Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

In this case, Tiffany Bingham challenged the constitutionality of the Utah Health Care Malpractice Act’s four-year statute of repose after her medical malpractice claim against Dr. George C. Gourley and Dr. McKay L. Platt was dismissed. Bingham underwent surgeries in 2010, experienced complications, and discovered in 2017 that the surgeries had caused damage, leading to the removal of her kidney. She filed her lawsuit in 2020, more than four years after the alleged malpractice, prompting the dismissal of her claim under the statute of repose.The Fourth District Court in Provo dismissed Bingham’s complaint, concluding that the statute of repose was constitutional. The court found that the statute did not violate the Open Courts Clause, the Uniform Operation of Laws Provision, or the Equal Protection Clause. The court reasoned that the statute was a non-arbitrary means of addressing the social and economic issues related to rising medical malpractice insurance costs and was reasonably necessary to achieve the legislative goal of stabilizing insurance premiums.The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. The court held that Bingham failed to demonstrate that the statute of repose violated the Open Courts Clause, as the legislature’s findings of a health care crisis were fairly debatable and the statute was a reasonable means to address that crisis. The court also found that the statute did not violate the Uniform Operation of Laws Provision, as it was reasonably necessary to achieve the legislative goals and actually and substantially furthered those goals. Finally, the court concluded that the statute did not violate the Equal Protection Clause, as it was rationally related to a legitimate public purpose and did not impair a fundamental right. View "Bingham v. Gourley" on Justia Law

Cody Heer was convicted of multiple drug-related offenses after selling methamphetamine to a confidential informant in a Walmart parking lot in Sioux Falls, with his child present. Heer was indicted on charges of distributing a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance, and causing a child to be present where methamphetamine is distributed. The State also filed a habitual offender information due to Heer’s prior felony convictions.Initially represented by court-appointed counsel, Heer moved to represent himself after his request for substitute counsel was denied. The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in Minnehaha County granted his motion for self-representation but appointed his former attorney as standby counsel. Heer did not object to this arrangement or to the presence of standby counsel at trial. Heer conducted his defense, including making motions, cross-examining witnesses, and delivering closing arguments. The jury found Heer guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to fifteen years in prison for the distribution conviction, with additional suspended sentences for the other charges.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed Heer’s appeal, where he argued that his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation was violated by the appointment and presence of standby counsel. Heer also claimed that the prosecutor’s statements during closing arguments constituted improper vouching, amounting to plain error. The court held that the appointment of standby counsel was permissible and did not violate Heer’s rights, as standby counsel did not interfere with his control over the case. The court also found no merit in Heer’s claims of improper vouching, concluding that the prosecutor’s statements were fair characterizations of the evidence and did not affect the trial’s outcome. The court affirmed Heer’s convictions and sentences. View "State V. Heer" on Justia Law

The relator, Justin Tjaden, sought a writ of mandamus to have his name placed on the November 5, 2024, general-election ballot as an independent candidate for the office of state representative of Ohio House District 99. Tjaden's petition was found to be 124 valid signatures short of the required number. He argued that the boards of elections exceeded their authority by invalidating signatures as "not genuine" and violated his procedural due process and equal protection rights. Tjaden also contended that the statutory requirement for independent candidates to submit a petition with signatures amounting to at least one percent of registered voters who cast ballots for governor in the 2022 general election was unconstitutional.The Geauga County Board of Elections determined that Tjaden's petition contained 371 valid signatures, which was insufficient to qualify for the ballot. Tjaden attempted to challenge this decision in the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas but was unsuccessful due to procedural issues. He then filed a complaint in the same court and a mandamus action in the Supreme Court of Ohio. The Supreme Court dismissed his first mandamus action based on the jurisdictional-priority rule but allowed him to file a second mandamus action after his common-pleas-court case was removed to federal court.The Supreme Court of Ohio denied Tjaden's writ of mandamus. The court held that Tjaden did not have enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot, even if all contested signatures were deemed valid. The court also found that Tjaden's procedural due process rights were not violated, as the mandamus action provided him with the necessary process. Additionally, the court declined to address Tjaden's equal protection claim, stating that even if the statute were declared unconstitutional, there would be no statutory requirement for an independent candidate to qualify for the ballot. Thus, the court denied the writ. View "State ex rel. Tjaden v. Geauga County Board of Elections" on Justia Law

