeas petition.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the appeal. Applying the deferential standard required by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), the court held that the California Supreme Court could have reasonably concluded the evidence did not sufficiently support the defendant’s claims of incompetence or ineffective assistance of counsel. The Ninth Circuit also found no basis to conclude the trial court coerced the jury’s verdict or that California’s death penalty statute was unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief. View "Beeler v. Broomfield" on Justia Law

Two correctional officers witnessed the defendant physically assaulting two women outside a convenience store and intervened to stop the attack. Police arrived shortly thereafter and arrested the defendant. He was charged with three counts of aggravated battery, a felony. From the outset, there were questions about the defendant’s fitness to stand trial, leading to repeated delays as the court attempted, unsuccessfully at first, to obtain a fitness evaluation. Ultimately, the defendant was found fit, his counsel withdrew at his request, and he proceeded to represent himself. The court arraigned him, set bond, and scheduled a jury trial, at which he was convicted of aggravated battery.Prior to trial, the defendant never received a preliminary hearing to determine probable cause, nor was he indicted by a grand jury, as required by the Illinois Constitution for felony charges. The defendant did not object to this omission before or during trial, nor did he raise it in a posttrial motion. On appeal, the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District, concluded that the absence of a preliminary hearing or indictment was a structural error reviewable as second-prong plain error, and it reversed the defendant’s convictions outright.The Supreme Court of the State of Illinois reviewed whether the trial court’s failure to provide a prompt preliminary hearing constituted second-prong plain error. The court held that, while the trial court’s failure to provide a preliminary hearing was clear error, it did not amount to a structural error or deprive the defendant of a fair trial, given that his guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. Therefore, the error was subject to harmless error analysis and was not reviewable as second-prong plain error. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s judgment and affirmed the convictions and sentence imposed by the circuit court. View "People v. Chambliss" on Justia Law