Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves the interpretation of Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 166.255, which makes it unlawful for a person to possess a firearm or ammunition if they have been convicted of a "qualifying misdemeanor" involving the use or attempted use of physical force against a family or household member. The defendant, Richard Darrel Eggers, was convicted of harassment under ORS 166.065(1)(a)(A) for subjecting his brother to offensive physical contact during a domestic altercation.The Lane County Circuit Court concluded that the harassment conviction constituted a "qualifying misdemeanor" under ORS 166.255, thereby prohibiting Eggers from possessing firearms. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the "offensive physical contact" element of harassment did not meet the "physical force" requirement of ORS 166.255(3)(e).The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine whether the "offensive physical contact" element of harassment qualifies as "physical force" under ORS 166.255(3)(e). The court concluded that the Oregon legislature intended to align ORS 166.255 with the federal firearms prohibition under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which the U.S. Supreme Court had interpreted to include even minimal offensive touching as "physical force" in United States v. Castleman.The Oregon Supreme Court held that the "physical force" requirement in ORS 166.255(3)(e) includes the degree of force necessary to complete a common-law battery, which encompasses offensive physical contact. Therefore, harassment under ORS 166.065(1)(a)(A) is a "qualifying misdemeanor" for the purposes of ORS 166.255. The court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and affirmed the judgment of the circuit court, upholding the firearms prohibition against Eggers. View "State v. Eggers" on Justia Law

Danny Washington was convicted by a jury on multiple charges, including first-degree kidnapping, injury to personal property, and several counts of aggravated and simple assault. The charges stemmed from incidents involving his then-girlfriend, J.B., in October 2021. Washington allegedly assaulted J.B., damaged her vehicle, and forcibly confined her with a firearm, leading to his arrest and subsequent indictment on eight counts.The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in Minnehaha County, South Dakota, presided over the trial. Washington filed several pretrial motions, including motions to exclude references to his parole status and to prevent the use of the term "victim" in court. The court granted these motions but denied his request for a personal copy of the discovery. During the trial, the jury found Washington guilty on all counts. Washington later filed a motion for a new trial, citing ineffective assistance of counsel and other trial errors, which the court denied. He was sentenced to 100 years for kidnapping, with additional concurrent and consecutive sentences for other charges.The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed the case. Washington argued ineffective assistance of counsel, insufficient evidence for the kidnapping conviction, cumulative trial errors, discrepancies between the oral and written sentences, and improper multiple convictions for aggravated assault. The court declined to address the ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal, noting the need for a more developed record. It found sufficient evidence to support the kidnapping conviction and determined that the alleged trial errors did not cumulatively deny Washington a fair trial. The court clarified that the written sentence, which suspended 60 years of the 100-year kidnapping sentence, controlled over any ambiguous oral pronouncements. Finally, the court held that entering multiple convictions for a single statutory offense arising from the same act violated double jeopardy principles, but found no plain error due to the lack of clear precedent. The court affirmed the lower court's decisions. View "State v. Washington" on Justia Law

Matthew Dettle was charged and convicted of three felonies in Florida: using a computer to solicit a child for unlawful sexual conduct, traveling to meet a minor after such solicitation, and using a two-way communications device to facilitate a felony. His conviction for the third offense was vacated. Dettle argued that his remaining two convictions violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits multiple punishments for the same offense.The First District Court of Appeal found that Dettle's convictions for traveling to meet a minor and unlawful use of a two-way communications device violated double jeopardy and vacated the latter conviction. However, it affirmed his convictions for solicitation and traveling, as they were based on separate illegal acts. Dettle's convictions became final in 2017. After the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Lee v. State, which held that courts should only consider the charging document to determine double jeopardy violations, Dettle sought retroactive relief under this new rule.The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed whether the rule in Lee should apply retroactively. The court concluded that Lee does not apply retroactively to cases that were already final when it was decided. The court reasoned that the rule in Lee is procedural, not substantive, and does not meet the high bar for retroactive application under either the Witt or Teague standards. Consequently, the court affirmed the decision of the First District Court of Appeal, denying Dettle's request for postconviction relief. View "Dettle v. State of Florida" on Justia Law

