Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Joshua Martinez was charged in two separate cases with serious offenses, including attempted murder, reckless endangerment, terrorizing, fleeing from law enforcement, violation of a domestic violence protection order, unlawful firearm possession, and other related crimes. The cases were consolidated and proceeded to a seven-day jury trial, where twelve jurors and two alternates were sworn in. After the first day of trial, Juror 9 was observed interacting with Jacob Martinez, a relative of the defendant. Upon questioning, Juror 9 disclosed he only learned of the familial relationship after speaking with Jacob Martinez. Despite Juror 9’s assurance of impartiality, the district court dismissed him, citing concerns about the interaction, and replaced him with an alternate juror.The District Court of Williams County, Northwest Judicial District, presided over the consolidated trial. Following the jury’s verdict, Martinez was convicted on all counts except one of reckless endangerment. Martinez objected to the removal of Juror 9, arguing that the substitution violated his constitutional rights and exceeded the court’s authority under North Dakota Rule of Criminal Procedure 24(c)(1).On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed whether the district court’s decision to replace Juror 9 constituted an abuse of discretion or violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Supreme Court held that substituting a properly qualified alternate juror did not implicate double jeopardy, as it did not terminate the original jeopardy. The court further held that the district court’s expressed concerns regarding Juror 9’s impartiality constituted a sufficient basis for dismissal, and that the court did not abuse its discretion in replacing Juror 9 with an alternate. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the criminal judgments against Martinez. View "State v. Martinez" on Justia Law

In 2010, a woman was found dead in her Jacksonville, Florida apartment, having been stabbed approximately ninety times. The investigation led law enforcement to question the defendant, who initially denied involvement but ultimately confessed to the killing and to taking items from the apartment. He was charged with first-degree murder. At trial in Duval County, a jury found him guilty, and after a penalty-phase proceeding where the defendant declined to present additional mitigating evidence, the jury unanimously recommended a death sentence. The trial court imposed the death penalty, finding the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating circumstances.The Florida Supreme Court previously affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Subsequent challenges included an initial postconviction motion, a state habeas petition, and a first successive postconviction motion, all of which were denied. While the first successive motion was pending, the defendant filed a second successive postconviction motion in the state circuit court, raising new constitutional claims related to the representativeness of his jury. He relied on a recent academic study to argue that his jury was not drawn from a fair cross-section of the community. The circuit court summarily denied the motion as untimely and meritless.The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed the appeal from the circuit court’s summary denial. The court held that the claims were untimely under rule 3.851, as the academic study did not constitute newly discovered evidence. Additionally, the claims were procedurally barred because they could have been raised earlier. The court also found the Sixth, Eighth, and state constitutional claims to be legally insufficient, clarifying that the fair cross-section requirement applies to the jury pool, not the petit jury. The denial of postconviction relief was affirmed. View "David Kelsey Sparre v. State of Florida" on Justia Law

A nonprofit research foundation affiliated with a state university entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the university in 2007, becoming a statutorily regulated direct-support organization (DSO). The MOU provided that the foundation’s board would include two appointees from the university but was otherwise silent on board approval and on budget approval processes. In 2018, the Florida Legislature enacted a law requiring all DSO board appointments to be approved by the university’s board of trustees. Around the same time, a regulation by the Board of Governors (BOG) required university boards of trustees to approve DSO budgets. The foundation challenged these requirements, arguing that they impaired its contractual rights under the MOU.The Circuit Court conducted a trial and found that the MOU limited the university’s involvement to only the two appointees and that the statutory board approval requirement impaired the MOU. It concluded that the university failed to show a significant and legitimate public purpose for the statute. However, regarding the budget approval dispute, the court held that the MOU did not address budget approval, so there was no contractual impairment. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed both findings, concluding that the statutory board approval requirement rewrote the parties’ contract, while the regulation on budget approval did not impair the MOU.The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed the case. It held that the MOU only addressed the university’s power to appoint two board members and was silent on approval of other appointments or on budget approval. Therefore, the statutory and regulatory changes did not impair any specific contractual obligations. The court reversed the Fourth District’s ruling on the board appointment issue and otherwise affirmed, holding that neither the statute nor the regulation unconstitutionally impaired the MOU. View "Florida Atlantic University Board of Trustees v. Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute Foundation, Inc." on Justia Law

