Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

A Texas county judge, Brian Umphress, challenged the State Commission on Judicial Conduct's application of Canon 4A(1) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges to conduct their extra-judicial activities in a manner that does not call into question their impartiality. Umphress, who refuses to perform same-sex marriages for religious reasons while continuing to perform opposite-sex marriages, argued that applying the Canon to his refusal is unconstitutional. This challenge arose after a similar situation involving Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley, who was publicly warned by the Commission for her refusal to perform same-sex weddings.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed Umphress's case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that he lacked standing and that his claims were not ripe. The court also noted that even if it had jurisdiction, it would have abstained under the Pullman doctrine, which allows federal courts to defer to state courts on issues of unclear state law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and found that Umphress had standing and that his claims were ripe for review. The court held that Umphress had demonstrated an imminent injury in fact, as his intended conduct was arguably proscribed by Canon 4A(1) and there was a substantial threat of future enforcement by the Commission. The court also determined that the case was not moot despite the Commission's rescission of its warning against Hensley, as the Commission had not disavowed future enforcement against Umphress.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal and declined to abstain under Pullman, noting that state court litigation was unlikely to resolve the crucial threshold question of Texas law. Instead, the court certified the question to the Supreme Court of Texas, asking whether Canon 4A(1) prohibits judges from publicly refusing to perform same-sex weddings for moral or religious reasons while continuing to perform opposite-sex weddings. View "Umphress v. Hall" on Justia Law

Jacob Doe, a student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH), was found responsible for two allegations of sexual misconduct and subsequently expelled from the university system. Doe sued the university and several employees, claiming violations of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, Title IX, and various state laws. The district court largely denied the defendants' motions to dismiss, allowing Doe’s federal and most state law claims to proceed.The defendants appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The appellate court found that the district court erred in rejecting the defendants' claims of sovereign and qualified immunity. The court held that the UNC institutions were entitled to sovereign immunity, reversing the district court’s decision to allow Doe’s claims against them. Additionally, the court determined that the individual university employees were entitled to qualified immunity regarding Doe’s due process claims for damages, as the right to cross-examination in university disciplinary proceedings was not clearly established at the time.However, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision to allow Doe to seek prospective injunctive relief for the alleged due process violations. The court recognized that Doe had adequately alleged a liberty interest due to the permanent expulsion and the ongoing harm from the erroneous disciplinary record. The court declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss Doe’s Title IX claim against UNC-CH, dismissing that portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.In conclusion, the Fourth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and dismissed in part the district court’s rulings, allowing Doe’s claims for prospective injunctive relief to proceed while dismissing his claims for damages against the UNC institutions and individual employees. View "Doe v. The University of North Carolina System" on Justia Law

A retired teacher, Patsy Talley, received overpayments in her retirement benefits from the North Carolina Teachers’ and State Employees’ Retirement System (TSERS) for over eight years, totaling $86,173.93. When the overpayment was discovered, TSERS began reducing her monthly benefits to recoup the overpaid amount. Talley did not dispute the overpayment but argued that the recoupment process violated her due process rights because she was not provided a hearing before the reductions began.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina dismissed all of Talley’s claims. The court held that her official capacity claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment, her substantive due process claim failed because she received adequate post-deprivation process, and her equal protection claim did not allege a fundamental right or suspect class. The court also dismissed her individual capacity procedural due process claim, finding the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Additionally, the court denied Talley’s motion to amend her complaint to add new plaintiffs, citing procedural deficiencies and lack of good cause.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court agreed that the Eleventh Amendment barred the official capacity claims and that the individual capacity claims were barred by qualified immunity. The court found that Talley failed to state a substantive due process claim because she received adequate post-deprivation process and that her equal protection claim did not meet the rational basis review. The court also upheld the denial of her motion to amend the complaint, finding no abuse of discretion by the district court. View "Talley v. Folwell" on Justia Law