The case involves X Corp., the owner of a large social media platform, challenging California Assembly Bill AB 587. This law requires large social media companies to post their terms of service and submit semiannual reports to the California Attorney General detailing their content-moderation policies and practices, including how they define and address categories like hate speech, extremism, and misinformation. X Corp. sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of AB 587, arguing that it violates free speech and is federally preempted.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied X Corp.'s motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that X Corp. was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its First Amendment claim, applying the Zauderer standard for compelled commercial speech. The court concluded that the law's requirements were purely factual and uncontroversial, and reasonably related to the state's interest in transparency. The court also rejected X Corp.'s preemption argument, stating that AB 587 does not impose liability for content moderation activities but only for failing to make required disclosures.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The Ninth Circuit held that the Content Category Report provisions of AB 587 likely compel non-commercial speech and are subject to strict scrutiny because they are content-based. The court found that these provisions are not narrowly tailored to serve the state's interest in transparency and therefore likely fail strict scrutiny. The court also determined that the remaining factors for a preliminary injunction weighed in favor of X Corp. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court to enter a preliminary injunction consistent with its opinion and to determine whether the Content Category Report provisions are severable from the rest of AB 587. View "X CORP. V. BONTA" on Justia Law

Jesus Ramiro Gomez was sentenced to 188 months in prison for distributing methamphetamine. The district court applied a career offender enhancement, which significantly increased his sentence. This enhancement was based on Gomez's prior conviction for assault with a deadly weapon under California Penal Code § 245(a)(1), which the district court classified as a "crime of violence."The United States District Court for the Central District of California initially reviewed the case. The court found that Gomez's prior conviction qualified as a crime of violence, thus applying the career offender enhancement. This decision was based on previous rulings that had classified California Penal Code § 245(a)(1) as a crime of violence. Gomez did not object to this classification at the time of sentencing but raised the issue on appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court vacated Gomez's sentence and remanded for resentencing. The Ninth Circuit held that, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Borden v. United States, 593 U.S. 420 (2021), California Penal Code § 245(a)(1) does not qualify as a crime of violence. The court reasoned that the statute includes reckless uses of force, which do not meet the elements clause of the career offender guideline requiring a mens rea more culpable than recklessness. The court also rejected the government's argument that the conviction could be classified as aggravated assault under the enumerated offenses clause, as this too requires a mens rea greater than extreme recklessness. Consequently, the district court's application of the career offender enhancement was deemed improper. View "USA V. GOMEZ" on Justia Law

In the summer of 2020, Derrick Sanderlin attended a protest in San Jose, California, where he was struck in the groin by a 40mm foam baton round fired by Officer Michael Panighetti. Sanderlin alleged that Panighetti's use of force was retaliatory and excessive, violating his First and Fourth Amendment rights. Sanderlin claimed he was peacefully protesting and did not hear any warnings before being shot. Panighetti argued that Sanderlin was obstructing officers from targeting other individuals who posed a threat.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Panighetti's motion for summary judgment, concluding that genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding whether Panighetti's actions were retaliatory and whether the force used was excessive. The court found that a jury could determine that Sanderlin was engaged in protected First Amendment activity and that Panighetti's actions were motivated by retaliatory animus. Additionally, the court held that a reasonable jury could find that Sanderlin was seized under the Fourth Amendment and that the force used was unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to Panighetti. The Ninth Circuit held that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Sanderlin, genuine disputes of material fact existed as to whether Panighetti's use of force was retaliatory and excessive. The court concluded that it was clearly established that police officers may not use their authority to retaliate against individuals for protected speech and that the use of a 40mm foam baton round against a non-threatening individual constituted excessive force. The court also determined that subsequent legal developments did not alter the clearly established law at the time of the incident. View "SANDERLIN V. DWYER" on Justia Law

