Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

In this case, Anthony M. was convicted of wanton endangerment, malicious assault, and other charges related to a 2021 shooting involving Brittany S., the mother of his children. Brittany S. testified that Anthony M. shot her while their infant child, K.M., was nearby. The State presented evidence including text messages, cell phone location data, and a firearm linked to the shooting found in Anthony M.'s residence. Anthony M. challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, certain evidentiary rulings, and argued that his convictions for both wanton endangerment and malicious assault violated double jeopardy protections.The Circuit Court of Kanawha County had previously denied Anthony M.'s post-trial motions, including a motion for judgment of acquittal and a motion for a new trial. The jury had acquitted him of charges related to a 2020 shooting but found him guilty of all charges related to the 2021 incident. He was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment for each conviction.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and found that the conviction and sentence for both wanton endangerment and malicious assault violated double jeopardy protections because both charges stemmed from a single act involving one gunshot at Brittany S. The court affirmed the convictions on all other charges but vacated the conviction for wanton endangerment (Count Eleven) and remanded the case for resentencing consistent with its opinion.The court also addressed Anthony M.'s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and found that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support his convictions. Additionally, the court found that the improper admission of lay opinion testimony by Brittany S.'s mother was harmless error and did not warrant a new trial. The court concluded that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Anthony M.'s motion for a mistrial based on the State's improper comment on his right to remain silent. View "State v. Anthony M." on Justia Law

In 2020, Article 13 LLC filed a quiet title action against LaSalle National Bank Association (now U.S. Bank) to discharge a mortgage as time-barred, arguing that the statute of limitations had expired since a foreclosure action was commenced in 2007. U.S. Bank contended that the statute of limitations had not expired because the 2007 foreclosure action was invalid to accelerate the mortgage debt. The district court found a disputed issue of material fact regarding the validity of the 2007 foreclosure action and denied both parties' motions for summary judgment.Following the district court's ruling, New York enacted the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA), which bars the defense of the invalidity of prior accelerations of mortgages in quiet title actions. Article 13 LLC moved for reconsideration, and the district court applied FAPA retroactively, granting summary judgment in favor of Article 13 LLC. U.S. Bank appealed, arguing that FAPA should not be applied retroactively and that such retroactivity would be unconstitutional under both the New York and U.S. Constitutions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the questions of FAPA's retroactivity and its constitutionality under the New York Constitution were novel and essential to the resolution of the appeal. Consequently, the Second Circuit certified two questions to the New York Court of Appeals: whether Section 7 of FAPA applies to foreclosure actions commenced before the statute's enactment, and whether FAPA's retroactive application violates substantive and procedural due process under the New York Constitution. The Second Circuit deferred its resolution of the appeal pending the New York Court of Appeals' response. View "Article 13 LLC v. Lasalle Nat'l Bank Ass'n" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Michael Etchegoinberry, Erik Clausen, Barlow Family Farms, L.P., and Christopher Todd Allen, own land in the Westlands Water District, part of the San Luis Unit in California. They alleged that the United States failed to provide necessary drainage for their irrigated lands, leading to a rise in the water table and accumulation of saline groundwater, which they claimed resulted in a taking of their property without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment.The United States Court of Federal Claims initially denied the government's motion to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, agreeing with the plaintiffs that their claim was timely under the stabilization doctrine. This doctrine postpones the accrual of a takings claim until the damage has stabilized and the extent of the damage is reasonably foreseeable. The case was then stayed for nearly seven years for settlement attempts. In 2023, the Court of Federal Claims revisited the issue and dismissed the case sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the stabilization doctrine did not apply and the claim was time-barred.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the dismissal. The court held that the stabilization doctrine did not apply because the plaintiffs' claim was based on the regular and known lack of drainage over many years, not an irregular or intermittent physical process. Even if the doctrine applied, the court found that the plaintiffs' claim accrued before the critical date of September 2, 2005, as they were aware of the permanent nature of the damage to their land well before that date. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' claim was time-barred and affirmed the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "ETCHEGOINBERRY v. US " on Justia Law

