Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

In 2009, Jonathan Rose was involuntarily committed to a mental institution in Indiana due to a psychiatric disorder, though the specific diagnosis and its severity were not detailed in the record. He was released in early 2010 and has not been recommitted since. In 2022, Rose successfully purchased multiple firearms, though he was denied others after background checks revealed his prior commitment. In 2023, he was indicted under federal law for possessing firearms as a person previously committed to a mental institution and for making false statements to firearms dealers by denying his commitment history.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana reviewed Rose’s case and dismissed the counts related to possession of firearms by a previously committed person under 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(4). The district court reasoned that this statute, as applied to someone no longer suffering from mental illness, was inconsistent with the Second Amendment, particularly in light of recent Supreme Court decisions emphasizing individualized assessments of current danger rather than permanent disabilities based on past conditions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit considered the government’s appeal. The court determined that the district court should not have dismissed the indictment without an evidentiary hearing to assess Rose’s current mental health and dangerousness. The Seventh Circuit held that, after recent Supreme Court decisions, the constitutionality of §922(g)(4) as applied depends on whether the defendant currently poses a credible threat to the safety of others. Because the record lacked evidence concerning Rose’s present mental condition, the appellate court vacated the district court’s order and remanded for further proceedings to develop the necessary facts. View "USA v Rose" on Justia Law

A regional air quality agency responsible for the South Coast Air Basin, an area with some of the nation’s worst ozone pollution, amended its regulations to phase in zero nitrous oxide (NOx) emissions standards for certain appliances, such as water heaters, boilers, and process heaters. The agency determined that only widespread adoption of zero emissions standards across stationary sources could bring the region into compliance with federal ozone requirements imposed by the Clean Air Act (CAA). The rule’s implementation was staggered over several years, with the goal of achieving significant NOx reductions. Plaintiffs, including manufacturers and industry groups, challenged this rule, arguing that it was preempted by the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), which sets national energy efficiency standards for consumer products.The United States District Court for the Central District of California considered the plaintiffs’ facial preemption challenge. The district court granted summary judgment to the air quality agency, finding that the rule did not concern the “energy use” of appliances as defined by EPCA, but instead addressed air pollution and health risks. The court concluded that the rule did not trigger EPCA’s preemption provisions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that EPCA does not preempt the agency’s amended rule because nothing in EPCA’s text, structure, or history indicates Congressional intent to interfere with state and local efforts to achieve federal air quality standards under the CAA. The court also found that plaintiffs had not shown any EPCA language preempting CAA-based emissions regulations, and distinguished its earlier decision in California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley as inapplicable here. Finally, the court held that the facial challenge failed because the rule applies to some products not covered by EPCA, and thus was not unconstitutional in every application. The judgment for the agency was affirmed. View "RINNAI AMERICA CORP. V. SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT" on Justia Law

Jquan Leearthur McInnis, then a juvenile, shot and killed Gustav Christianson and an infant, J.R., by firing seven shots into a car in downtown Minneapolis. Evidence gathered by investigators included statements made by McInnis to associates and forensic evidence showing the sequence of shots. After being apprehended and advised of his Miranda rights, McInnis initially denied involvement but eventually confessed to the shootings after invoking his right to remain silent. He maintained that he did not intend to kill Christianson and was unaware of the infant’s presence.The case was tried in a Minnesota state court, where McInnis moved to suppress his confession, arguing it was obtained after he had invoked his Fifth Amendment rights. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that McInnis had not unequivocally invoked his right to remain silent. The trial proceeded on stipulated evidence, including the confession, and McInnis was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to two consecutive life terms with the possibility of parole. On appeal, the Minnesota Supreme Court agreed that the confession should have been suppressed but determined that its admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, given the other overwhelming evidence of guilt.McInnis then sought a writ of habeas corpus from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, arguing that the Minnesota Supreme Court unreasonably applied federal law on harmless error. The district court denied relief but granted a certificate of appealability on the harmless error issue. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that McInnis failed to show that the Minnesota Supreme Court’s harmless error determination was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the habeas petition. View "McInnis v. Bolin" on Justia Law

