Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

In May 2023, Daedyn Lewellyn was charged with terrorizing. His trial was initially scheduled for September 2023, but his court-appointed attorney retired, leading to multiple changes in representation. Lewellyn requested and was granted a continuance to review discovery, rescheduling the trial to January 2024. He later sought to change his plea but expressed dissatisfaction with his attorney, leading to further changes in representation. By August 2024, Lewellyn had gone through six court-appointed attorneys, with the last few withdrawing due to conflicts or deteriorated attorney-client relationships. On the eve of trial, Lewellyn dismissed his latest attorney and requested a continuance and new counsel, which the court denied.The District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, presided over by Judge Cynthia M. Feland, handled the initial proceedings. The court granted several continuances due to changes in Lewellyn’s representation and scheduling conflicts. However, when Lewellyn dismissed his attorney the day before the trial, the court denied his request for another continuance and new counsel, citing the case's age and multiple previous continuances.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that Lewellyn’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated. It determined that Lewellyn’s conduct amounted to a voluntary waiver of his right to counsel, as he was repeatedly informed that no further substitute counsel would be appointed. The court also found that Lewellyn’s waiver was knowing and intelligent, given his understanding of the risks of self-representation. Additionally, the court ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance request, considering the case's age and the numerous previous continuances. The Supreme Court affirmed the criminal judgment. View "State v. Lewellyn" on Justia Law

Elsa M. Tronsrue filed for dissolution of marriage from George M. Tronsrue III, and George filed a counterpetition. In 1992, the Du Page County circuit court entered a judgment for dissolution of marriage, incorporating a marital settlement agreement that required George to pay Elsa one-half of the marital portion of his federal veterans’ disability payments. In 2019, George sought to terminate these payments, arguing that the division of his benefits was void under federal law. Elsa moved to dismiss George’s petition, and the circuit court granted her motion, found George in contempt for non-payment, and ordered him to pay Elsa’s attorney fees.The appellate court, with one justice dissenting, affirmed the circuit court’s judgment, holding that the marital settlement agreement was not void despite potentially violating federal law, as the circuit court had jurisdiction over the dissolution proceedings. The dissenting justice argued that federal law preempted the agreement, rendering it void. In a related order, the appellate court also affirmed the contempt finding, reasoning that George was required to make the payments because the judgment was not void. The dissenting justice again argued that the provision was void, providing George with a compelling justification for non-compliance.The Supreme Court of Illinois reviewed the case and affirmed the appellate court’s judgments. The court held that federal law did not preempt the state law authorizing the marital settlement agreement, as George voluntarily agreed to use his disability benefits to pay Elsa after receiving them. The court also found that the circuit court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the judgment of dissolution, and thus, the judgment was not void. Consequently, the court upheld the award of attorney fees to Elsa for George’s failure to comply with the agreement. View "In re Marriage of Tronsrue" on Justia Law

Norfolk Southern Railway Company challenged the constitutionality of Code § 56-16.3, which allows broadband service providers to install fiber optic cables across railroad property. The statute, enacted in 2023, aims to promote broadband expansion in Virginia. Cox Communications filed applications to install fiber optic cables under Norfolk Southern’s tracks, which Norfolk Southern did not initially oppose. However, a dispute arose over the license fees, leading Cox to proceed without a licensing agreement, prompting Norfolk Southern to seek relief from the State Corporation Commission (the “Commission”).The Commission rejected Norfolk Southern’s arguments without a hearing, finding the claims insufficient to establish undue hardship. Norfolk Southern appealed to the Supreme Court of Virginia, which stayed the Commission’s judgment during the appeal.The Supreme Court of Virginia reviewed the case de novo, focusing on whether Code § 56-16.3 violated Article I, Section 11 of the Virginia Constitution. The court emphasized that eminent domain statutes must be strictly construed and that the burden of proving public use lies with the condemnor. The court found that Code § 56-16.3 did not reference public use and allowed a private company to take property for financial gain, which is not a public use under the Virginia Constitution.The court held that the application of Code § 56-16.3 in this case constituted a taking of Norfolk Southern’s property for a nonpublic use, violating the Virginia Constitution. Consequently, the court reversed the Commission’s judgment and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of Norfolk Southern. View "Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. SCC" on Justia Law

