Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

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

Three transgender individuals sought to amend the sex designations on their Oklahoma birth certificates to align with their gender identities. They obtained state court orders directing these changes, but when presented to the Oklahoma State Department of Health, the applications were denied. The denial was based on an executive order issued by the Governor, which instructed the agency to cease amending birth certificates in ways not explicitly permitted by Oklahoma law.Plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, raising equal protection and due process claims against state officials. The District Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the due process claim but reversed on the equal protection claim. Defendants sought certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, which issued a Grant, Vacate, Remand order directing the Tenth Circuit to reconsider in light of United States v. Skrmetti, 605 U.S. 495 (2025). Subsequently, the Tenth Circuit certified three questions of Oklahoma law to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma held that Oklahoma Statute 63 O.S. § 1-321, as amended by § 1-321(H), prohibits changes to the sex designation on an Oklahoma birth certificate. The court further determined that neither current nor prior versions of the statute have ever permitted such changes, whether based on gender identity or otherwise. The answers to the certified questions were: 1) yes, the statute prohibits changes; 2) no, it has never permitted such changes; and 3) no, it does not now nor has ever permitted changes based on gender identity. View "FOWLER v. STITT" on Justia Law

A woman was arrested in Randolph County, Alabama, under a system that required arrestees to pay a predetermined bail amount based on the charged offense for immediate release. Those unable to pay had to wait until an initial appearance, which could take up to three days, and frequently did not result in a release determination. Instead, release decisions were often deferred until a preliminary hearing up to four weeks later. The plaintiff, unable to afford bail, filed a class action alleging that the county’s bail practices discriminated against indigent individuals and violated their constitutional rights.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama initially granted a temporary restraining order, releasing the plaintiff. While the case was pending, Randolph County adopted a new, more permissive bail policy. Defendants moved to dismiss the case as moot, arguing the new policy ended the challenged conduct. The district court certified a class of arrestees unable to pay secured bail, but after the Supreme Court denied certiorari in a similar case, Schultz v. Alabama, the district court dismissed most claims as moot, limiting plaintiffs to facial challenges against the new policy, and concluded those remaining claims failed to state a plausible claim for relief.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that the voluntary cessation doctrine precludes defendants from mooting the case simply by changing the bail policy during litigation. The class may proceed with facial and as-applied challenges to the prior bail practices, as well as as-applied challenges to the current bail practices. However, the court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of facial challenges to the current bail policy. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "Edwards v. Randolph County Sheriff" on Justia Law

TC Telephone participated as a provider in California’s LifeLine program, offering measured-rate telephone service to low-income customers. This service allowed subscribers 60 untimed local calls per month, for which TC Telephone incurred per-minute charges from other carriers. To recoup its costs, TC Telephone sought and received reimbursement from the California Public Utilities Commission (the Commission) based on the total minutes used, rather than per-call. Over several years, Commission staff approved these per-minute reimbursement claims and provided guidance that was ambiguous about the proper method for calculating reimbursements.The Commission began investigating TC Telephone’s reimbursement practices after concerns arose regarding claim amounts. In March 2020, the Commission issued a resolution clarifying that LifeLine providers should seek reimbursement on a per-call basis, not per-minute, and specified that this clarification applied prospectively. However, the Commission subsequently initiated proceedings to determine whether TC Telephone’s prior per-minute reimbursement claims violated program rules. In its initial decision, the Commission found that TC Telephone had improperly sought per-minute reimbursement and ordered it to repay over $8 million in funds received between January 2018 and March 2020, plus interest. TC Telephone’s petition for rehearing was denied.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the Commission’s decisions. The court held that prior to the Commission’s resolution, the reimbursement rules were unconstitutionally vague and failed to provide TC Telephone with fair notice that per-minute reimbursement was prohibited. Because even Commission staff did not know whether per-minute reimbursement was allowed, punishing TC Telephone for its claims violated due process. The court annulled the Commission’s decisions and remanded the matter for further proceedings. View "TC Telephone v. Pub. Utilities Com." on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a convicted inmate at Riverside Regional Jail, was placed in restrictive housing after being found with contraband, and later spent five months in the Restrictive Housing Unit (RHU) due to repeated infractions and misconduct. During this period, he experienced varying levels of confinement and privileges, including periods of isolation, limited access to recreation, and additional restrictions following disciplinary incidents. He was also shackled to a telephone on two occasions for several hours, during which he alleged suffering humiliation and physical discomfort.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment to the jail officials, both before and after limited discovery. The court dismissed all but two defendants and ordered production of any surveillance video related to the incidents. After reviewing the available evidence, including video footage, the district court rejected the plaintiff’s claims regarding conditions of confinement and due process violations.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting summary judgment before discovery, as the plaintiff failed to show that additional evidence would have affected the outcome. Reviewing de novo, the Fourth Circuit concluded that the plaintiff’s placement in restrictive housing did not implicate a protected liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment because the conditions, duration, and review process did not constitute atypical and significant hardship. The court also found that the conditions of confinement—including the telephone shackling incidents—did not rise to the level of “extreme deprivation” required for an Eighth Amendment violation, and even if they had, the officials would be entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established right was violated. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Mason v. Talley" on Justia Law