Derek Anderson sought to incorporate a new town called West Hills in Summit County, Utah, along Highway 248. To comply with Utah’s municipal incorporation code, Anderson followed a process involving proposals, notices, hearings, and multiple boundary adjustments. The incorporation procedure allows certain landowners, defined as "specified landowners" based on property size or value, to request exclusion from the proposed municipality during two specific windows: after initial notice and after the first public hearing. Anderson modified the proposed boundaries several times, and in doing so added some landowners after both opt-out windows had closed, depriving them of the statutory opportunity to request exclusion.Summit County’s Third District Court reviewed the case after these landowners, including Jennifer McCaffrey and others, sued to stop the incorporation election. They argued that the incorporation code violated the Uniform Operation of Laws Clause of the Utah Constitution by allowing some landowners to request exclusion while denying this right to others who were added later. The district court applied rational basis review and found that the code’s classification failed this standard, reasoning that the timing for boundary locking was arbitrary and allowed sponsors to manipulate which landowners had exclusion rights. The court granted summary judgment to the landowners and enjoined the Lieutenant Governor from certifying the incorporation petition.The Supreme Court of the State of Utah reviewed the appeal. The Court held that, under rational basis review, the legislative scheme for exclusion rights was constitutional. It found that the statutory cutoff for opt-outs was a reasonable means to ensure finality and prevent endless boundary modifications, and that the classification had a rational connection to legitimate legislative objectives. The Court reversed the district court’s ruling and reinstated the Lieutenant Governor’s certification of the incorporation petition for the 2026 general election. View "McCaffrey v. Anderson" on Justia Law

One afternoon, a group of seven individuals, including the appellant, were standing near a breezeway at an apartment complex in Southeast Washington, D.C. Police officers, who were on routine patrol and not responding to any specific report of criminal activity, stopped near the complex and began approaching the group from about 100 feet away. Upon noticing the officers, the appellant and another man immediately fled at a full sprint through the complex. The officers pursued the appellant, who led them on a chase over fences and through yards, ultimately dropping a firearm as he was apprehended. The police recovered the weapon, and the appellant was charged with several firearm-related offenses.The case was first reviewed by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. At a suppression hearing, the appellant moved to exclude the gun, arguing the officers lacked reasonable suspicion for his seizure. The trial court found that the seizure occurred when an officer grabbed the appellant’s leg as he attempted to scale a second fence. The court concluded that the officers had reasonable articulable suspicion to justify the seizure, relying on the appellant’s immediate flight upon seeing police, the extended and desperate nature of the chase, and testimony that the apartment complex was a high-crime area. The appellant was convicted at a stipulated trial after the suppression motion was denied.On appeal, a panel of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals vacated the convictions, finding an absence of reasonable suspicion. The court then granted en banc rehearing and vacated the panel’s opinion. The en banc District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that, under the totality of the circumstances, the officers had reasonable articulable suspicion to seize the appellant, primarily due to his unprovoked flight upon seeing police, the particularized testimony about crime at the complex, and the desperation evident in his flight. The court affirmed the convictions. View "D.W. v. United States" on Justia Law

The Legislature enacted a statute in 2014 mandating that police vehicles acquired after March 1, 2015 and used primarily for traffic stops be equipped with mobile video recording systems (MVRS). At the same time, the Legislature increased the surcharge for driving while intoxicated (DWI) offenses by $25, directing the additional funds to cover the cost of MVRS installation. In 2015, Deptford Township challenged the MVRS mandate before the Council on Local Mandates, arguing that the surcharge was insufficient to cover the costs and that the statute constituted an unfunded mandate. Deptford did not challenge the legality of the surcharge itself.The Council determined that the MVRS mandate was an unfunded mandate because there was a significant disparity between the anticipated costs and the funds generated by the surcharge. The Council declared the MVRS statute unconstitutional and also found the $25 surcharge provision “nugatory,” or without legal effect. In 2021, class actions were filed by individuals subjected to the surcharge, alleging its continued collection was unconstitutional. The complaints were consolidated in the Superior Court, which dismissed them. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding that the Council had exceeded its authority by invalidating the surcharge, because it was a funding mechanism and not an unfunded mandate.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed whether judicial review of the Council’s decisions was available and whether the Council had authority to invalidate the surcharge. The Court held that the Council is subject to judicial review when it acts beyond its constitutionally defined authority. It found that the Council’s power ended after it determined the MVRS mandate was unfunded, and it was not authorized to invalidate the $25 surcharge. The Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s judgment. View "Reed v. Muoio" on Justia Law

