Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Cenious Brewster led officers on a high-speed chase, which was recorded on the officers’ dashcam. Brewster crashed into a building shortly after the chase began. He was arrested, and a firearm was found in his vehicle. Brewster pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and the district court sentenced him to 46 months’ imprisonment. Brewster challenged his sentence, arguing that the district court erred in applying the reckless endangerment during flight enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2, misunderstood his request for a downward departure based on circumstances that allegedly justified his flight, and violated his due process rights by finding that data from the Sentencing Commission’s Judiciary Sentencing INformation (JSIN) online tool was sufficiently reliable to consider at sentencing.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Brewster’s objections to the reckless endangerment enhancement, finding that his flight created a substantial risk of injury to at least one specific person. The court also rejected Brewster’s request for a downward departure or variance, characterizing it as a request for a variance only, which Brewster’s counsel confirmed. Additionally, the court found the JSIN data reliable and used it to determine Brewster’s sentence, noting that the data was consistent with information from another Sentencing Commission tool, the Interactive Data Analyzer (IDA).The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Brewster’s flight put at least one motorist at substantial risk of serious bodily injury. The court also found that Brewster forfeited his argument regarding the downward departure and failed to show plain error. Finally, the appellate court held that the district court did not err in finding the JSIN data reliable, as it came from a reliable source and was corroborated by other unchallenged evidence. The court denied Brewster’s motion for supplemental briefing on a Second Amendment challenge, as he could have raised it in the district court but did not. The sentence was affirmed. View "United States v. Brewster" on Justia Law

John Sexton was convicted of the first-degree murder of Ann Parlato, a 94-year-old woman he knew from cutting her lawn. The crime was particularly brutal, involving severe physical trauma and post-mortem mutilation. A jury initially recommended the death penalty by a 10-2 vote, and the Florida Supreme Court upheld the conviction but remanded for a new penalty phase under Hurst v. Florida. On remand, Sexton waived his right to a jury, and the trial court sentenced him to death again.In the lower courts, Sexton moved for the recusal of Judge Mary Handsel, citing a contentious pretrial exchange. Judge Handsel denied the motion but delegated funding decisions to Chief Judge Anthony Rondolino, who granted some requests and denied others, including funding for a PET scan and travel expenses for mitigation specialists. Sexton also waived his right to a jury trial and limited the mitigation evidence presented. The trial court took judicial notice of the original trial transcripts and sentenced Sexton to death, citing three aggravating factors and giving little weight to the mitigating factors.The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed the case and addressed eight issues raised by Sexton. The court found no abuse of discretion in denying funding for a PET scan and travel expenses, noting that Sexton failed to show a particularized need or prejudice. The court also held that the trial court erred in calling Sexton's mitigation specialist as a witness but deemed the error harmless. The court found no violation of Sexton's rights in the trial court's judicial notice of prior proceedings, denial of the motion to disqualify, or comments on Sexton's silence. The court concluded that the trial court properly considered mitigating evidence and understood its discretion in sentencing. Finally, the court rejected Sexton's constitutional challenge to Florida's capital sentencing scheme. The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed Sexton's death sentence. View "Sexton v. State of Florida" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a registered voter in Auburn, New Hampshire, filed a complaint against the Governor, the Secretary of State, the State of New Hampshire, and officials from the Town of Auburn. He sought injunctive and declaratory relief regarding New Hampshire election laws, specifically challenging the use of electronic voting machines and other election-related statutes. The plaintiff alleged that he was denied the right to vote by hand on March 9, 2022, and claimed that various statutes were unconstitutional.The Superior Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The court did not address the issue of standing, despite the defendants' arguments that the plaintiff lacked standing. The plaintiff appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case and determined that the plaintiff had standing to bring his claims in Counts I and II, which related to his alleged denial of the right to vote by hand and the constitutionality of statutes allowing electronic voting machines. The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of these counts to the extent they were based on the plaintiff's interpretation of Part II, Article 32 of the State Constitution. However, the court found that the plaintiff had standing to pursue his equal protection claim in Count II and remanded for further proceedings on that issue.For Counts III through VI, the court concluded that the plaintiff lacked standing as these claims raised generalized grievances rather than concrete, personal injuries. The court vacated the trial court's ruling on these counts and remanded with instructions to dismiss them for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The case was affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision. View "Richard v. Governor" on Justia Law

