Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

A detainee, Kongchi Justin Thao, died by suicide while being temporarily held at a county jail facility in Oklahoma during a transfer to a federal facility in California. Upon arrival, Mr. Thao was placed in a holding pod for short-term inmates. After attempting to leave the pod, he was restrained, handcuffed, and, while being transported, was tased by an officer before being isolated in a shower cell (Cell 126) with no camera. Over the next hour and a half, Mr. Thao repeatedly cried out for help, expressed suicidal ideation, and asked to be killed. Officers told him to be quiet but did not intervene further. Mr. Thao was later found hanging in the cell and died as a result.The decedent’s estate, through his brother as special administrator, filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Grady County Criminal Justice Authority (GCCJA), alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment for excessive force and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma granted summary judgment to GCCJA on both claims. The district court found that the facility had not been deliberately indifferent, reasoning there was evidence of training for officers on suicide risks and inmate supervision, and that the GCCJA’s written use-of-force policy was not plainly unconstitutional.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the summary judgment for GCCJA regarding the excessive force claim, holding that the written taser policy was facially constitutional and that liability could not attach to the county for an officer’s violation of that policy. However, the appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment on the deliberate indifference claim, finding genuine disputes of material fact about whether officers had adequate training to detect suicide risks in inmates like Mr. Thao. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the inadequate medical care claim. View "Thao v. Grady County Criminal Justice Authority" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between two neighbors residing in the same apartment building in Washington, D.C. The petitioner alleged that the respondent had stolen food deliveries from her apartment door on two occasions and, on two other occasions, had knocked on her bedroom window early in the morning and made crude sexual propositions. The petitioner testified about her fear and referenced the respondent’s status as a registered sex offender. Video evidence of the food thefts was presented, and the respondent’s counsel argued that the alleged conduct did not meet the statutory requirements for stalking and that the sexual statements constituted protected speech under the First Amendment.The case was initially reviewed by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. The trial court found that the respondent had engaged in a course of conduct meeting the statutory definition of stalking, relying on both the food thefts and the window-knocking incidents, including the sexual propositions. The court granted the petitioner an anti-stalking order, reasoning that the combination of food theft and unwanted sexual advances constituted the type of targeting that the anti-stalking statute was intended to prevent.On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court held that the trial court erred by failing to consider whether the respondent’s speech was constitutionally protected and may not be punished as stalking, as required by Mashaud v. Boone, 295 A.3d 1139 (D.C. 2023). Because the trial court relied on the content of protected speech and did not conduct the necessary First Amendment analysis, the error was deemed harmful. The anti-stalking order was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Graham v. T.T." on Justia Law

An agricultural company opposed a unionization effort initiated by the United Farm Workers of America, who sought certification as the exclusive bargaining representative for the company's employees under a new statutory procedure. The union filed a Majority Support Petition with the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, presenting evidence that a majority of employees supported union representation. The company responded by submitting objections and employee declarations alleging misconduct by the union during the signature collection process. The Board's regional director investigated and determined that the union had met the statutory criteria for certification, leading the Board to certify the union as the employees' representative.Following the certification, the company filed additional objections with the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, including constitutional challenges to the underlying statute. The Board dismissed most objections and set others for a hearing, but stated it could not rule on constitutional questions. While administrative proceedings were ongoing, the company filed a petition in the Superior Court of Kern County seeking to enjoin the Board from proceeding and to declare the statute unconstitutional. The Board and the union argued that the court lacked jurisdiction due to statutory limits on judicial review, but the superior court nonetheless issued a preliminary injunction halting the Board's proceedings. Appeals and writ petitions followed, consolidating the matter before the reviewing court.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District, held that the superior court lacked jurisdiction to consider the challenge at this stage. The court reaffirmed that under California law, employers may not directly challenge union certification decisions in court except in extraordinary circumstances, which were not present here. The proper procedure is for employers to wait until an unfair labor practice proceeding or mandatory mediation is completed and a final order is issued before seeking judicial review. The court reversed the preliminary injunction and ordered dismissal of the company’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. View "Wonderful Nurseries v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

