Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, Ohio voters and members of an initiative petition committee, sought to amend the Ohio Constitution through two ballot initiatives. The Ohio Attorney General, David Yost, rejected their proposed summaries eight times, preventing them from collecting signatures. Plaintiffs argued that this violated their First Amendment rights. The district court agreed, issuing a preliminary injunction ordering Yost to certify the summaries. However, the district court stayed the injunction pending appeal.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio initially denied preliminary injunctive relief, but a panel of the Sixth Circuit reversed, finding that the fair-and-truthful review process likely violated Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. The en banc Sixth Circuit later vacated this decision, deeming the case moot as the targeted election had passed. Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint and sought a second preliminary injunction, which the district court granted, but stayed pending appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and agreed with the district court that Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights were likely violated. The court found that the fair-and-truthful certification process allowed the Attorney General to exercise editorial control over the petition summaries, which constituted a severe burden on Plaintiffs' core political speech. The court also determined that the other stay factors did not favor Yost. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit granted Plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay, allowing them to proceed with their petition efforts. View "Brown v. Yost" on Justia Law

A national consumer advocate law firm (C Co.) and its affiliate (S Co.) providing administrative support services sought injunctive and declaratory relief against the Department of Banking. The Department had initiated an administrative enforcement action against S Co. for allegedly engaging in unlicensed debt negotiation activities. The plaintiffs argued that S Co. was exempt from licensing requirements under a presumption established in a prior case (Persels & Associates, LLC v. Banking Commissioner), which holds that attorneys providing debt negotiation services as part of their legal practice fall under the exclusive regulation of the Judicial Branch.The trial court denied the Department's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action, concluding that the plaintiffs were not required to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention on whether the Persels presumption applied to S Co. The Department appealed, arguing that the Commissioner of Banking should first determine whether the presumption applied.The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the plaintiffs were not required to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention. The court reasoned that the Commissioner of Banking lacks the expertise to determine whether the Persels presumption applies, as this involves assessing whether the activities in question constitute the practice of law, which falls under the exclusive authority of the Judicial Branch. The court emphasized that allowing the commissioner to make this determination would violate the constitutional separation of powers. Therefore, the plaintiffs could seek declaratory and injunctive relief in the trial court without waiting for the commissioner to resolve the issue. View "Commonwealth Servicing Group, LLC v. Dept. of Banking" on Justia Law

In November 2004, Julio Rodríguez-Méndez participated in a carjacking in Puerto Rico while possessing a firearm. He was first prosecuted in a Puerto Rico Commonwealth court for robbery of a motor vehicle and carrying a weapon without a license, to which he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to twelve years in prison. Subsequently, a federal grand jury indicted him on three counts related to the same carjacking, including unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. Rodríguez pleaded guilty to the felon-in-possession count, and the other charges were dismissed. He was sentenced to 216 months in prison, partly due to being classified as an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).Rodríguez filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to vacate his conviction on double jeopardy grounds and to challenge his ACCA enhancement. The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico denied his motion, holding that double jeopardy did not apply and that his prior convictions for motor vehicle robbery qualified as ACCA predicates.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court rejected Rodríguez's double jeopardy claim, stating that the federal felon-in-possession offense and the Commonwealth firearm offense are separate offenses under the Blockburger test, as each requires proof of an element that the other does not. However, the court agreed with Rodríguez that his prior convictions under Article 173B of the Puerto Rico Penal Code did not qualify as ACCA predicates. The court found that the statute's definition of "intimidation" was broader than the ACCA's requirement for violent felonies, as it included threats against property, not just persons.The First Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Rodríguez's double jeopardy claim but reversed the denial of his § 2255 motion regarding the ACCA enhancement, vacating his sentence and remanding for resentencing. View "Rodriguez-Mendez v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2011, Winston Sylvester Oliver II and his co-defendant, Warren Brown, were convicted of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, attempted Hobbs Act robbery, and use of a firearm during these crimes. Oliver's firearm convictions were later vacated, necessitating resentencing for the remaining convictions. At his resentencing, Oliver argued that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated when the court allowed Brown to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination due to his pending appeal. Oliver also contended that his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia initially sentenced Oliver to 630 months in prison. After his firearm convictions were vacated, the court resentenced him to 610 months. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit vacated his remaining firearm conviction and remanded for resentencing. At the second resentencing, Oliver's motion to recuse the entire bench of the Eastern District of Virginia was denied. The district court allowed Brown to invoke his Fifth Amendment right, excluded unauthenticated letters allegedly written by Brown, and calculated Oliver's Guidelines range, ultimately sentencing him to 480 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Brown to invoke his Fifth Amendment right, as his testimony could have had adverse consequences due to his pending appeal. The court also found that the district court did not err in applying sentencing enhancements for Oliver's leadership role, obstruction of justice, and firearm discharge. The court concluded that the 480-month sentence was substantively reasonable, considering Oliver's extensive criminal history and the impact on the victims. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Oliver" on Justia Law