A mother, Aurora Regino, filed a complaint against the Chico Unified School District after the district began using her child's new preferred name and pronouns without informing her. Regino claimed that the district's policy, which allows students to be addressed by their preferred names and pronouns without parental notification, violated her substantive and procedural due process rights. She argued that the policy deprived her of her fundamental rights as a parent to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of her children.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California dismissed Regino's complaint, reasoning that she failed to allege the existence of a fundamental right that was clearly established in existing precedent. The court applied a standard similar to that used in qualified immunity cases, requiring that the right be clearly established in existing law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal, holding that the district court applied erroneous legal standards to the substantive and procedural due process claims. The Ninth Circuit clarified that a plaintiff asserting a substantive due process claim does not need to show that existing precedent clearly establishes the asserted fundamental right. Instead, the critical inquiry is whether the asserted fundamental right is deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court to conduct the proper analysis, including a careful formulation of the asserted fundamental right and an examination of whether it is deeply rooted in history and tradition.The Ninth Circuit also held that the district court erred in its analysis of Regino's procedural due process claim by requiring her to identify a fundamental right. Procedural due process protects all liberty interests derived from state law or the Due Process Clause itself. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Ninth Circuit's opinion. View "REGINO V. STALEY" on Justia Law

Luis Gutierrez was arrested in May 2020 after New Mexico state officers found a loaded, stolen pistol in his motel room. He was charged with both federal and state crimes. In October 2021, he pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon against a household member in state court and was sentenced to two years of imprisonment. He was released on May 5, 2022. Gutierrez was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm on August 11, 2020, while in state custody. However, he was not notified of the federal charge until his release from state custody.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico denied Gutierrez’s motion to dismiss the indictment for violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. The court found that the delay in the federal case was justified due to complications caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and that Gutierrez failed to show any prejudice caused by the delay. Gutierrez then pleaded guilty to the federal charge, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his Sixth Amendment claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court applied the multi-factor test from Barker v. Wingo and found that while the length of the delay and Gutierrez’s assertion of his right favored him, the reason for the delay was neutral, and he failed to show any prejudice. The court held that the Speedy Trial clause does not apply to postconviction sentencing and that Gutierrez’s alleged harm at sentencing was not cognizable under the Sixth Amendment. The court affirmed the district court’s decision and found that Gutierrez’s appellate waiver was enforceable, barring his challenge to the application of U.S.S.G. § 5K2.6 to enhance his sentence. View "United States v. Gutierrez" on Justia Law

California collects a fee from in-state hospitals and uses the revenue, along with federal Medicaid funds, to provide subsidies to California hospitals serving Medicaid beneficiaries. Out-of-state hospitals near the California border, which sometimes serve California Medicaid beneficiaries but do not pay the fee, sought access to these subsidies. They argued that their exclusion violated the dormant Commerce Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and federal Medicaid regulations.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia rejected the out-of-state hospitals' arguments and granted summary judgment in favor of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The hospitals appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the QAF program does not discriminate against interstate commerce because it does not tax out-of-state hospitals, and the supplemental payments are based on in-state provision of medical care. The court also found that the program does not violate the Equal Protection Clause, as California could rationally decide to target subsidies to in-state hospitals serving a disproportionate share of Medi-Cal beneficiaries. Lastly, the court concluded that the QAF program does not violate federal Medicaid regulations, as the regulation in question pertains to base payments for specific services rendered to beneficiaries, not supplemental subsidies like the QAF payments. View "Asante v. Kennedy" on Justia Law

A business owner and his company, which provides non-emergency medical transportation, challenged the constitutionality of a Nebraska statute requiring a showing of "public convenience and necessity" to obtain a certificate to operate such services. They argued that the statute violated the Nebraska Constitution's due process, special legislation, and special privileges and immunities clauses. They claimed the requirement protected existing providers from competition and harmed the public by reducing service quality.The district court for Lancaster County rejected their constitutional challenges and dismissed their complaint. The court applied a rational basis test to the due process claim, finding the statute rationally related to a legitimate state interest in preventing destructive competition and ensuring reliable transportation services. The court also found the statute did not create an arbitrary or unreasonable classification or a closed class, thus rejecting the special legislation claim. Finally, the court determined the statute did not grant irrevocable special privileges or immunities, dismissing the special privileges and immunities claim.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's rejection of the facial constitutional challenges, agreeing that the statute was rationally related to a legitimate state interest and did not violate the special legislation or special privileges and immunities clauses. However, the Supreme Court vacated the district court's order to the extent it ruled on as-applied challenges, determining that such challenges should be raised in an application for certification and an appeal from any denial by the Public Service Commission. View "N'Da v. Golden" on Justia Law