The City of Oxnard and two other public agencies formed the City of Oxnard Financing Authority through a joint powers agreement. The Financing Authority approved two lease revenue bonds to finance public capital improvements. Moving Oxnard Forward, Inc. and Aaron Starr challenged the approval of these bonds, arguing they violated constitutional debt limits under the California Constitution. The trial court ruled in favor of the City and the Financing Authority, leading the plaintiffs to appeal.The trial court found that the bonds did not require voter approval under the Offner-Dean rule, which allows for contingent obligations that do not create immediate debt. The court also determined that the City and the Financing Authority complied with the procedural requirements of the Joint Exercise of Powers Act in authorizing the bonds. The trial court dismissed other causes of action for writ of mandate/administrative mandamus and declaratory relief, as the plaintiffs had an adequate legal remedy through the reverse validation action.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court held that the additional payments required by the lease agreements were not unconstitutional long-term debt obligations, as they were contingent upon the City's use and occupancy of the leased properties. The court also found that the lease-leaseback funding arrangement complied with the Offner-Dean rule and that the City had made a valid finding of significant public benefit under the Marks-Roos Act. The judgment in favor of the City and the Financing Authority was affirmed, allowing the issuance of the lease revenue bonds to proceed. View "Moving Oxnard Forward, Inc. v. City of Oxnard" on Justia Law

The defendant, Laquawn Lewis, was charged with attempted murder, robbery, assault, and obstruction of governmental administration. Leading up to his trial, Lewis expressed dissatisfaction with his appointed counsel and filed various pro se motions. He eventually requested to represent himself, stating his intention to proceed pro se. The court denied his request without conducting the required inquiry into whether his decision was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.At trial, Lewis reiterated his desire to represent himself, but the court again denied his request and proceeded with jury selection. Lewis later pleaded guilty to avoid a potential life sentence based on an incorrect assumption about his status as a persistent felony offender. After realizing the error, defense counsel moved to withdraw the guilty plea, which the court granted. Lewis renewed his request to represent himself, but the court deferred the decision until the trial date and ultimately denied it again. Lewis was convicted of all charges except attempted murder and sentenced to 25 years' incarceration and 5 years' post-release supervision.The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, holding that Lewis's requests to proceed pro se were not unequivocal and that his legal sufficiency argument was unpreserved and without merit. A Judge of the Court of Appeals granted Lewis leave to appeal.The New York Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court violated Lewis's constitutional right to self-representation by denying his unequivocal request to proceed pro se without the requisite inquiry. The court held that Lewis's request was clear and timely, and the trial court's failure to conduct an inquiry warranted a new trial. The court also found that Lewis's legal sufficiency argument was unpreserved. Consequently, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's order and granted Lewis a new trial. View "People v Lewis" on Justia Law

Marc A. Lesperance was found with his dog off-leash in Baxter Woods, Portland, despite a city ordinance requiring dogs to be leashed from April 1 to July 31. A park ranger informed Lesperance of the rule, but Lesperance refused to comply. The ranger, after consulting with a colleague, issued a summons and complaint. The District Court (Portland) fined Lesperance $500, noting it was not his first violation of the ordinance.Lesperance appealed, arguing that the park ranger was not authorized to issue the summons and complaint. He also claimed the city ordinance was preempted by state law and unconstitutionally vague. The court found these arguments without merit, stating the ordinance was clear and not preempted by state law.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case. The court considered whether the park ranger, appointed as a constable, needed to meet specific training requirements to enforce the ordinance. The Attorney General, representing the Maine Criminal Justice Academy, suggested that constables might require less rigorous training than law enforcement officers. The court applied the "de facto officer" doctrine, concluding that Lesperance could not challenge the ranger's authority based on potential training deficiencies. The court affirmed the judgment, validating the ranger's actions as those of a de facto officer. View "City of Portland v. Lesperance" on Justia Law