John Kenney, a resident of Florida, sought to obtain a retail cannabis license in Rhode Island as a social equity applicant. He argued that, as a recipient of a social equity cannabis license in the District of Columbia and someone with nonviolent marijuana convictions in Maryland and Nevada, he would otherwise qualify under Rhode Island’s Cannabis Act. Kenney challenged two provisions of the Act: the requirement that all license applicants must be Rhode Island residents or entities controlled by Rhode Island residents, and the definition of “social equity applicant,” which, according to Kenney, only recognizes nonviolent marijuana offenses eligible for expungement under Rhode Island law.After Kenney filed an amended complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, the defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On February 6, 2025, the district court dismissed the case on ripeness grounds, reasoning that the Cannabis Control Commission had not yet promulgated final rules for retail cannabis licenses, and thus the court could not adjudicate the claims. The case was dismissed without prejudice, and Kenney appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the appeal. Following the Commission’s issuance of final rules for retail cannabis licenses, effective May 1, 2025, the appellate court determined that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of ripeness. The First Circuit held that Kenney’s claims were not moot and that he had standing to pursue them. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal order and remanded the case for prompt consideration of the merits of Kenney’s constitutional challenges, instructing the district court to rule at least forty-five days before the Commission issues retail licenses. View "Kenney v. Rhode Island Cannabis Control Commission" on Justia Law

A cannabis entrepreneur based in California sought to challenge specific provisions of Rhode Island’s Cannabis Act, which governs the licensing of retail cannabis businesses. The Act requires applicants for all retail cannabis business licenses to be Rhode Island residents or entities with a principal place of business in Rhode Island and majority ownership by Rhode Island residents. It also establishes criteria for “social equity applicants,” reserving certain licenses for individuals with past marijuana-related convictions eligible for expungement or for those who have resided in disproportionately impacted areas. The plaintiff, not a Rhode Island resident, intended to apply for a license but alleged that these requirements violated the dormant Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island dismissed the plaintiff’s action without prejudice, concluding that her claims were not ripe for judicial review. The court cited several cases but provided no substantive analysis, noting that the Commission had yet to promulgate final rules and regulations for licensing and declining to speculate on the timeline for their adoption. This order was issued just before the public comment period on the proposed regulations closed.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the district court erred in dismissing on ripeness grounds. The appellate court determined that the claims were ripe, not moot, and that the plaintiff had standing to bring the suit. The court found that the plaintiff faced imminent harm under the statutory requirements and that judicial intervention was warranted. The First Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for prompt consideration of the plaintiff’s constitutional claims, instructing the lower court to issue its rulings before the planned issuance of retail cannabis licenses. View "Jensen v. Rhode Island Cannabis Control Commission" on Justia Law

Jeremiah Sweeney was involved in a late-night argument with neighbors over stolen marijuana, during which he fired a gun, missing his intended targets but fatally striking a bystander some distance away. At trial, a key issue was whether Sweeney could have been the shooter given his location and the trajectory of the bullet. After the prosecution rested, a juror independently visited the crime scene and reported his findings to the rest of the jury, leading to his dismissal and the continuation of deliberations with the remaining eleven jurors. Sweeney was convicted of second-degree murder and other charges.His convictions were upheld by a Maryland appellate court on direct appeal. Sweeney then pursued postconviction relief in Maryland state court, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective for not seeking to question the rest of the jury about possible prejudice following the dismissed juror’s unauthorized crime-scene visit. The state court denied relief. Sweeney repeated this claim in a federal habeas petition before the United States District Court, which also denied relief, finding that the state court's application of Strickland v. Washington was not objectively unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed, not on the ineffective assistance claim Sweeney asserted, but on the grounds that a series of failures deprived him of his constitutional rights, and ordered a new trial. The Supreme Court of the United States held that the Fourth Circuit erred by granting relief on a claim that Sweeney had never raised, thus violating the principle of party presentation. The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case, instructing the lower court to address only the ineffective-assistance claim Sweeney actually raised. View "Clark v. Sweeney" on Justia Law

A child reported sexual abuse by her father following a weekend visit, which led to criminal charges against him. At trial, the prosecution requested that a screen be placed between the child witness and the defendant during her testimony, citing a Mississippi statute that mandated such a screen in child-abuse cases. The defendant objected, contending that the statute’s mandatory requirement could not override his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser face to face unless the court made a case-specific finding that such a procedure was necessary to protect the witness.The trial court granted the State’s motion, reasoning that the statutory mandate left no discretion, and the defendant was subsequently convicted by a jury. On appeal, the Mississippi Supreme Court acknowledged that the trial court did not make a case-specific finding of necessity but upheld the procedure, distinguishing Supreme Court precedents and holding that the statutory requirement was sufficient authority for the use of the screen.The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision of the Mississippi Supreme Court. The Court held that under the Sixth Amendment, a defendant’s right to confront witnesses may not be denied based solely on a statute or generalized findings of necessity. Instead, a trial court must hear evidence and make a case-specific finding of necessity before permitting screening of a child witness. The Court remanded the case, allowing the Mississippi Supreme Court to consider whether the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, consistent with the harmless-error standard. View "Pitts v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

A nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting electoral transparency operates a website that republishes voter registration data collected from state agencies. The group obtained New Mexico’s voter data through a third party and published it online, including information such as names, addresses, party affiliation, and voting history. After the website highlighted discrepancies in the state’s voter rolls, New Mexico’s Secretary of State publicly questioned the group’s motives and the lawfulness of its actions. The Secretary referred the group to the Attorney General for criminal investigation under state statutes that restrict the use and sharing of voter data. The group’s subsequent requests for updated voter data were denied.After the state’s refusal, the organization filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on the grounds that New Mexico’s restrictions were preempted by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court issued a preliminary injunction preventing prosecution, which was later stayed by the Tenth Circuit. After cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court found that the NVRA preempted New Mexico’s restrictions and enjoined criminal prosecution. The court rejected most of the group’s remaining constitutional claims but, following a bench trial, held that the state engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by refusing further data requests.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that the NVRA preempts New Mexico’s restrictions on the use and sharing of voter data, holding that state laws that prevent broad public disclosure of voter data conflict with the NVRA’s requirements. The Tenth Circuit did not reach the First Amendment claims, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "Voter Reference Foundation v. Torrez" on Justia Law

Ahmadou entered the United States from Niger in 2016 under an F1 student visa. In 2021, he visited a Texas gun range, rented and fired guns, and completed a waiver form that did not list his visa status as a prohibited category for firearm possession under federal law. Investigators connected Ahmadou to an Islamic extremist involved in a 2020 attack, and a search of Ahmadou’s devices revealed extensive ISIS propaganda. Undercover agents were present during his visits, but did not instruct the gun range staff to act differently. Ahmadou was later arrested and admitted his gun range visits were in preparation for potential jihad overseas.In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Ahmadou moved to dismiss his indictment, arguing he was entitled to the defense of entrapment by estoppel based on alleged misrepresentation by the gun range’s waiver form. The district judge denied his motion, excluded evidence of the defense, and refused his proposed jury instruction. After trial, a jury found Ahmadou guilty on all counts. At sentencing, the court denied a reduction for acceptance of responsibility and declined to apply the terrorism enhancement, but imposed an above-guidelines sentence, citing Ahmadou’s conduct and associations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decisions. It held that entrapment by estoppel did not apply because the gun range’s waiver form was not an affirmative misrepresentation, and the firearms dealer was not a federal official or agent for purposes of the defense. The Fifth Circuit also found that denial of the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction was not clearly erroneous, and the above-guidelines sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable, as it was based on permissible considerations under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). View "USA v. Ahmadou" on Justia Law

A jury found the defendant guilty of second-degree assault. At the sentencing hearing, the trial judge initially announced a sentence of one year, suspending all but nine months to be served on home detention, followed by three years of supervised probation. While the judge was advising the defendant of his post-trial rights, the prosecutor questioned whether the sentence properly reflected the intended punishment and raised concerns about the remaining active time if probation was violated. After a brief colloquy and clarification, the judge revised the sentence, increasing it to five years, suspending all but nine months on home detention, and three years of supervised probation.The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court of Maryland, arguing that the trial judge had illegally increased the sentence after it had been imposed, in violation of Maryland Rule 4-345, which restricts modifications to sentences once they are imposed. The Appellate Court rejected this argument, holding that the sentence was not illegally increased because the revision occurred before the sentencing proceeding concluded, and Rule 4-345 was therefore not triggered.On further appeal, the Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed the decision of the Appellate Court. The Supreme Court held that under Maryland law, a sentence is not considered “imposed” under Rule 4-345 until the sentencing proceeding ends. Thus, a trial court retains authority to modify or increase a sentence during an ongoing sentencing hearing. Since the revision to the defendant’s sentence occurred before the conclusion of the sentencing proceeding—while the defendant was still present and the case was not over—Rule 4-345 did not apply, and the increase did not violate double jeopardy protections. The judgment of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County was affirmed. View "Reyes v. State" on Justia Law