Gerald Ross Pizzuto, Jr., an Idaho death-row inmate, filed a lawsuit alleging that his execution by lethal injection would violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Pizzuto sought discovery about the origin, manufacture, and acquisition dates of Idaho's execution protocol drugs. Idaho refused to respond, citing a state secrecy statute that protects the identity of execution drug suppliers. The district court found the information relevant and not protected by privilege, and ordered Idaho to respond to certain discovery requests, applying a "reasonable degree of certainty" standard to determine if the information would identify the drug supplier.The United States District Court for the District of Idaho granted Pizzuto's motion to compel discovery, finding that Idaho's secrecy statute did not create a federal evidentiary privilege and that the requested information was relevant. The court ordered Idaho to provide certain information, while allowing the state to withhold details that would, to a reasonable degree of certainty, identify the drug supplier. Idaho appealed the district court's discovery order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's order. The Ninth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine, as the discovery order fell into a narrow class of cases that are effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the disclosures, as Idaho failed to provide concrete examples of how the requested information would lead to the identification of the drug supplier. The court emphasized that Idaho's strong interest in enforcing its criminal laws, including the death penalty, must be considered, but found that the state did not show how its interests would be unduly burdened by the ordered discovery. View "PIZZUTO V. TEWALT" on Justia Law

Carolyn Jackson and John Jackson were convicted of severe child abuse after a thirty-nine-day jury trial. They were charged with conspiracy and multiple counts of endangering the welfare of a child. The jury found John guilty on several counts and Carolyn guilty on all counts. The charges included both "omission counts" (withholding food, water, and medical care) and "commission counts" (forcing ingestion of harmful substances and physical assault). The Jacksons' sentences were vacated multiple times on appeal due to improper sentencing by the original judge, leading to a reassignment for resentencing.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey initially sentenced the Jacksons, but the sentences were vacated and remanded by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The case was reassigned to Judge Susan Wigenton, who imposed new sentences of 140 months for Carolyn and 108 months for John. The Jacksons appealed these new sentences, arguing violations of their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, procedural and substantive unreasonableness, and that the new sentences contradicted prior rulings (law of the case).The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the District Court did not violate the Jacksons' constitutional rights by finding facts at sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence, since these findings did not increase the statutory maximum sentence. The court also held that the Jacksons had no reasonable expectation of finality in their sentences while under appeal, so no double jeopardy or due process violation occurred. The court found no procedural errors in the District Court's sentencing process and concluded that the sentences were substantively reasonable. The Third Circuit affirmed the sentences imposed by the District Court. View "U.S. v. Jackson" on Justia Law

John Adams was involved in a case where he picked up two runaway girls, aged 15 and 16, and brought them to his home in Philadelphia. He coerced them into having sex with him and engaging in commercial sex acts, threatening to kick them out if they refused. Adams advertised the minors' sexual services on a European website and collected a portion of the money. He instructed the minors to conceal their ages and delete incriminating text messages. Law enforcement discovered the girls during a traffic stop, and they revealed Adams's actions. Adams attempted to cover up his activities by soliciting another minor to help him blackmail one of the victims.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania indicted Adams on six counts, including sex trafficking of a minor, tampering with evidence, witness tampering, and making false statements. Adams moved to dismiss the sex trafficking charges, arguing that the Trafficking Victims Protection Act did not apply to his conduct and that Congress lacked the power to enact the statute. The District Court denied his motions, holding that the Act criminalized domestic sex trafficking and was valid under the Commerce Clause. Adams pleaded guilty to all charges but reserved the right to challenge the applicability of the Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Trafficking Victims Protection Act applies to both foreign and domestic sex trafficking and that Adams's conduct fell within the statute's scope. The court also found that Congress had the authority to enact the statute under the Commerce Clause. Additionally, the court upheld the District Court's denial of Adams's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, finding no breach of the plea agreement by the government and rejecting Adams's claim of innocence. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment of conviction and sentence. View "U.S. v. Adams" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of 2021 La. Acts, No. 437, which legalized historical horse racing without requiring voter approval in the affected parishes. Historical horse racing uses an algorithm based on the results of previously run horse races, with bets made at terminals similar to slot machines. Plaintiffs, residents of five parishes where historical horse racing could be conducted, argued that the Act violated Article XII, section 6(C) of the Louisiana Constitution, which requires voter approval for any new form of gaming not specifically authorized before the effective date of the amendment.The 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, found that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the Act and granted summary judgment in their favor. The court declared historical horse racing a new form of gaming requiring local voter approval and declared Act 437 unconstitutional. The defendants appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that historical horse racing is a new form of gaming not authorized in Louisiana before October 15, 1996, and therefore requires prior voter approval in a local election as mandated by Article XII, section 6(C) of the Louisiana Constitution. The court concluded that Act 437 is unconstitutional for allowing historical horse racing without the required voter approval. View "FREMIN VS. BOYD RACING, LLC" on Justia Law