A group of individuals who had received traffic citations under a local ordinance enacted by the City of Tuskegee permitting automated photographic enforcement of traffic laws brought suit against the City, certain city officials, and JENOPTIK, the company involved in the installation and operation of the enforcement devices. The plaintiffs challenged the validity of the ordinance, raised constitutional concerns, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well as damages, including tort claims for negligence, invasion of privacy, and fraud. The City later enacted resolutions cancelling outstanding citations, refunding fines, and ultimately suspending enforcement of the ordinance.The case was initially filed in the Macon Circuit Court. The City and JENOPTIK moved to dismiss, arguing lack of a justiciable controversy, mootness, lack of standing, and other grounds, including lack of personal jurisdiction over JENOPTIK. The trial court denied these motions to dismiss, treating them as motions under Rule 12 and excluding extraneous materials, but did not provide detailed reasoning.On review, the Supreme Court of Alabama held that because the plaintiffs either paid the fines or failed to contest the citations under the administrative procedures provided in the ordinance, and because the City subsequently nullified the citations and provided for reimbursement, their claims challenging the legality of the ordinance were moot. The Court directed the trial court to dismiss those claims. However, the Supreme Court denied the petitions insofar as they sought dismissal of the plaintiffs’ tort claims, holding that the City and JENOPTIK did not demonstrate a clear right to mandamus relief on those claims at this stage. The Court likewise declined to dismiss the tort claims against JENOPTIK for lack of personal jurisdiction based on the current record. View "In re: Busby v. City of Tuskegee" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, a trade association and a vape shop operator, filed suit challenging an Alabama law regulating electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), which includes e-cigarettes and vapes. The law, effective June 1, 2025, established strict requirements for the sale of ENDS, including a product directory listing only approved products, mandates that products be manufactured in the United States or have federal FDA marketing authorization, and imposed significant penalties for violations. The plaintiffs claimed these regulations would cause them immediate and irreparable harm, including loss of profits, employees, and potential closure of their businesses due to prohibitions and penalties outlined in the law.The Montgomery Circuit Court initially granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) in favor of the plaintiffs, finding they would suffer irreparable harm and had no adequate remedy at law because the State defendants were protected by sovereign immunity. After a hearing, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction but extended the TRO pending appeal. The State defendants appealed, challenging the plaintiffs’ standing, while the plaintiffs cross-appealed the denial of the preliminary injunction.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed both appeals. It held that the plaintiffs had standing, as they faced concrete, particularized, and actual harm directly resulting from the enforcement of the Alabama law. However, the Court found the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claims, including implied preemption and dormant Commerce Clause challenges. The Court determined that the Alabama Act was not preempted by federal law and served legitimate state interests related to health and safety. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the trial court's denial of the preliminary injunction. View "Spencer v. Vapor Technology Association" on Justia Law

The appellant was charged in two separate cases with theft from a person and evading arrest with a vehicle. He pled guilty to both charges and received deferred adjudication for ten years as part of a plea agreement, which also resulted in the State not pursuing habitual-offender enhancement. After being arrested for additional offenses, the State filed a petition to proceed to adjudication, alleging violations of the appellant’s community supervision, which was later amended to include further infractions. The appellant objected to the hearing being conducted virtually, citing concerns under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses as well as the Confrontation Clause.The trial court in Tarrant County held the hearing via Zoom, overruled the appellant’s objections, and adjudicated him guilty of both offenses, revoking his probation. The appellant filed motions for a new trial and notices of appeal, which were denied. On appeal to the Second Court of Appeals, he argued that the virtual hearing violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment. The appellate court found that the virtual hearing did not significantly impair his participation and concluded there was no violation of Due Process. It further held that the Confrontation Clause did not apply to revocation proceedings, reasoning that these are not criminal prosecutions as contemplated by the Sixth Amendment, and affirmed the trial court’s rulings.Upon review, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas considered only the Confrontation Clause issue. The court held that the Confrontation Clause does not apply to hearings on motions to enter adjudication of guilt and probation revocation, as such proceedings are not criminal prosecutions under the Sixth Amendment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the Second Court of Appeals. View "MONTGOMERY v. STATE OF TEXAS" on Justia Law

A religious nonprofit organization sought to purchase a former university campus property after being selected as the winning bidder in a competitive process conducted by a state university system. Following the public announcement of the award, there was significant public opposition to the sale, particularly due to the religious nature of the winning bidder. Two unsuccessful bidders filed administrative protests, raising both procedural and substantive objections, including criticism of the university's decision to sell to a religious organization. The university's designated official initially denied these protests, but upon further internal review, a higher-level administrator determined that a flaw in the bid evaluation process—specifically, the failure to consider cost-saving proposals for existing infrastructure—warranted rescinding the award and restarting the process. In the new round, the property was awarded to a different bidder who scored higher under revised criteria.The original winning bidder, the religious organization, challenged the university's decision in the United States District Court for the District of Maine, alleging violations of the Equal Protection and Free Exercise Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. The district court denied the plaintiff’s motions for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiff failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of either claim. The court credited testimony that the university’s decision was motivated by cost-saving considerations rather than religious bias, and found no clear evidence of procedural irregularity or pretext.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the denial of the preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. The Court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the lower court applied the correct legal standards and did not clearly err in its factual findings. The Court concluded that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its constitutional claims. View "Calvary Chapel Belfast v. University of Maine System" on Justia Law