Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Susan Embert was arrested in February 2015 for charges related to the shooting death of her husband, William “Jake” Embert. She was indicted on June 24, 2015, on five counts, including malice murder and aggravated assault. Her trial took place in December 2019, nearly five years after her arrest, and she was found guilty on all counts. However, over three years later, it was discovered that one of the jurors was a convicted felon, making him ineligible for jury service. Embert raised this issue in her third amended motion for a new trial, which the trial court granted based on the juror’s ineligibility.The trial court then dismissed the case on constitutional speedy trial grounds, determining that the December 2019 trial was void due to the ineligible juror, and thus did not count for the speedy trial calculation. The court found that the delay from Embert’s arrest to the present exceeded nine years, violating her constitutional right to a speedy trial. The trial court attributed most of the delay to Embert but concluded that the presumptive prejudice from the nine-year delay warranted dismissal.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and held that the trial court erred in finding the December 2019 trial void for speedy trial purposes. The court clarified that a trial with an ineligible juror results in a voidable verdict, not a void trial. Consequently, the December 2019 trial should be considered for the speedy trial analysis. The Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s dismissal order and remanded the case for reconsideration of the speedy trial analysis, instructing the trial court to reweigh the factors using the correct factual and legal analysis. View "THE STATE v. EMBERT" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Carvin Thomas and Terrell Lawrence, filed a class-action lawsuit against members of the Tennessee Board of Parole, alleging that the use of a computer test, STRONG-R, to determine parole eligibility violated their constitutional right to due process. They claimed that the test produced inaccurate results due to inadequate training of correctional employees and that the results were kept secret, preventing inmates from challenging them effectively. Both plaintiffs experienced changes in their STRONG-R scores without any new negative behavior, leading to parole denials based on these scores.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee dismissed the complaint, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to state a plausible claim for relief. The court found that Tennessee’s parole statutes do not confer a protected liberty interest in parole, as they do not create a legitimate expectation of parole.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that Tennessee’s parole statutes do not sufficiently constrain the Board’s discretion to deny parole, thus not creating a constitutionally recognized entitlement to parole. The court noted that while the plaintiffs identified serious issues with the STRONG-R test, the lack of a protected liberty interest in parole precluded their due process claims. Consequently, the court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint. View "Thomas v. Montgomery" on Justia Law

Lavonce Makiri Smith was stopped by police in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and a gun was found in his pocket. Smith moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk him. The incident began when Detective Garza was involved in a car accident, and Lt. Jonathan Wu, who was also at the scene, noticed a silver Chrysler that matched a stolen vehicle report. The Chrysler circled the area multiple times, and Wu observed three young Black men, including Smith, walking towards his car from the direction of the Chrysler. Wu suspected they were associated with the stolen car and might be planning a carjacking or robbery.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan held an evidentiary hearing where Wu testified. The court found Wu's testimony credible and concluded that the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk Smith. The court ruled that the stop was lawful due to the reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and the frisk was justified based on the totality of the circumstances suggesting Smith was armed and dangerous. Smith entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving his right to appeal the suppression decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion. The court found that Wu's observations and the behavior of Smith and his companions, combined with the context of the stolen vehicle and the high-crime area, provided a particularized and objective basis for suspecting criminal activity. The court also rejected Smith's arguments challenging the district court's factual findings and application of the law, concluding that the totality of the circumstances justified the stop and frisk. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

Planned Parenthood of Montana and Dr. Samuel Dickman challenged three laws passed by the 2021 Montana Legislature regulating abortion care. The laws included a 20-week ban on abortions (HB 136), restrictions on medication abortions and requirements for informed consent (HB 171), and a mandate for providers to offer patients the opportunity to view an ultrasound and listen to a fetal heart tone before an abortion (HB 140).The Thirteenth Judicial District Court granted a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of these laws, which was affirmed by the Montana Supreme Court. Following discovery, the District Court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, concluding that the laws violated the Montana Constitution's guarantees of individual privacy, equal protection, and free speech. The court permanently enjoined the enforcement of all three laws.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The Court held that the 20-week ban on abortions (HB 136) violated the right to privacy because it prohibited pre-viability abortions and was not justified by a compelling state interest. The Court also found that the restrictions on medication abortions and the informed consent requirements (HB 171) infringed on the right to privacy and free speech, as they imposed unnecessary burdens on patients and providers without addressing a bona fide health risk. Lastly, the Court held that the mandate to offer patients the opportunity to view an ultrasound and listen to a fetal heart tone (HB 140) violated the right to privacy by interfering with the patient-provider relationship without a compelling state interest.The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's judgment, permanently enjoining the enforcement of the challenged laws. View "Planned Parenthood v. State" on Justia Law

Nathan Rinne sued Camden County and two of its commissioners, Greg Hasty and Donald Williams, Jr., alleging violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights after Hasty and Williams voted to ban him from all County property for one year. The defendants sought summary judgment on the defenses of qualified and legislative immunity and on the merits of the issue of punitive damages. The district court denied these motions in full.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment. The defendants then appealed the denial of legislative immunity, qualified immunity, and the issue of punitive damages.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the denial of legislative immunity, holding that the commissioners' decision to ban Rinne from county property was administrative, not legislative, in nature. The court found that the act of banning Rinne did not concern the enactment or promulgation of public policy but was an effort to monitor and discipline his presence and conduct at future commission meetings. Consequently, the commissioners were not entitled to legislative immunity. The court dismissed the remainder of the appeal, including the issues of qualified immunity and punitive damages, for lack of jurisdiction, as these involved genuine disputes of fact that could not be resolved at the appellate level. View "Rinne v. Hasty" on Justia Law