In November 2019, Kathleen Welch was admitted to Tulane Medical Center for acute pancreatitis and diabetic ketoacidosis. After her discharge, she was admitted to BridgePoint Healthcare for rehabilitation, where she developed pressure ulcers. She was later transferred to United Medical Physical Rehabilitation Hospital, where her condition persisted. Welch filed a claim for injuries related to her pressure ulcers, naming BridgePoint and United Medical as defendants. United Medical, not being a qualified healthcare provider under the relevant statute, faced a lawsuit alleging negligence.United Medical filed an exception of no cause of action, citing La. R.S. 29:771(B)(2)(c)(i), which limits liability to gross negligence or willful misconduct during a public health emergency. The trial court granted the exception, applying the gross negligence standard but did not rule on the statute's constitutionality. Welch appealed, and the appellate court upheld the trial court's application of the statute but remanded the case for a ruling on its constitutionality. On remand, the trial court found the statute constitutional, and Welch sought supervisory review.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that La. R.S. 29:771(B)(2)(c)(i) is constitutional, as it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest in ensuring access to healthcare during a public health emergency. The court found that the statute does not violate the Louisiana Constitution's due process or access to courts provisions and is not a prohibited special law. The statute's application to all healthcare providers equally and its rational basis for limiting liability during emergencies were key factors in the court's decision. View "WELCH VS. UNITED MEDICAL HEALTHWEST-NEW ORLEANS L.L.C." on Justia Law

The defendant, a seventeen-year-old, was convicted of the abduction and murder of eighty-nine-year-old Elleze Kennedy. Along with his co-defendants, the defendant followed Ms. Kennedy home, assaulted her, and placed her in the trunk of her car. They later set the car on fire, resulting in Ms. Kennedy's death from carbon monoxide poisoning. The defendant was sentenced to life in prison without parole.The Superior Court of Onslow County initially sentenced the defendant to life without parole. The Court of Appeals upheld this sentence, finding no error. The defendant then filed a motion for appropriate relief, arguing that his sentence was unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama, which requires consideration of a juvenile's age and potential for rehabilitation before imposing a life without parole sentence. The Superior Court held a resentencing hearing and reaffirmed the life without parole sentence, considering the Miller factors.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case. The court held that the defendant's J.E.B. claim, alleging gender bias in jury selection, was procedurally barred because it was not raised at trial or on direct appeal. The court also affirmed the lower court's decision to sentence the defendant to life without parole, finding that the sentencing court properly considered the Miller factors, including the defendant's age, immaturity, ability to appreciate risks, prior record, mental health, and potential for rehabilitation. The court concluded that the sentencing court did not abuse its discretion in weighing these factors and that the sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment. The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed. View "State v. Sims" on Justia Law

The defendant, a high school senior, killed his parents one month before his eighteenth birthday. After being convicted of two counts of first-degree murder, he was sentenced to two consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole. The defendant argued that his sentencing violated the Eighth Amendment, North Carolina’s Miller-fix statute, and the North Carolina Constitution because his crimes did not reflect permanent incorrigibility.The Superior Court of Watauga County conducted a sentencing hearing and considered various mitigating factors, including the defendant's age, immaturity, intellectual capacity, mental health, and familial pressures. The court found that the defendant's actions demonstrated an understanding of the consequences and a deliberate attempt to cover up the crimes. The court concluded that the defendant's crimes reflected irreparable corruption and permanent incorrigibility, justifying the life sentences without parole. The Court of Appeals affirmed the sentencing court's decision, finding no error.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that the sentencing court properly considered the mitigating factors and exercised its discretion in sentencing the defendant. The court emphasized that the Eighth Amendment does not require a finding of permanent incorrigibility but mandates that the sentencing court consider the defendant's youth and attendant characteristics. The court concluded that the sentencing court's decision was not an abuse of discretion and upheld the life sentences without parole. View "State v. Borlase" on Justia Law