Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

On February 13, 2024, law enforcement found the body of Teangela Tate, who had died from gunshot wounds, near an interstate ramp in North Little Rock, Arkansas. Nearby, two young children were discovered: one deceased (MV1) from blunt-force trauma and environmental exposure, and another (MV2) alive but barely responsive. Evidence at the scene and subsequent investigation linked Willie Leon Mott, Jr. to the victims, including blood and shell casings in Mott’s house and his mother’s car, cell phone records showing travel to and from the crime scene, and DNA tests. Mott was arrested later that day, and during his incarceration, he attempted to have his mother destroy his cell phone.The Pulaski County Circuit Court presided over Mott’s trial. After the prosecution rested, Mott moved for directed verdicts, arguing insufficient evidence for each count and challenging the constitutional validity of a portion of Arkansas’s capital-murder statute. The circuit court denied these motions, finding the evidence sufficient and the statute not vague. Mott rested without presenting witnesses and renewed his motions, which were again denied. He received life sentences for first-degree murder, capital murder, and attempted capital murder.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the appeal. Applying the substantial evidence standard, the court determined that the jury’s verdicts were supported by the evidence, including circumstantial evidence and Mott’s actions to conceal his involvement. The court also reaffirmed prior decisions that the statutory language “under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life” is not unconstitutionally vague. The court affirmed the circuit court’s rulings and Mott’s convictions and sentences. View "MOTT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS" on Justia Law

A pedestrian was severely injured when struck by a Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority bus while crossing an intersection in Philadelphia. The injuries required a partial left foot amputation and extensive ongoing medical care. The plaintiff retained counsel on the understanding that they would challenge the constitutionality of the statutory cap limiting damages recoverable from Commonwealth parties, set at $250,000 under Pennsylvania’s Sovereign Immunity Act. The complaint alleged negligence by SEPTA, which admitted liability; the parties then stipulated to a jury verdict with damages totaling $7 million, but SEPTA moved to reduce the award to the statutory cap.The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County granted SEPTA’s motion to mold the verdict to $250,000 and denied delay damages, finding itself bound by prior Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent, specifically Zauflik v. Pennsbury School District, which had upheld similar caps. The plaintiff appealed to the Commonwealth Court, which affirmed the trial court in an unpublished opinion. The Commonwealth Court reasoned that the damages cap did not violate the right to a jury trial or the constitutional right to a remedy, holding that the cap affected only the ultimate recovery, not the ability to prosecute the claim or access a jury trial.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District, reviewed the case, focusing on whether the damages cap violates the Pennsylvania Constitution’s right to a jury trial or to a remedy. The court held that, as applied in this case, the statutory cap does not violate either constitutional right. The cap limits the remedy but does not restrict access to a jury trial or the process itself. The court affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s order, concluding that the legislature has authority to set such liability limits and that the cap is constitutional, even if it results in little or no recovery for the plaintiff. View "Freilich v. SEPTA" on Justia Law

The case concerns a challenge brought by the District Attorney of Philadelphia against Act 40 of 2023, which created the position of a special prosecutor to investigate and prosecute crimes occurring within the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA). Act 40 gives the special prosecutor concurrent jurisdiction with district attorneys in counties served by SEPTA, except in Philadelphia, where the special prosecutor has exclusive authority, able to preempt the Philadelphia District Attorney at their sole discretion. The Act also limits the ability of criminal defendants to challenge the special prosecutor’s authority and prescribes procedures for local law enforcement and funding related to prosecutions.The District Attorney filed a petition for review in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that Act 40 unconstitutionally infringed upon his powers and jurisdiction, constituted an impermissible special law, violated equal protection and procedural notice requirements, and improperly restricted criminal defendants’ rights. The Commonwealth Court, in a split en banc opinion, rejected these constitutional challenges, finding that the General Assembly has broad authority to regulate the powers and duties of home rule municipalities and their officers, including district attorneys, and that Act 40 did not violate the Pennsylvania Constitution. Concurring and dissenting opinions argued that Act 40 was unconstitutionally vague, restricted criminal defendants’ rights, and improperly divested the District Attorney of his jurisdiction.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s order. The Supreme Court held that Act 40 does not violate the Pennsylvania Constitution, finding no constitutional source for exclusive prosecutorial powers and confirming the General Assembly’s authority to prescribe the duties of city officers. The Court also held that Act 40 does not constitute an impermissible local or special law, nor violate equal protection, and that the District Attorney lacked standing to raise the rights of criminal defendants under Act 40. View "Krasner v. Sunday" on Justia Law