In October 2021, a Florida attorney, Ross, held a trust account at Regions Bank that received a $29.6 million wire transfer, the result of a business email compromise fraud perpetrated on a company called Phoenix. Most of the funds were rapidly transferred out of the account, with some recalled by the bank. Federal authorities seized approximately $4.9 million remaining or recovered from the account and initiated a civil forfeiture action, alleging the funds were proceeds of fraud or involved in money laundering.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York oversaw the initial proceedings. Ross filed a verified claim to $1.21 million of the seized funds, asserting they were legitimate client funds or proceeds from his home sale, but made no claim to the remaining $3.69 million. Another claimant, Phoenix, also asserted interest in the $1.21 million. The district court entered default judgment forfeiting the unclaimed $3.69 million to the government, dismissed without prejudice the forfeiture proceedings as to the $1.21 million, and issued a certificate of reasonable cause for the seizure. It denied Ross’s subsequent motion for attorney fees, costs, and interest under CAFRA, finding he did not “substantially prevail,” and denied reconsideration.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that Ross lacked standing to contest the forfeiture of the $3.69 million because he had not filed a claim as to those funds. The court rejected Ross’s due process challenge to the stay of proceedings, finding the delay reasonable, and upheld the denial of attorney fees, costs, and interest, concluding that dismissal without prejudice did not make Ross a prevailing party under CAFRA. The court also found no abuse of discretion in dismissing the forfeiture action without prejudice. However, the Second Circuit vacated the issuance of a certificate of reasonable cause, as no judgment for Ross had been entered. All other aspects of the district court’s judgments were affirmed. View "United States v. Ross" on Justia Law

A man was charged with attempted first-degree premeditated murder and unlawful possession of a firearm following a shooting in Duluth. The victim could not identify the shooter, and evidence at the scene included two guns and DNA samples. Investigators initially obtained a search warrant for DNA samples from the suspect, but after the validity of that warrant was challenged in a co-defendant’s case, the State agreed not to use any evidence obtained from it. Instead, the State sought and received a court order under a Minnesota procedural rule to collect a buccal swab (cheek swab) from the defendant for DNA analysis. This DNA evidence, along with recorded jail calls and texts from an alleged accomplice, was presented at trial. The defendant was convicted by a jury and sentenced to prison.The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the convictions, holding that the warrantless collection of the buccal swab violated constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, and that this error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also held that the defendant was not entitled to a jury instruction requiring corroboration of accomplice testimony, because the accomplice’s statements were not made under oath.Upon review, the Minnesota Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court. It held that collecting a buccal swab for DNA analysis without a warrant or a valid exception constitutes an unreasonable search under both the United States and Minnesota Constitutions. The court rejected arguments that the procedural rule or a court order could replace a warrant, and found no applicable exception to the exclusionary rule. The court also clarified that the statutory term “testimony” in Minnesota’s accomplice-corroboration statute means only statements made under oath. The Supreme Court affirmed the reversal of the convictions and remanded for a new trial. View "State of Minnesota vs. Steeprock" on Justia Law

The plaintiff was an employee of the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority and a former member of the relevant labor union. In 2016, he attempted to resign from the union and objected to the continued deduction of union dues from his wages, arguing that compelled dues for non-bargaining activities violated his First Amendment rights. The employer and union, acting under Puerto Rican law and the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, denied his requests, continued to deduct dues, and the plaintiff filed suit seeking declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico presided over the initial proceedings. After the Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees overruled Abood v. Detroit Board of Education and invalidated mandatory union payments by nonmembers in the public sector, the employer and union ceased deducting dues from the plaintiff. The union then sought to deposit the amount withheld after his resignation, plus interest and nominal damages, with the court. The District Court ultimately granted the union’s request to deposit funds and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims as moot, reasoning that he had received all requested relief. The plaintiff’s subsequent motion to alter or amend the judgment was denied, with the court stating he was entitled to the deposited funds.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the appeal. The First Circuit found that the plaintiff was entitled to the funds deposited by the union, rejecting the argument that there was no judgment awarding him monetary relief. However, the court determined that the issue of whether the plaintiff could seek prevailing party attorneys’ fees—potentially affecting mootness—had not been fully addressed below. The First Circuit remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings on that issue, while retaining jurisdiction over the appeal. View "Cruz v. UIA" on Justia Law

Juan Mendez was approached by two Chicago police officers investigating a gunshot detected near his home early one morning. As the officers arrived and questioned Mendez and a juvenile on the porch, Mendez suddenly fled, jumping a fence and running down an alley. The officers pursued him, with one warning that Mendez had something in his waistband and then in his hand. During the chase, Mendez fell, got up, and turned toward the officers with an object in his hand. One officer, perceiving a threat, shot Mendez three times, resulting in paralysis from the waist down.Mendez filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against the City of Chicago and the two officers, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, battery under Illinois law, and seeking indemnification from the City. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that, based on body-camera footage and the circumstances, a reasonable officer would have had probable cause to believe Mendez posed a threat to the officers’ safety. The court also found that, without a Fourth Amendment violation, Mendez could not prevail on his state law claims. Mendez appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the record independently and affirmed the district court. The Seventh Circuit held that Officer Szczur had probable cause to believe that Mendez posed a threat of serious physical harm under the totality of the circumstances, making the use of deadly force reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The court also held that the state law battery and indemnification claims failed for the same reasons. The judgment for the defendants was affirmed. View "Mendez v City of Chicago" on Justia Law