The appellant, a Democratic Party activist and former candidate for Plano City Council, was indicted for violating Section 255.004(b) of the Texas Election Code. This statute prohibits knowingly representing in a campaign communication that the communication emanates from a source other than its true source, with the intent to injure a candidate or influence the result of an election. The appellant sent text messages that appeared to come from a Republican or conservative campaign, identifying Republicans in local nonpartisan races. In response, the appellant filed a pretrial application for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the statute was unconstitutional as it regulated core political speech and was not narrowly tailored to serve an overriding state interest.The trial court denied the appellant's application. On appeal, the Fifth Court of Appeals agreed with the appellant, finding that the statute was not narrowly tailored and did not survive strict scrutiny. The appellate court held that the statute's broad reach was problematic and ordered the trial court to dismiss the indictment.The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas reviewed the case upon the State's petition. The State argued that the statute was narrowly drafted and survived strict scrutiny. However, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that Section 255.004(b) of the Texas Election Code was unconstitutional. The court found that the statute was a content-based restriction on protected speech and did not meet the strict scrutiny standard. It was not narrowly tailored to serve the compelling state interest of preventing dishonest conduct in elections. The court affirmed the Fifth Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the statute violated the First Amendment. View "EX PARTE STAFFORD" on Justia Law

The case involves family members of drug abusers suing wholesale distributors of prescription medications. The plaintiffs alleged that the distributors violated state and federal laws by failing to report suspicious orders of controlled substances, which led to the drug abusers' addictions and subsequent harm to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought damages under the Georgia Drug Dealer Liability Act (DDLA) and other legal theories.The case was initially tried in a lower court, where a jury returned a verdict in favor of the distributors. The plaintiffs then moved for a new trial, arguing that a juror was dishonest during the selection process and introduced extraneous prejudicial information during deliberations. The trial court denied the motion for a new trial, leading to the current appeal.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case. The plaintiffs argued that the trial court erred in denying their motion for a new trial and in refusing to instruct the jury on willful blindness. The distributors cross-appealed, arguing that if the judgment was vacated, the DDLA should be declared unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the motion for a new trial. The court held that the trial court was authorized to credit the juror's testimony over the plaintiffs' evidence and that the jury was properly instructed on the relevant legal issues. The cross-appeal was dismissed as moot. View "CARDINAL HEALTH INC. v. POPPELL" on Justia Law

The case involves Montanans Against Irresponsible Densification, LLC (MAID), which challenged two laws passed by the 2023 Montana Legislature aimed at addressing affordable housing. Senate Bill 323 (SB 323) mandates that duplex housing be allowed in cities with at least 5,000 residents where single-family residences are permitted. Senate Bill 528 (SB 528) requires municipalities to allow at least one accessory dwelling unit on lots with single-family dwellings. MAID, consisting of homeowners from various cities, argued that these laws would negatively impact their property values and quality of life, and filed for declaratory and injunctive relief.The Eighteenth Judicial District Court in Gallatin County granted MAID a preliminary injunction, temporarily halting the implementation of the laws. The court found that MAID had standing and had demonstrated the likelihood of irreparable harm, success on the merits, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored the injunction. The court cited concerns about potential impacts on property values and neighborhood character, as well as constitutional issues related to public participation and equal protection.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and reversed the District Court's decision. The Supreme Court found that MAID did not meet the burden of demonstrating all four factors required for a preliminary injunction. Specifically, the court held that MAID's evidence of potential harm was speculative and did not show a likelihood of irreparable injury. The court also noted that the balance of equities and public interest did not favor the injunction, given the legislative intent to address the housing crisis. The Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Montanans Against Irresponsible Densification, LLC, v. State" on Justia Law

Jaden Brown, a pregnant inmate at Cumberland County Jail, was transported to Maine Medical Center for childbirth. During her hospital stay, correction officers Daniel Haskell and Sam Dickey were present in her room. Brown alleged that Haskell and Dickey observed her naked body during medical procedures and the delivery of her baby, which she claimed violated her Fourth Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the District of Maine denied Haskell and Dickey's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The court found that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the officers' observations of Brown's naked body were more than inadvertent, occasional, casual, or restricted. The court also ruled that such observations, if they occurred, would constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court dismissed the appeal in part, stating it lacked jurisdiction to consider the officers' argument that they did not observe Brown's naked body, as this was a factual dispute. The court affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment, holding that if the officers did observe Brown's naked body, it would constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. The court emphasized that a search does not require deliberate intent to inspect a naked body and that such observations could violate clearly established law. View "Brown v. Dickey" on Justia Law