Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

A police officer stopped a car because the car’s owner had a suspended driver’s license. Upon approaching the vehicle, the officer realized the driver was not the owner but asked the driver for his license anyway. The driver, who also did not have a valid license, was found with an illegal firearm in the vehicle, leading to the arrest of both the driver and a passenger.The trial court denied the defendants' motions to suppress the evidence found in the car, leading to their no-contest pleas. The Eleventh District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, ruling that the officer had no reasonable suspicion to continue the stop after realizing the driver was not the car’s owner. The court held that the evidence obtained from the continued detention should be suppressed.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and reversed the Eleventh District’s decision. The court held that under United States Supreme Court precedent, specifically Rodriguez v. United States, an officer who has lawfully initiated a traffic stop may make ordinary inquiries necessary to complete the mission of the stop, including confirming that the driver has a valid driver’s license. The court concluded that the officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment by asking the driver for his license after realizing the driver was not the car’s owner. The judgments of the trial court were reinstated. View "State v. Dunlap" on Justia Law

David Asa Villarreal was convicted of murder with a repeat offender enhancement and sentenced to sixty years in prison. During his trial, the judge issued an order preventing Villarreal from discussing his ongoing testimony with his attorneys during an overnight recess, though he could discuss other aspects of the case. Villarreal argued that this order violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.The trial court's order was challenged, and the Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed Villarreal's conviction. The appellate court was divided on whether the trial court's order constituted an abuse of discretion or should be reviewed de novo. The case was then brought before the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas for discretionary review.The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas held that the trial judge's limited no-conferral order did not violate Villarreal's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The court distinguished between prohibiting discussions about ongoing testimony, which is permissible, and prohibiting all communication, which is not. The court noted that the trial judge's order was narrowly tailored to prevent coaching while allowing discussions on other trial-related matters. The court emphasized that the right to counsel includes the ability to discuss trial tactics and other legal matters, but not the ongoing testimony itself. The court affirmed the judgment of the Fourth Court of Appeals, concluding that the trial judge's order did not meaningfully interfere with Villarreal's right to counsel. View "VILLARREAL v. STATE" on Justia Law

Ohio enacted a law to prevent foreign nationals from influencing its elections by banning their political contributions and expenditures. The law defines "foreign nationals" to include lawful permanent residents, unlike the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), which exempts them. Plaintiffs, including advocacy organizations and lawful permanent residents, challenged the law on First Amendment grounds, arguing it violated their rights. The district court agreed, finding the law unconstitutional as applied to lawful permanent residents and issued a preliminary injunction preventing Ohio from enforcing the law against all foreign nationals.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted the preliminary injunction, reasoning that the law was overbroad and violated the First Amendment rights of lawful permanent residents. The court allowed Ohio to enforce the law against foreign governments and political parties but severed the definition of "foreign national" to exclude lawful permanent residents. Ohio appealed the decision and requested an emergency stay of the injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and granted Ohio's motion for a stay. The court found that Ohio was likely to succeed on the merits, concluding that the law was not overbroad and did not violate the First Amendment rights of lawful permanent residents. The court held that Ohio has a compelling interest in preventing foreign influence in its elections, which includes lawful permanent residents. The court also determined that the law was narrowly tailored to serve this interest and was neither overinclusive nor underinclusive. The stay allows Ohio to enforce the law while the appeal is considered. View "OPAWL - Building AAPI Feminist Leadership v. Yost" on Justia Law

A group called Moms for Liberty, along with several individual members, filed a lawsuit against Brevard Public Schools and members of the Brevard County School Board. The plaintiffs claimed that their speech was unconstitutionally restricted at school board meetings. They argued that the Board's policies prohibiting "abusive," "personally directed," and "obscene" speech were unconstitutional. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as nominal damages.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted summary judgment in favor of the Board. The district court concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they could not show an actual or imminent injury. It also held that the Board's policies did not objectively chill the plaintiffs' protected speech. Despite finding no standing, the district court went on to rule that the Board's policies were constitutional.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Eleventh Circuit found that the plaintiffs had standing to seek both retrospective and prospective relief. The court held that the Board's policy on "abusive" speech was unconstitutional because it was viewpoint-based and prohibited offensive speech. The policy on "personally directed" speech was also found to be unreasonable and inconsistently enforced, making it unconstitutional. Lastly, the court ruled that the prohibition on "obscene" speech was unreasonably applied to restrict protected speech, particularly when it involved reading from books available in school libraries. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Eleventh Circuit's opinion. View "Moms for Liberty v. Brevard Public Schools" on Justia Law