The case involves the Temecula Valley Educators Association and individual students, teachers, and parents from the Temecula Valley Unified School District (collectively, Plaintiffs) who sued the District and five members of the District’s school board (collectively, Defendants). Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the implementation of “Resolution No. 2022–23/21” (the Resolution), which prohibits the use of Critical Race Theory (CRT) or similar frameworks in teaching topics related to race. The Resolution lists specific elements and doctrines of CRT that are banned. Plaintiffs argued that the Resolution is unconstitutionally vague and sought a preliminary injunction to halt its enforcement.The Superior Court of Riverside County denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the Resolution was sufficiently clear and that Plaintiffs did not show a likelihood of success on the merits. The court also concluded that the balance of harms favored denying the injunction, as enjoining a government action would cause irreparable injury.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The appellate court found that the Resolution is unconstitutionally vague because it employs ambiguous language, lacks definitions, is unclear in scope, and contains no enforcement guidelines. The court noted that the Resolution’s language leaves teachers uncertain about what is prohibited, leading to self-censorship and fear of arbitrary enforcement. The court also found that the trial court abused its discretion by not considering the significant harm Plaintiffs would face without an injunction and by incorrectly concluding that the Resolution did not violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order denying the preliminary injunction as to the Resolution and remanded for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. The court dismissed the appeal related to the Board’s “Policy 5020.01” as moot, given that the relevant portions of the Policy had been rescinded following changes in the law. View "Mae M. v. Komrosky" on Justia Law

Miya Water Projects Netherlands B.V. (Miya) filed a lawsuit under the Transparency and Expedited Procedure for Public Records Access Act (TEPPRA) against the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (the Board). Miya sought access to public records related to a canceled water infrastructure project. The Board, established by Congress in 2016, refused to provide the requested documents, claiming TEPPRA did not apply to it. Miya then sued the Board in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.The district court dismissed Miya's case, ruling that the Board was protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity, which extends to Puerto Rico. The court applied the arm-of-the-state test and concluded that the Board, as an entity funded by the Commonwealth and with judgments paid by the Commonwealth, shared Puerto Rico's immunity. The court also determined that the Commonwealth did not waive this immunity through TEPPRA, as the statute did not meet the strict standards required to effect such a waiver under federal law.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court's decision de novo. The appellate court agreed with the lower court's findings, holding that Puerto Rico's Eleventh Amendment immunity extends to the Board and that the Commonwealth did not waive this immunity through TEPPRA. The court emphasized that a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity must be unequivocally expressed in the statute's text, which TEPPRA did not do. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Miya's claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Miya Water Projects Netherlands B.V. v. Financial Oversight and Management Board" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs in this case are parents of children with special needs attending public schools in Fairfax County, Virginia. They allege that the transition to remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic constituted an unconstitutional "taking" of their children's Fifth Amendment property interest in public education. The plaintiffs argue that Virginia law establishes a fundamental right to public education, which they claim is a protected property interest under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause and, by extension, should be considered private property under the Takings Clause.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court reasoned that while the right to public education in Virginia may be a protected property interest under the Due Process Clause, it does not necessarily qualify as private property under the Takings Clause. The court noted that federal courts have long interpreted property interests protected by the Takings Clause as narrower than those protected by the Due Process Clause. The district court concluded that the right to public education is subject to regulation and revision by the Virginia government and cannot be bought or sold, distinguishing it from private property.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's judgment. The Fourth Circuit agreed that the plaintiffs' children may have a property interest in public education under the Due Process Clause but held that this does not extend to the Takings Clause. The court emphasized that the Takings Clause applies only to private property and that public education, being subject to government regulation and not possessing the characteristics of private property, does not qualify. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to state a plausible claim for compensation under the Takings Clause. View "Chollet v. Brabrand" on Justia Law

Malgum Whiteside, Jr. was charged with being a felon in possession of firearms after police found the weapons during a search of his residence. The search was conducted while officers were looking for evidence related to stalking charges against Whiteside. Whiteside moved to suppress the firearms, arguing that the search warrant was invalid and no warrant exception applied. The district court denied the motion, and Whiteside pleaded guilty while reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan denied Whiteside's motion to suppress, finding that the warrant was valid despite the judge not signing the warrant itself, only the affidavit. The court also found that there was a sufficient nexus between the place to be searched and the evidence sought. Additionally, the court ruled that even if the warrant was invalid, the good-faith exception to the warrant requirement would apply, and the firearms were in plain view.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Sixth Circuit held that the warrant was validly issued despite the lack of a signature on the warrant itself, as there was clear and contemporaneous evidence that the judge made the necessary probable cause determination. The court also found that the warrant affidavit established a sufficient nexus between Whiteside's residence and the evidence of stalking. Furthermore, the court concluded that the plain-view doctrine applied to the seizure of the firearms, as the incriminating character of the firearms was immediately apparent to the officers, who knew Whiteside was a felon. Therefore, the seizure of the firearms was valid, and the district court's denial of the motion to suppress was affirmed. View "United States v. Whiteside" on Justia Law