Michael Jones was convicted of attempted murder and related charges after an incident where he and his codefendants, Syheed Wilson and Keirsten Carroll, were involved in a shooting of a cab driver, Alex Destin. Jones directed the cab driver and then shot him, while Wilson also shot the driver. The three were identified through surveillance footage and arrested. Wilson gave a statement to the police implicating Jones as the shooter.At trial, Jones objected to the admission of Wilson’s statement, arguing it violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause as established in Bruton v. United States. The trial court overruled the objection, and the jury was instructed to consider each defendant’s statement only against the one who made it. Jones was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to twenty to forty years in prison. The Superior Court affirmed the conviction, reasoning that the redacted statement, which referred to Jones as “my friend,” did not violate the Confrontation Clause because it did not explicitly name him and required linkage with other evidence to be incriminating.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case, focusing on whether the admission of Wilson’s redacted statement violated Bruton. The court noted that the statement, though redacted to refer to Jones as “my friend,” still directly incriminated him by describing him in a way that the jury could easily identify him, especially since the jury was shown surveillance footage and still images identifying Jones. The court concluded that the statement violated Bruton’s prohibition against admitting a non-testifying codefendant’s confession that directly implicates the defendant.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania vacated the Superior Court’s order and remanded the case for the Superior Court to determine whether the Bruton violation amounted to harmless error. View "Commonwealth v. Jones" on Justia Law

The case involves a petition challenging the public release of a grand jury report by the 30th County Investigating Grand Jury. The petitioner argued that the report did not meet the statutory definition of an "investigatory grand jury report" under the Investigatory Grand Jury Act (IGJA) and that the supervising judge erred in ordering its release. The petitioner also contended that the report's criticism of named, unindicted individuals violated their due process rights and the fundamental right to reputation under the Pennsylvania Constitution.The Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas initially accepted the report and ordered its public release. The supervising judge provided notice and an opportunity to respond to some, but not all, named, unindicted individuals criticized in the report. The petitioner, along with others, sought to have the report permanently sealed or redacted. The supervising judge made some redactions but ultimately ordered the report to be unsealed.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and concluded that the report did not satisfy the IGJA's definition of an "investigatory grand jury report" because it neither related to organized crime or public corruption nor proposed recommendations for legislative, executive, or administrative action in the public interest. The court found that the report focused on punishing specific individuals and providing answers to the deceased-accused's family, rather than addressing broader public concerns.The court also determined that due process requires notice and an opportunity to respond for all named, unindicted individuals criticized in a grand jury report. The supervising judge's failure to provide such notice to all criticized individuals was deemed an error. Consequently, the Supreme Court vacated the supervising judge's order and remanded the case with instructions to permanently seal the report. View "In Re: The Thirtieth County Investigating Grand Jury" on Justia Law

A group of inmates sentenced to death filed a declaratory judgment action in the Franklin Circuit Court, challenging the validity of the Kentucky Department of Corrections' (DOC) execution regulations. In 2010, the court issued a temporary injunction preventing the execution of an inmate under the then-current lethal injection protocols. The Commonwealth's attempt to dissolve this injunction was denied, and the court's decision effectively halted all executions until a final judgment was rendered.The DOC revised its lethal injection regulations in March 2024, prompting the Commonwealth to request the lifting of the 2010 injunction. The Franklin Circuit Court reserved ruling on this motion, noting that the original protocols were no longer in effect and questioning whether the injunction still applied. The court highlighted that no current death warrants were active and declined to issue an advisory opinion on the amended regulations' constitutionality.The Commonwealth sought interlocutory relief from the Court of Appeals under RAP 20(B), arguing that the circuit court's reservation of ruling effectively modified the injunction. The Court of Appeals recommended transferring the matter to the Kentucky Supreme Court. Both parties supported this transfer, and the Supreme Court accepted the case.The Kentucky Supreme Court dismissed the action without prejudice, ruling that RAP 20(B) does not allow for interlocutory relief from an order that maintains an injunction. The court noted that the circuit court's decision to reserve ruling did not constitute a new or modified injunction and maintained the status quo. The Commonwealth had other potential remedies, such as requesting a definitive ruling or filing a petition for a writ of mandamus, but did not pursue these options. View "DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS V. BAZE" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over a proposed constitutional amendment in Utah, referred to as Amendment D. The amendment, proposed by the Utah State Legislature, seeks to change the state constitution in three significant ways: specifying that the right to alter or reform the government can only be exercised through constitutional processes, banning foreign influence in the initiative and referendum processes, and granting the Legislature unlimited power to amend or repeal any law passed by a citizen initiative. The controversy centers on whether the amendment was properly submitted to voters and whether it was published as required by the Utah Constitution.The Third Judicial District Court in Salt Lake County reviewed the case and found that the Legislature had not complied with the constitutional requirements for submitting and publishing the proposed amendment. The court ruled that the ballot title for Amendment D was misleading and did not accurately reflect the substance of the amendment, thus failing to meet the Submission Clause of the Utah Constitution. Additionally, the court found that the Legislature did not cause the amendment to be published in newspapers across the state for two months preceding the election, as required by the Publication Clause. Consequently, the district court issued a preliminary injunction declaring Amendment D void and ordered that any votes cast on the amendment not be counted.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the district court's decision and affirmed the preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court agreed that the ballot title was misleading and did not provide voters with a clear understanding of what they were voting for or against, thus violating the Submission Clause. The Court also held that the Legislature failed to comply with the Publication Clause by not ensuring continuous publication of the amendment's text in newspapers for the required two-month period. The Supreme Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the balance of harms and the public interest favored issuing the preliminary injunction. As a result, Amendment D was declared void, and any votes cast on it will have no effect. View "League of Women Voters v. Utah State Legislature" on Justia Law