Christopher Goins challenged the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits firearm possession by individuals convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for over a year. Goins, with multiple felony convictions, argued that the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen rendered this statute unconstitutional as applied to him. In December 2021, Goins had an associate purchase a firearm for him, which he then took possession of, despite being on probation with a condition prohibiting firearm possession.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky denied Goins's motion to dismiss the indictment, holding that § 922(g)(1) was constitutional as applied to him. Goins pled guilty but reserved the right to appeal the district court's decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and upheld the district court's decision. The court found that Goins's probation condition, his relatively short probation sentence for a dangerous crime, and his repeated dangerous conduct justified his disarmament under the Second Amendment. The court emphasized that historical traditions support the temporary disarmament of individuals who have engaged in dangerous conduct, such as Goins. Therefore, the court held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to Goins and affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Goins" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was charged with possessing a stolen firearm and receiving a firearm while under felony indictment. Law enforcement found the stolen firearm in a vehicle owned by another individual, who later revealed that the defendant had left the gun in his car. The defendant admitted to touching the gun and knowing it was stolen. He was under felony indictment for other firearms offenses at the time.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment, which argued that the statutes under which he was charged violated the Second Amendment. During jury selection, the defendant raised a Batson challenge against the prosecutor's peremptory strike of the last black juror on the panel. The district court found the prosecutor's reasons for the strike to be race-neutral and allowed it. The jury convicted the defendant on both counts, and he was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court upheld the district court's denial of the motion to dismiss, finding that the statutes in question were consistent with historical firearm regulations and did not violate the Second Amendment. The court also affirmed the district court's rejection of the Batson challenge, concluding that the prosecutor's race-neutral explanation for the peremptory strike was credible and not pretextual. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Gore" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to the adequacy of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for a project proposing significant changes to the California State Capitol. The Department of General Services (DGS) and the Joint Committee on Rules of the California State Senate and Assembly (Joint Rules Committee) prepared both an EIR and a revised EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project includes demolishing the existing Capitol Annex, constructing a new attached Annex, building an underground visitor center, and constructing a new underground parking garage.The Superior Court of Sacramento County initially rejected challenges to the EIR brought by Save Our Capitol! and Save the Capitol, Save the Trees. On appeal, the Court of Appeal found certain aspects of the EIR flawed and remanded the case. After DGS revised the EIR and reapproved the project without the visitor center, the trial court discharged the writ. Save the Capitol, Save the Trees appealed, arguing the trial court prematurely discharged the writ. The Court of Appeal agreed and reversed the trial court's decision. Save Our Capitol! then filed a new petition challenging the revised EIR, which the trial court also rejected.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's decision. The court held that recent legislation, Senate Bill No. 174, exempts the Capitol Annex Project from CEQA’s requirements. The court found that Senate Bill 174, which took effect immediately, dictates that all work performed under the Annex Act is exempt from CEQA. Consequently, Save Our Capitol!'s claims that DGS violated CEQA were rejected. The court also addressed and dismissed Save Our Capitol!'s argument that Senate Bill 174 is unconstitutional under article IV, section 28 of the California Constitution, finding that the bill explicitly bars funds from being used inconsistent with this constitutional provision. View "Save Our Capitol! v. Dept. of General Services" on Justia Law

Michael Davis was arrested after a 911 call from a 15-year-old girl in Gary, Indiana, reported that he had threatened to kill her mother and had an assault rifle in his car. Police located Davis following the family's minivan and arrested him. A search of his vehicle revealed a loaded, semi-automatic shotgun with an obliterated serial number. Davis was charged with illegal firearm possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He moved to suppress the shotgun, arguing the search violated the Fourth Amendment, but the district court denied his motion.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana held a two-day evidentiary hearing and found that the warrantless search of Davis's vehicle was justified under both the search incident to arrest and automobile exceptions to the warrant requirement. Davis entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling. He was sentenced to ninety-two months in prison and two years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Davis's motion to suppress, holding that the search of Davis's vehicle was lawful under both the search incident to arrest and automobile exceptions. The court found that the officers had probable cause to arrest Davis based on the credible 911 report and corroborating evidence. Additionally, the court determined that it was reasonable to believe Davis's vehicle contained evidence of the crime, thus justifying the search. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to New York City's Guaranty Law, which was enacted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The law rendered personal guaranties of commercial lease obligations arising between March 7, 2020, and June 30, 2021, permanently unenforceable and identified efforts to collect on such guaranties as proscribed commercial tenant harassment. Plaintiffs, a group of New York City landlords, argued that the law violated the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution.Initially, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the plaintiffs' constitutional challenges, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the dismissal of the Contracts Clause challenge and remanded the case for further consideration. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the Guaranty Law was unconstitutional.The City of New York appealed, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing because the City did not enforce the Guaranty Law. The Second Circuit found that while the plaintiffs had standing at the pleadings stage due to the presumption of enforcement, they failed to meet the heightened burden on summary judgment to show a credible threat of imminent enforcement by the City. The City had unequivocally disavowed any intent to enforce the Guaranty Law against the plaintiffs.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the district court's award of summary judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court denied the City's request to vacate its earlier judgment reversing the dismissal of the Contracts Clause challenge and denied the City costs on the appeal due to its negligent delay in raising the enforcement-based standing challenge. View "Bochner v. City of New York" on Justia Law

The case involves Kimberly S. Younger, who was convicted of capital murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, solicitation to commit first-degree murder, and theft. Younger was implicated as the principal organizer of the murders of Alfred and Pauline Carpenter, who were killed by Michael Fowler and Rusty Frasier, both of whom testified against her. The murders occurred at the Barton County fairgrounds, and the bodies were later disposed of in Arkansas. Younger was arrested in Arkansas, where she made several incriminating statements to the police and to Fowler, which were recorded.The Barton District Court convicted Younger based on the testimonies of her co-conspirators and other evidence. Younger challenged several evidentiary rulings, including the admission of her statements to the police and the testimony of Frank Zaitshik, who testified remotely due to COVID-19 concerns. The trial court allowed Zaitshik's remote testimony, finding it necessary due to the pandemic. The court also admitted Younger's statements made during her interrogation and to Fowler, finding them voluntary and not coerced.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's decisions in part. The court held that allowing Zaitshik to testify remotely did not violate Younger's Confrontation Clause rights, given the pandemic's circumstances. The court also found that Younger's statements to the police and Fowler were voluntary and admissible. However, the court reversed the restitution order in part, finding that the State failed to justify the amount awarded to State Farm Insurance and that the inclusion of court costs in the restitution order was illegal. The case was remanded to correct the restitution judgment. View "State v. Younger" on Justia Law