A journalist, Simon Ateba, sought preferred access to the White House Press Area through a special press credential known as a "hard pass." The White House issues hard passes only to reporters accredited by either the Supreme Court Press Gallery or a congressional press gallery. Ateba applied for membership in the Senate Daily Press Gallery as a prerequisite to securing a hard pass, but his application was still under consideration. In the meantime, he accessed the Press Area with a daily pass, which required him to wait for an escort. Ateba argued that the White House Hard Pass Policy violated the First Amendment because it burdened his access and conditioned fuller access on accreditation by the Senate Daily Press Gallery, which he claimed exercised unbridled discretion.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment in favor of the White House. The court concluded that while Ateba had suffered a cognizable First Amendment injury, the White House acted reasonably under the First Amendment by outsourcing part of its press-credentialing process. The district court also ruled that the Senate Daily Press Gallery did not impermissibly exercise discretion in deciding who could become a member and that extraordinary procedural protections were not constitutionally required.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that the White House Hard Pass Policy was both reasonable and viewpoint neutral. It found that the policy's reliance on external credentialing bodies was reasonable given the White House's lack of its own vetting system. The court also determined that the Senate Daily Press Gallery's membership criteria, including the "of repute" standard, did not confer unbridled discretion because it was guided by concrete rules. Additionally, the court held that the First Amendment did not require the gallery to set a deadline for processing membership applications. View "Ateba v. Leavitt" on Justia Law

The case involves the detention and removal of Venezuelan nationals believed to be members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), a group designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the State Department. The President issued a proclamation under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to detain and remove these individuals. Five detainees and a putative class sought injunctive and declaratory relief against their removal under the Proclamation, initially seeking relief in habeas but later dismissing those claims.The District Court for the District of Columbia issued two temporary restraining orders (TROs) preventing the removal of the named plaintiffs and a provisionally certified class of noncitizens subject to the Proclamation. The court extended the TROs for an additional 14 days. The D.C. Circuit denied the Government’s emergency motion to stay the orders, leading the Government to seek vacatur from the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court of the United States construed the TROs as appealable injunctions and granted the Government's application to vacate the orders. The Court held that challenges to removal under the AEA must be brought in habeas corpus, as the claims necessarily imply the invalidity of the detainees' confinement and removal. The Court also determined that venue for such habeas petitions lies in the district of confinement, which in this case is Texas, making the District of Columbia an improper venue. The detainees are entitled to notice and an opportunity to seek habeas relief in the proper venue before removal. The application to vacate the District Court's orders was granted, and the TROs were vacated. View "Trump v. J. G. G." on Justia Law

Barron Brantley was charged with multiple serious offenses, including malice murder and rape, in connection with the sexual assault and murder of Alexis Janaé Crawford. While awaiting trial, Brantley made several incriminating phone calls from jail, which were recorded and monitored by the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office. The District Attorney’s Office reviewed these calls and intended to use three of them at trial. Brantley filed a motion to exclude these calls, arguing that their use violated his constitutional rights to privacy and equal protection, and that the calls contained inadmissible evidence.The trial court granted Brantley’s motion, ruling that the District Attorney’s access to the recorded calls violated Brantley’s privacy rights under both the state and federal constitutions, and his equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The State appealed this decision, citing OCGA § 5-7-1 (a) (4) as the basis for its appeal.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and reversed the trial court’s decision. The court held that Brantley had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his recorded jail calls, as established by precedent, and thus, the District Attorney’s access to these calls did not violate his privacy rights. Additionally, the court found that Brantley, as an incarcerated individual, was not similarly situated to nonincarcerated individuals, and the State had a rational basis for treating him differently, thereby not violating his equal protection rights. The case was remanded for the trial court to consider other grounds for excluding portions of the calls if Brantley still asserted them. View "THE STATE v. BRANTLEY" on Justia Law