The case involves the Arizona Abortion Access Act Initiative I-05-2024, which appeared on the November 5, 2024, general election ballot. The Legislative Council prepared an analysis of the initiative, which included a description of existing state law prohibiting abortions after 15 weeks of gestation, except in medical emergencies. The analysis used the term "unborn human being" to describe the existing law, which the initiative's proponents argued was not impartial and requested the term "fetus" be used instead.The Superior Court in Maricopa County ruled in favor of the initiative's proponents, finding that the term "unborn human being" was emotionally and partisanly charged, and ordered the Council to replace it with a neutral term. The Council members appealed the decision, arguing that the analysis was impartial and complied with statutory requirements.The Arizona Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the Superior Court's ruling. The Court held that the analysis substantially complied with the statutory requirement for impartiality by accurately describing existing law using the precise terminology found in the statute. The Court emphasized that the term "unborn human being" is used in the existing law and that the analysis provided necessary background information to voters. The Court concluded that the analysis was impartial and did not advocate for or against the initiative. The request for attorney fees and costs by the initiative's proponents was denied. View "ARIZONA FOR ABORTION ACCESS v MONTENEGRO" on Justia Law

Devin Ledbetter was seriously injured by Springfield, Missouri police officer Brandon Helmers. Ledbetter sued Helmers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming Helmers used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The incident occurred when Helmers and his partner responded to a 911 call about a man holding a woman captive in a tent. Ledbetter, who was in the tent, exited holding a knife. The accounts of what happened next differ, with Helmers claiming Ledbetter was non-compliant and threatening, while Ledbetter claimed he immediately dropped the knife and was compliant. Ledbetter sustained severe injuries, including a fractured hip, during the arrest.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri denied Helmers's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, noting disputed facts about the threat Ledbetter posed and the amount of force used. The case proceeded to trial, but the jury could not reach a verdict on liability. However, they answered special interrogatories, finding Helmers reasonably believed Ledbetter posed an immediate threat but did not believe Ledbetter was resisting arrest. The district court then granted Helmers's motion for judgment as a matter of law based on qualified immunity, concluding that Helmers did not use excessive force and that his conduct did not violate clearly established law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that a reasonable jury could find Helmers used excessive force, given the evidence and the jury's special findings. However, the court also held that it was not clearly established that Helmers's use of force was excessive under the circumstances, as existing case law did not provide sufficient guidance for the specific situation Helmers faced. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment granting Helmers qualified immunity. View "Ledbetter v. Helmers" on Justia Law

Muhammad Masood, a licensed physician from Pakistan, came to the United States in 2018 on a non-immigrant visa to work as an unpaid medical researcher. In 2019, he became radicalized by Islamic extremist content and planned to join ISIS. In March 2020, he was arrested at the Minneapolis airport with plans to travel to ISIS-controlled territory. A search revealed military and medical supplies, computers, and digital storage devices containing extremist propaganda. Masood pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota adopted the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) and sentenced Masood to 216 months imprisonment, varying downward from the statutory maximum of 240 months. Masood appealed, arguing procedural errors in applying the terrorism enhancement, considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and alleged violations of his due process rights and right to allocution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found no procedural error in applying the terrorism enhancement, as the evidence supported that Masood's offense was intended to promote terrorism. The court also found that the district court adequately considered the § 3553(a) factors and provided a sufficient explanation for the sentence. Additionally, the court determined there was no violation of Rule 32(i) or the Due Process Clause, as Masood and his counsel were given opportunities to argue and allocute before the final sentence was imposed. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Masood" on Justia Law