In 2016, voters in Donegal Township, Washington County, Pennsylvania, decided to increase the number of members on the township’s board of supervisors from three to five. Subsequently, in 2020, the voters opted to reduce the number back to three. This led to a legal dispute involving Richard Martin, Jr., Richard Fidler, and Tammy Iams, who were elected to the five-member board but faced shortened terms due to the reduction.The Court of Common Pleas of Washington County initially dismissed the action brought by Martin, Fidler, and Iams, who challenged the constitutionality of Section 402(e) of the Second Class Township Code. The Commonwealth Court partially reversed this decision, ruling that Section 402(e) was unconstitutional as applied to Martin and Fidler, as it effectively removed them from office before their terms expired, contrary to Article VI, Section 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and focused on whether Section 402(e) was unconstitutionally applied. The Court held that Section 402(e) did not result in the removal of Martin and Fidler from office but rather modified their terms due to the reduction in the number of supervisors. The Court emphasized that Article VI, Section 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which provides the exclusive method for removing elected officials, was not applicable because the statute did not involve removal but rather a lawful modification of legislative office terms.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Commonwealth Court's decision, upholding the application of Section 402(e) and concluding that it did not violate the Pennsylvania Constitution. The Court found that the reduction in the number of supervisors and the subsequent election for the new three-member board were constitutionally permissible actions by the legislature. View "Martin v. Donegal Township" on Justia Law

The case involves Warren Balogh, who participated in the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. The rally, organized to protest the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue, quickly turned violent between protesters and counterprotesters. Balogh alleged that the Charlottesville Police, under Chief Al Thomas, and the Virginia State Police, under Lieutenant Becky Crannis-Curl, failed to protect his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by not intervening in the violence and declaring an unlawful assembly, which he claimed amounted to a heckler's veto.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed Balogh's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court found that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established right to police intervention to protect First Amendment rights from third-party violence. The court also held that Balogh failed to state a plausible claim for relief under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, noting that the police did not selectively enforce the unlawful assembly order and that Balogh's allegations of intentional discrimination were conclusory.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The Fourth Circuit held that the First Amendment does not obligate police to protect protesters' constitutional rights amid violence, explicitly stating that the First Amendment is a shield against invasive speech regulations, not a sword to wield against violent disruptions. The court also found that Balogh's equal protection claim under the Fourteenth Amendment failed because he did not provide sufficient facts to show intentional or purposeful discrimination. Additionally, the court rejected Balogh's Monell claim against the City of Charlottesville, as he did not demonstrate that the City Manager, the final policymaker, had ratified or delegated authority to Chief Thomas. View "Balogh v. Virginia" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, parents of minor children, challenged a public act that eliminated the religious exemption from vaccination requirements for school enrollment. They argued that the act violated their constitutional rights to free exercise of religion, equal protection, and a free public education, as well as their statutory rights under Connecticut law. The defendants, state and municipal officials, moved to dismiss the case on the grounds of sovereign immunity.The trial court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss, concluding that the plaintiffs' constitutional claims satisfied the substantial claim exception to sovereign immunity, and their statutory claim under Connecticut law satisfied the statutory waiver exception. The defendants appealed this decision.The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that the trial court must assess the legal sufficiency of the plaintiffs' allegations to determine whether they have asserted a substantial claim of a constitutional violation. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' constitutional claims failed as a matter of law. The act was deemed a neutral law of general applicability, rationally related to the state's interest in protecting public health. The court also found that the act did not violate the plaintiffs' right to a free public education, as it imposed a reasonable vaccination requirement.However, the court agreed with the trial court that the plaintiffs' statutory free exercise claim under Connecticut law satisfied the statutory waiver exception to sovereign immunity. The court found that the scope of the waiver extended to free exercise challenges to the enforcement of legislation and that applying the statute to the public act did not violate any constitutional principles.The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision in part, directing the dismissal of the constitutional claims, but affirmed the decision regarding the statutory claim, allowing it to proceed. View "Spillane v. Lamont" on Justia Law