Christopher Arthur was investigated after founding a business that sold military gear and later provided training and manuals on tactics including the use of explosives. The FBI became involved after a customer, Joshua Blessed, died in a shootout and was found to possess pipe bombs and Arthur’s manuals. Subsequently, an undercover informant, “Buckshot,” sought training from Arthur, who instructed him on fortifying his home and making explosive devices, knowing Buckshot claimed he wanted to use such tactics against federal agents. Arthur was arrested in January 2022 and a search of his home revealed illegal firearms and improvised explosives.A grand jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina indicted Arthur under 18 U.S.C. § 842(p)(2)(B) for teaching explosives use with knowledge of criminal intent, and on additional firearms and explosives charges. Arthur moved to dismiss the primary count, arguing the statute was facially overbroad under the First Amendment. The district court denied the motion, finding the statute’s knowledge requirement limited its scope to conduct integral to criminal acts, not protected speech. After a three-day trial, the jury found Arthur guilty on all counts. At sentencing, the court applied the U.S.S.G. § 3A1.4 terrorism enhancement, increasing his guidelines range, and sentenced Arthur to a total of 300 months’ imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that 18 U.S.C. § 842(p)(2)(B) is not unconstitutionally overbroad, concluding that the statute targets speech integral to criminal conduct and does not criminalize a substantial amount of protected expressive activity. The Fourth Circuit also found no reversible error in applying the terrorism enhancement, and determined any alleged guidelines error was harmless given the district court’s alternative sentencing rationale. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "US v. Arthur" on Justia Law

A married couple with two young children went through divorce proceedings after the mother filed for divorce. During the marriage, the mother was the primary caregiver, staying home with the children, while the father worked long hours as a mechanic and business owner. Both parties presented evidence at trial regarding their respective parenting abilities, disciplinary approaches, and their differing views on matters such as medical care and education. Testimony addressed concerns about each parent’s past drinking, interactions with the children, willingness to facilitate contact with the other parent, and incidents involving the children’s care.The District Court of Washakie County conducted a bench trial and, after evaluating the statutory best interest factors, awarded joint legal custody of the children to both parents. The court designated the mother as the primary residential caregiver and final decision-maker for major matters, granting the father regular parenting time, including certain weekends, evenings, holidays, and summer periods. The father appealed the custody determination, arguing that the court violated his constitutional rights by not granting equal parenting time and claiming the court abused its discretion in its allocation of parenting time.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the appeal. It held that, in custody disputes between two fit parents, the constitutional principles cited in cases like Troxel v. Granville do not require courts to allocate equal parenting time. Instead, the court reaffirmed that Wyoming law requires custody to be determined according to the best interests of the children, without any presumption in favor of equal or shared custody. The Supreme Court found that the district court had thoroughly considered the statutory factors, acted within its discretion, and did not violate the father’s fundamental rights. The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court’s custody order. View "Smith v. Smith" on Justia Law

An inmate at the McPherson Unit, a maximum-security prison in Arkansas, alleged that from 2010 to 2014, a chaplain at the facility sexually assaulted her weekly in his office. The chaplain, who was permitted by policy to be alone with female inmates, also assaulted at least two other inmates in a similar, regular manner. He resigned in 2014 and later pleaded guilty to third-degree sexual assault. The inmate brought a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several prison officials in their individual capacities, claiming they failed to protect her from the assaults and failed to supervise the chaplain adequately.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Chief Judge Kristine G. Baker presiding, denied in part the defendants’ motions for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The court found there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the defendants—three particular officials—were aware of the chaplain’s conduct and were deliberately indifferent to the risk he posed. The district court also found genuine disputes as to whether two of the officials had sufficient supervisory authority over the chaplain to be liable for failure to supervise and whether they took appropriate remedial action.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. It held that, construing the facts in the light most favorable to the inmate, a reasonable jury could find the defendants were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm, violating clearly established Eighth Amendment rights. The appellate court also held that there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding the supervisory liability of two officials. Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of summary judgment, allowing the inmate’s claims to proceed to trial. View "Arnett v. Norris" on Justia Law