Three Libertarian Party candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives were disqualified from the 2024 general election ballot by the State Objection Panel for failing to comply with Iowa's statutory nomination requirements. The candidates, Nicholas Gluba, Charles Aldrich, and Marco Battaglia, were nominated at a party convention after no Libertarian candidates filed for the primary election. However, the party did not follow the required process for selecting delegates to the convention, which included holding precinct caucuses and county conventions on separate days and notifying county auditors of the delegates.The Iowa District Court for Polk County upheld the Panel's decision, finding that the Libertarian Party did not comply with Iowa Code section 43.94, which mandates that county convention delegates' terms begin the day after their election at precinct caucuses. The court ruled that strict compliance with this law was necessary, and the party's failure to follow the process invalidated the nominations. The court also rejected arguments that the objectors lacked standing and that the Panel's decision violated the candidates' First Amendment rights.The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the district court's ruling. The court held that the statutory requirements for nominating candidates by convention must be strictly followed and that the Libertarian Party's failure to comply with these requirements justified the disqualification of the candidates. The court also found that the objectors had standing to challenge the nominations and that the Panel's decision did not violate the candidates' First Amendment rights. The court emphasized that the election laws are designed to ensure a fair and orderly process for candidate nominations. View "Gluba v. State Objection Panel" on Justia Law

The City of Gridley operates an electric utility and approved reduced electric rates for residential users in September 2020. Plaintiffs, residential ratepayers, challenged these rates, alleging they resulted in charges exceeding the reasonable cost of providing electric service, thus constituting a tax without voter approval in violation of article XIII C of the California Constitution. They also claimed the rates violated the state and federal takings clauses under the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. Plaintiffs sought a writ of mandate and class action complaint, alleging the City set rates higher than necessary and transferred excess revenues to its general fund.The Superior Court of Butte County denied the City’s motion for summary judgment, finding triable issues of fact regarding whether the rates resulted in excessive charges and whether plaintiffs had a property interest in continued electric service. The court rejected the City’s argument that article XIII C was inapplicable because the City did not impose, extend, or increase a tax when it approved reduced rates. The court also found that the unconstitutional conditions doctrine could apply to plaintiffs' takings claim.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case and concluded that the City was entitled to relief. The court found article XIII C inapplicable because the City did not impose, extend, or increase any tax by reducing its electric rates. The court also found the unconstitutional conditions doctrine inapplicable, as it applies only in the land-use permitting context, not to user fees like the electric rates in question. Consequently, the court directed the trial court to set aside its order denying the City’s motion for summary judgment and to enter a new order granting the motion. The City’s motion for summary judgment was granted, and the stay of proceedings in the trial court was vacated. View "City of Gridley v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of the 2023 Act No. 8 (S. 39), known as the Education Scholarship Trust Fund (ESTF) Act, which establishes a fund to provide scholarships for qualifying educational expenses, including private school tuition. Petitioners argue that the Act violates South Carolina's constitutional prohibition against using public funds for the direct benefit of private educational institutions.The lower courts did not review this case; it was accepted directly by the South Carolina Supreme Court in its original jurisdiction. Petitioners sought an injunction and declaratory judgment, claiming the Act violated several provisions of the South Carolina Constitution, including Article XI, Sections 2, 3, and 4, and Article X, Sections 5 and 11.The South Carolina Supreme Court held that portions of the Act violate the state constitution's prohibition against using public funds for the direct benefit of private educational institutions. The court found that the ESTF funds are public funds and that using these funds for private school tuition constitutes a direct benefit to private educational institutions, which is unconstitutional under Article XI, Section 4. The court severed and declared unconstitutional the provisions of the Act that allowed payments from ESTF scholarships for tuition and fees at private educational institutions. The court enjoined the Department of Education from disbursing ESTF scholarships for these purposes. The court's decision was guided by the principle that legislative policy must conform to constitutional mandates, and it emphasized the importance of adhering to the plain meaning of constitutional text. View "Candace Eidson v. South Carolina Dept. of Education" on Justia Law