Selim Zherka, a convicted felon, challenged the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits felons from possessing firearms. Zherka argued that because his felony was nonviolent, Congress could not deprive him of his Second Amendment right to bear arms. He also claimed a due process right to an individualized assessment of dangerousness before being deprived of this right. Zherka sought a declaration that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him and an injunction preventing the government from enforcing it against him.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Zherka’s claims. The court held that § 922(g)(1) was constitutional as applied to him and that he had no right to a hearing before the application of a categorical prohibition. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s assurance in District of Columbia v. Heller that longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons are presumptively lawful. The court also rejected Zherka’s due process claim, citing Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe, which held that procedural due process does not require a hearing to prove or disprove facts irrelevant under the challenged statute.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the Second Amendment does not prohibit Congress from disarming convicted felons, including those convicted of nonviolent felonies. The court found that there is a historical tradition of legislative disarmament of classes of people perceived as dangerous, which supports the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1). The court also concluded that Zherka had no procedural due process right to an individualized assessment of dangerousness before being disarmed under the statute. View "Zherka v. Bondi" on Justia Law

DeShawn Gervin was on probation in Georgia with the sole condition that he not return to the South Georgia Judicial Circuit. He moved to North Carolina but was later imprisoned there for various crimes. A Georgia probation officer, Pamela Florence, learned of his North Carolina offenses and sought a warrant for his arrest in Georgia, falsely claiming he had violated probation by failing to report. Gervin was arrested in North Carolina and extradited to Georgia, where he spent 104 days in jail before a court found he had not violated his probation and ordered his release.Gervin sued Florence and another probation officer, Tandria Milton, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia granted summary judgment for the defendants on the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims but denied it on the Fourth Amendment claim, characterizing it as a malicious-prosecution claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling. The court held that Gervin presented enough evidence to support his Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim. The court found that Florence and Milton recklessly made false statements and omissions that led to Gervin's arrest and prolonged detention, violating his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court also concluded that the probation officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional violations were clearly established at the time of their actions. View "Gervin v. Florence" on Justia Law

Three-month-old La’Mello Parker died during a confrontation between his father, Eric Smith, and law enforcement. Smith, a fugitive wanted for double homicide, used La’Mello as a human shield and fired at officers, who returned fire, killing La’Mello. La’Mello’s grandfather and brother sued various law enforcement entities and officers, alleging constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi dismissed the case, finding that the officers’ actions did not constitute constitutional violations and that they were protected by qualified immunity. The court also dismissed the Fourteenth Amendment claims, stating that the conduct did not shock the conscience, and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state-law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal, holding that the officers did not violate La’Mello’s Fourth Amendment rights as their use of force was reasonable under the circumstances. The court noted that Smith posed a grave and immediate threat, and the officers’ decision to return fire was justified. The court also found that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established that their conduct was unconstitutional. Additionally, the court held that the Fourteenth Amendment claims failed as the officers’ actions did not shock the conscience. The court concluded that without an underlying constitutional violation, the bystander liability and municipal liability claims also failed. View "Estate of Parker v. Mississippi Department of Public Safety" on Justia Law

Robert L. Fooks was convicted by the Circuit Court for Wicomico County for violating Section 5-133(b)(2) of the Public Safety Article, which prohibits firearm possession by individuals convicted of a common law crime and sentenced to more than two years in prison. Fooks, who had a prior conviction for constructive criminal contempt and a sentence exceeding four years, argued that this statute violated his Second Amendment rights.The Circuit Court denied Fooks's motion to dismiss the firearms-related counts, and he entered a conditional guilty plea to two counts, reserving his right to appeal the Second Amendment issue. The Appellate Court of Maryland upheld the statute's constitutionality, affirming Fooks's convictions. Fooks then sought review from the Supreme Court of Maryland.The Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that Section 5-133(b)(2) is consistent with the Second Amendment. The court noted that the statute is effectively a prohibition on firearm possession by felons, which the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly identified as presumptively lawful. The court also found that such prohibitions are consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation, which has long included disarming individuals deemed to present a special danger, including those who have committed serious crimes. The court concluded that the statute is constitutional both on its face and as applied to Fooks. View "Fooks v. State" on Justia Law

The case involves Deliezha Davonte Gravely, who was pulled over by a police officer for speeding. During the stop, the officer discovered that Gravely was driving with a revoked license due to a DUI and found a loaded firearm in his pocket. Gravely was subsequently indicted on multiple charges, including unlawful possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and carrying a concealed firearm by a prohibited person, based on his prior conviction for conspiracy to commit first-degree robbery.The Circuit Court of Mercer County ruled that Gravely's prior conviction for conspiracy to commit first-degree robbery qualified as a "felony crime of violence against the person of another" under West Virginia Code § 61-7-7(b). Gravely was convicted by a jury on all counts and sentenced to imprisonment. He appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in classifying his conspiracy conviction as a crime of violence.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case de novo, focusing on whether the elements of conspiracy under West Virginia Code § 61-10-31 include a violent act against a person. The court applied the elements test from State v. Mills, which requires examining the statutory elements of the predicate offense rather than the specific conduct of the defendant. The court found that the elements of conspiracy—an agreement to commit an offense and an overt act to effect the conspiracy—do not require a violent act against a person.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that conspiracy to commit first-degree robbery is not a "felony crime of violence against the person of another" for the purposes of West Virginia Code § 61-7-7(b). Consequently, the court reversed Gravely's convictions for unlawful possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and carrying a concealed firearm by a prohibited person, and remanded the case for resentencing on his remaining convictions. View "State v. Gravely" on Justia Law