On the night of February 14, 2017, the victim and her boyfriend, along with their children, dined with the appellant, Ronald Jenkins, a longtime friend. After returning to their apartment and consuming alcohol and marijuana, the victim felt unwell and asked Jenkins to leave. Jenkins refused and then violently assaulted the victim, causing her to lose memory of the remainder of the evening. Surveillance footage later showed Jenkins carrying the unconscious victim into his motel room. The victim awoke the next morning, partially undressed and confused, with signs of injury. Medical and forensic evidence established the presence of Jenkins’s semen in the victim. Jenkins denied any wrongdoing during police interviews, including a conversation conducted with his attorney present.The criminal trial took place in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas. During the Commonwealth’s closing argument, the prosecutor referenced Jenkins’s retention of counsel during his interview with police, suggesting it reflected consciousness of guilt. Jenkins’s counsel objected and moved for a mistrial, arguing the prosecutor’s remarks improperly prejudiced the jury. The trial court denied the mistrial but issued a prompt curative instruction, emphasizing the right to counsel and directing the jury not to draw adverse inferences. Jenkins was convicted and sentenced. On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed, finding the prosecutor’s remarks improper but concluding the curative instruction and overwhelming evidence rendered any error harmless. One judge dissented, asserting the error was incurable.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania addressed whether the prosecutor’s reference to Jenkins’s pre-arrest retention of counsel violated his right to a fair trial and whether such error was structural or subject to harmless error analysis. The Court held that the prosecutor’s comment was improper and impacted Jenkins’s due process right, but not a structural error requiring automatic reversal. Considering the timely curative instruction and overwhelming evidence, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed. View "Commonwealth. v. Jenkins" on Justia Law

After a fatal shooting in a shared Minneapolis apartment, the defendant was charged with first-degree murder while committing domestic abuse with a past pattern of domestic abuse, as well as being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm. The defendant and the victim had been in a relationship and lived together; on the day of the incident, the victim had communicated to others her intention to end their relationship. Later that day, following an argument, the defendant called 911 twice to report a shooting, providing inconsistent information about his location. When police arrived at the apartment, they found the victim dead from a gunshot wound. At trial, the State presented evidence of the defendant’s prior abusive conduct toward several other romantic partners, as well as expert testimony on the dynamics of domestic violence.The Hennepin County District Court conducted the jury trial. During jury selection, the State used a peremptory strike on the only remaining Black venire member, prompting a Batson challenge by the defense, which was denied. The district court allowed the State’s domestic violence expert testimony, over defense objections. The jury found the defendant guilty on all counts, and the district court entered convictions for first-degree murder and firearm possession, sentencing the defendant to life with the possibility of release after 30 years.On direct appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court, the defendant raised four main issues: the denial of his Batson challenge, the admission of domestic violence expert testimony, alleged prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments, and the absence of a specific-unanimity jury instruction regarding the domestic abuse element. The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the district court did not clearly err in denying the Batson challenge, did not abuse its discretion in admitting the expert testimony, and that the prosecutor’s statements did not constitute misconduct. Furthermore, it found that any instructional error did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights. The court affirmed the convictions. View "State of Minnesota vs. Brown" on Justia Law

Following the devastating 2023 Lahaina wildfires in Maui, which caused significant loss of life and property, numerous victims initiated litigation against various parties including Hawaiian Electric, the State of Hawaiʻi, the County of Maui, and others. To manage the complex and large-scale proceedings, the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit established a special coordination proceeding, appointed liaison counsel, and ultimately oversaw a $4.037 billion global settlement. A major issue arose regarding attorney fees: the court issued an order capping contingency fees, creating a $222 million Common Benefit Fund for attorneys whose collective efforts benefited all claimants, and appointing a Common Fee Review Board to allocate the fund.Prior to this appeal, the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit managed the coordination, administered discovery, approved the settlement, and issued the attorney fee order. Claimant Michael Bates and attorneys Anthony Ranken, Alex Edrenkin, and John Thickstun challenged the court’s authority to issue the fee order, arguing it was void due to lack of jurisdiction, violated constitutional rights, and improperly limited review of fee awards. They appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals and petitioned the Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi for extraordinary writs.The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi, after accepting transfer, determined it had jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine and HRS § 602-5(a)(6). The court held that the Circuit Court had authority to issue the fee order based on the ongoing special proceeding and the equitable common fund doctrine. However, three provisions that barred or penalized appeals of fee awards were vacated as they violated statutory and constitutional rights to review. The remainder of the fee order—including the creation of the Common Benefit Fund, the tiered fee schedule, and the processes for fee awards—was affirmed. The constitutional and abuse of discretion challenges were rejected, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "In re Petition for the Coordination of Individual Plaintiffs Maui Fire Cases" on Justia Law

The case involves an incident in which Alberto Jorge Barraza confronted Nikko G., a man known for his long hair and pride in his Native American heritage. Nikko had expressed plans to sell his hair to a company making wigs. After Barraza and associates perceived Nikko had stolen from them, they discussed cutting off his hair as punishment. Barraza approached Nikko while he was asleep in a car, attempted to cut off his hair with a knife, and when Nikko resisted, stabbed him in the leg, resulting in Nikko’s death due to a severed artery.Following these events, a jury in the Superior Court of San Diego County convicted Barraza of first degree felony murder, with the underlying felony being robbery, as well as assault with a deadly weapon. The jury found several enhancements true, including personal use of a deadly weapon and infliction of great bodily injury. The trial court sentenced Barraza to 25 years to life for murder, plus a consecutive term for the weapon enhancement, while staying the sentence for the assault conviction and related enhancements.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed whether the evidence supported the felony murder conviction, specifically whether forcibly cutting attached hair constitutes robbery under Penal Code section 211. The court held that growing human hair, still attached to a person’s head, is part of the human body and not personal property as required for robbery. Therefore, forcibly cutting attached hair does not satisfy the legal definition of robbery, and the evidence did not establish robbery or attempted robbery. The court reversed Barraza’s conviction for first degree felony murder. View "People v. Barraza" on Justia Law