Independent candidates and minor political parties in Texas challenged several provisions of the Texas Election Code, arguing that these provisions, when combined, violate their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by imposing severe and unequal burdens on non-wealthy Independents and Minor Parties. The provisions in question include requirements for obtaining ballot access through primary elections, party nominations, or nominating petitions, as well as restrictions on petitioning methods and timelines.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court granted in part and denied in part the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court found that the requirement for candidates to submit hardcopy signatures for ballot access petitions was unconstitutional, reasoning that it imposed an unequal burden on the plaintiffs compared to Major Parties, which could use electronic methods. The court enjoined the enforcement of the paper-petitioning process but stayed its injunction pending appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and applied the Anderson-Burdick framework to evaluate the constitutionality of the ballot-access laws. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the challenged provisions imposed severe burdens on them. The court upheld the numerical signature requirement, the costs associated with obtaining signatures, the time constraints on petitioning, and the restrictive petitioning procedures as justified by legitimate state interests. The court also upheld the filing fee or petition requirement for Minor Party candidates and rejected the claim that the provisions imposed more severe restrictions on presidential Independents.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's finding that the paper-petitioning requirement was unconstitutional, noting that all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, must obtain petition signatures through hardcopy methods. The court affirmed the constitutionality of the challenged provisions and rendered judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Miller v. Nelson" on Justia Law

A psychiatrist employed at a public university's medical school participated in a panel discussion on childhood gender dysphoria, expressing views that were unpopular with his colleagues and supervisors. Following his remarks, he was demoted and his contract was not renewed after over fifteen years of employment. He sued several university officials, alleging First Amendment retaliation.The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment, which argued for Eleventh Amendment immunity and qualified immunity. The court found material fact disputes regarding whether the defendants retaliated against the plaintiff for his protected speech.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the plaintiff's speech was protected under the First Amendment as it addressed a matter of public concern and was not made pursuant to his official duties. The court also found that the plaintiff's interest in speaking on the topic outweighed the university's interest in maintaining workplace efficiency. The court determined that the adverse actions taken against the plaintiff, including his demotion and contract nonrenewal, were motivated by his protected speech.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment, concluding that the defendants were not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity or qualified immunity. The court held that the plaintiff's rights were clearly established and that a reasonable university official would have understood that retaliating against him for his speech was unlawful. The court also denied the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction as moot. View "Josephson v. Ganzel" on Justia Law

Two defendants, Kevin Lewis and Otis Ponds, were involved in a large-scale drug trafficking conspiracy in Wichita, Kansas. Lewis was convicted at trial, while Ponds pleaded guilty but reserved the right to appeal on specific issues. Both defendants challenged the government's actions, including alleged violations of their Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial and the validity of wiretap evidence used against them.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas initially set Lewis's trial for May 2020, but delays ensued due to the complexity of the case and the COVID-19 pandemic. The court declared the case complex, which extended the timeline for discovery. A significant delay was attributed to the FBI's use of a pole camera that recorded over 10,000 hours of footage, which defense counsel had to review. Ponds was arrested later and joined the case in March 2021. Both defendants filed motions to dismiss the indictment on speedy-trial grounds, which the district court denied, citing the complexity of the case and lack of specific prejudice to the defendants.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that while the delay was presumptively prejudicial, it was not unreasonable given the case's complexity. The court held that the government was responsible for some delay due to the extensive pole-camera footage but noted that the defendants failed to show specific prejudice from the delay. The court also upheld the district court's denial of the motions to suppress wiretap evidence, finding that the wiretap application was properly authorized by a statutorily approved DOJ official, despite challenges to the legibility of the signature.The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, including Lewis's 420-month sentence, finding it substantively reasonable given his significant role in the drug conspiracy and criminal history. View "United States v. Lewis" on Justia Law

A non-profit organization, Citizens for Constitutional Integrity, sued the Census Bureau, the Department of Commerce, and related officials, alleging that the Bureau failed to proportionately reduce the basis of representation for states in the 2020 Census as required by the Fourteenth Amendment's Reduction Clause. Citizens claimed this failure diluted the voting power of its members in New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. The organization sought relief under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and a writ of mandamus.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the case for lack of standing. The court found that Citizens could not demonstrate that its alleged vote dilution injury was traceable to the Bureau's actions. Specifically, the court noted that Citizens failed to show how the Bureau's failure to apply the Reduction Clause directly caused the loss of congressional representation for the states in question. The court also found the data scientist's declaration provided by Citizens unpersuasive, as it did not adequately account for the number of disenfranchised voters in the relevant states.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal. The appellate court held that Citizens did not establish traceability under Article III standards. The court found that Citizens failed to present a feasible alternative methodology for apportionment that would have resulted in a different allocation of seats for New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. The court also rejected Citizens's argument that it was entitled to a relaxed standing requirement for procedural-rights cases, concluding that the challenge was substantive rather than procedural. Consequently, the court affirmed the District Court's ruling that Citizens lacked standing to pursue its claims. View "Citizens for Constitutional Integrity v. Census Bureau" on Justia Law