Emiliano Gomez was found guilty by the trial court of multiple offenses, including stalking, criminal threats, and possession of a firearm and ammunition as a felon. The police found a flare gun in Gomez's possession, and based on an officer's testimony, the trial court convicted him of possessing a firearm as a felon under Penal Code section 29800, subdivision (a)(1). Gomez appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for possession of a firearm as a felon and that the statutes prohibiting felons from possessing firearms and ammunition violate the Second Amendment.The trial court found Gomez guilty on all counts except for possession of body armor. The court also found special allegations and aggravating factors true, sentencing Gomez to an aggregate term of four years in state prison. Gomez contended that the evidence was insufficient to prove the flare gun was a firearm designed to be used as a weapon, as required by section 16520, subdivision (a).The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case and held that the prosecution needed to prove the flare gun was designed to be used as a weapon. The court found the evidence insufficient to support such a finding and vacated the conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon. The court also rejected Gomez's Second Amendment challenge to the statutory prohibitions on possession of firearms and ammunition by felons, citing the reasoning in People v. Anderson. The judgment was reversed, the conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon was vacated, and the case was remanded for resentencing. View "People v. Gomez" on Justia Law

Dwayne Robinson was convicted by a jury for unlawfully possessing a firearm as a felon. The district court imposed the Armed Career Criminal Act’s (ACCA) minimum punishment, finding that Robinson had three prior qualifying offenses committed on different occasions. Robinson appealed, raising four claims: a Sixth Amendment violation due to the district court responding to a jury note without his counsel’s input, the court’s failure to grant a mistrial after detectives implied he had shot at someone, incorrect jury instructions regarding gun ownership and possession, and the district court’s application of the ACCA without a jury determination on whether his prior offenses occurred on different occasions.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville initially reviewed the case. Robinson did not properly object to the court’s response to the jury note, the failure to grant a mistrial, or the jury instructions, leading to a review for plain error. The district court found Robinson’s three prior offenses occurred on different occasions, thus applying the ACCA’s mandatory minimum sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Robinson’s failure to object to the jury note response, mistrial denial, and jury instructions meant these issues were reviewed for plain error. The court found no obvious mistakes in these areas. Regarding the ACCA application, the court acknowledged intervening Supreme Court precedent requiring a jury to determine if prior offenses occurred on different occasions. However, the court found this error harmless because the record clearly showed Robinson’s offenses were separated by many years. Thus, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Robinson" on Justia Law

Clarios, LLC (Clarios) purchased an industrial site in 2006, for which the seller had executed a remediation plan under the Industrial Site Recovery Act (ISRA) and placed funds in trust for future remediation. In 2007, Clarios ceased operations and sought a Remediation in Progress Waiver (RIP Waiver) from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), which was granted with the condition that the DEP reserved the right to enforce ISRA obligations in the future. Clarios sold the site in 2011, and the new owner, DeNovo, assumed remediation responsibilities. By 2021, the remediation trust was depleted, and the site was out of compliance. In April 2022, the DEP rescinded Clarios’s RIP Waiver due to non-compliance and depletion of funds.Clarios requested an adjudicatory hearing, arguing that the rescission without notice or a hearing violated its due process rights. The DEP denied the request, stating that rescission did not entitle Clarios to a hearing under the relevant regulations. Clarios appealed, and the Appellate Division ruled in favor of the DEP, holding that Clarios did not have a protected property interest in the RIP Waiver. The court found that Clarios’s expectation of continued suspension of remediation obligations was not based on any statutory or regulatory provisions but rather on a unilateral expectation.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision. The Court held that the DEP’s initial grant of the RIP Waiver did not create a property interest in the continued suspension of Clarios’s remediation obligations. The Court found that neither the controlling statutes and regulations nor a mutually explicit understanding between the parties provided an entitlement to the indefinite continuance of the waiver. The governing laws and agency materials anticipated the DEP’s ability to enforce remediation obligations in the future, and thus, rescission of the RIP Waiver without a hearing did not violate Clarios’s due process rights. View "In re Appeal of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's September 6, 2022 Denial of Request for Adjudicatory Hearing" on Justia Law