In December 2001, a 21-year-old man and his two younger brothers planned and carried out the murders of a woman, Chrissie Williams, and her three-year-old daughter, Katelyn, in Georgia. The crime involved home invasion, use of weapons, and acts of extreme violence and sexual assault. After fleeing the state and being apprehended, the brothers entered plea agreements: the two younger brothers received life sentences with parole eligibility, while the petitioner, after initially negotiating for a similar deal, ultimately rejected a plea offer and decided to plead guilty, influenced by religious beliefs that demanded confession and acceptance of the death penalty.The Superior Court of Paulding County accepted the petitioner’s guilty plea and, following a bench sentencing trial at his request, imposed the death penalty. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and sentences on direct appeal. After a failed “next friend” habeas attempt by a brother, the petitioner filed his own state habeas petition, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel and other constitutional violations. While the state habeas court initially granted relief on the sentencing, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed, reinstating the death sentence. The petitioner then pursued federal habeas relief in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, which denied relief but granted a certificate of appealability on selected claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and held that the Georgia Supreme Court’s denial of the petitioner’s claims was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law or an unreasonable determination of the facts. The court found that trial counsel’s recommendation to waive a jury for sentencing was reasonable, that no prejudice resulted from counsel’s alleged failure to investigate mitigating evidence due to the petitioner’s own instructions, and that the prosecution’s use of alternative theories in codefendants’ proceedings did not violate constitutional rights. The district court’s denial of habeas relief was affirmed. View "Tate v. Warden GDCP" on Justia Law

Arizona voters approved Proposition 211, the Voters’ Right to Know Act, to address “dark money” in elections by requiring disclosure of the original sources of major campaign media spending, including contributions passed through intermediaries. The law applies to individuals and entities that spend significant amounts on campaign media, mandating public disclosure of donors who directly or indirectly contribute more than $5,000 per election cycle. It also includes recordkeeping requirements, opt-out provisions for donors, and enforcement by the Citizens Clean Elections Commission. Plaintiffs, Americans for Prosperity and its Foundation, alleged that these compelled disclosures and requirements violate their First Amendment rights by chilling speech and association, and they sought to enjoin the law.The case was first heard in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. The plaintiffs advanced both facial and as-applied constitutional challenges. The district court applied the Supreme Court’s exacting scrutiny standard and dismissed all claims, finding Proposition 211 substantially related to Arizona’s strong informational interest, imposing only modest administrative burdens, and being narrowly tailored. The court noted the opt-out provision protected donors and that plaintiffs did not allege sufficient facts for an as-applied challenge.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that Proposition 211’s disclosure requirements were substantially related to Arizona’s important governmental interest in electoral transparency, imposed modest burdens, and were narrowly tailored. The appellate court rejected the plaintiffs’ facial challenge, finding they did not demonstrate a substantial number of unconstitutional applications. The as-applied challenge failed for lack of specific allegations of harm. The court also affirmed the dismissal of compelled association claims, finding no unconstitutional compulsion. The disposition by the Ninth Circuit was to affirm the district court’s dismissal of all claims. View "AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY V. MEYER" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, who was the CEO of a private company with government contracts and a security clearance, was arrested in December 2021 for felony domestic violence. Although no charges were filed, police prepared an investigative report. In February 2022, the San Francisco Superior Court ordered the arrest and related records sealed under California Penal Code sections 851.91 and 851.92. Despite this, the police department released the incident report to a third party without restriction, and it was later sent anonymously to an independent journalist who published articles about the plaintiff’s arrest online, including the report. The plaintiff sought to have the posts removed and subsequently sued the journalist, the platform hosting the articles, and another entity associated with the journalist, alleging multiple causes of action including privacy violations and statutory breaches.The San Francisco County Superior Court reviewed anti-SLAPP motions filed by all defendants, which argued the suit arose from constitutionally protected activity and was barred by the First Amendment and the Communications Decency Act (CDA). The court found that the plaintiff’s claims were based on the defendants’ speech—specifically, online publication in a public forum about a matter of public interest, given the plaintiff’s role and the company's government work. It also determined that statutory protections for sealing did not override constitutional protections, and rejected the argument that defendants’ actions were illegal as a matter of law. The court granted the anti-SLAPP motions and awarded attorney fees to the defendants.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four affirmed the trial court’s orders. The main holding was that the First Amendment protects the lawfully obtained, truthful publication of information of public significance, even if the information was originally subject to statutory sealing, and that section 230(c)(1) of the CDA bars claims against interactive computer service providers for hosting such content. The attorney fee award was also affirmed. View "Blackman v. Substack" on Justia Law