Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Gail Manney was convicted for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), which criminalizes making false statements in connection with the acquisition of firearms. On April 21, 2021, Manney visited Hi-Cap Firearms in Reno, Nevada, and selected seven handguns to purchase. She filled out the required ATF Form 4473, certifying she was the actual purchaser. However, after her purchase, a Hi-Cap employee suspected her of being a straw purchaser and contacted the ATF. Upon investigation, ATF Special Agent Joshua Caron found incriminating messages on Manney’s phone indicating she was buying the firearms for her son, Razaaq, a convicted felon prohibited from possessing firearms.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada indicted Manney on May 27, 2021, for making false statements on ATF Form 4473. She was convicted after a jury trial. Manney appealed, arguing that 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) violated her Second Amendment rights and that her false statement was not material under the statute.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court rejected Manney’s Second Amendment challenge, stating that the Second Amendment does not protect false statements. The court emphasized that § 922(a)(6) regulates false statements made during firearm acquisitions, not the possession of firearms. The court also dismissed Manney’s argument regarding the materiality of her false statement, citing Abramski v. United States, which held that a false statement about the actual purchaser of a firearm is material even if the actual purchaser could legally possess a firearm.The Ninth Circuit affirmed Manney’s conviction, concluding that § 922(a)(6) did not violate her Second Amendment rights and that her false statement was material under the statute. View "USA V. MANNEY" on Justia Law

The case involves a class action lawsuit against the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) for racially profiling Latino drivers and passengers under the guise of immigration enforcement. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief for violations of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court issued a permanent injunction in 2013, followed by a supplemental injunction appointing an independent monitor to oversee MCSO’s compliance. In 2016, a second supplemental injunction required MCSO to reform its internal misconduct investigation procedures. In 2022, a third supplemental injunction found the Sheriff in contempt for non-compliance and set forth curative measures, including creating a Constitutional Policing Authority (CPA) and assigning its duties to the Monitor.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona initially issued the permanent injunction and subsequent supplemental injunctions. The court found MCSO in contempt for failing to comply with the injunctions and ordered additional remedial measures. The district court relied on its inherent equitable powers rather than Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53 in issuing these orders.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s amended third supplemental permanent injunction. It held that the district court acted within its inherent equitable powers in assigning the CPA’s duties to the Monitor. The court rejected the Sheriff’s contention that this assignment violated Article III of the Constitution and separation of powers principles. It also found that the First Order provided adequate judicial review of the Monitor’s actions and that the Third Order did not contravene Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65’s specificity requirement. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court’s actions were appropriate and affirmed the Third Order. View "MELENDRES V. SKINNER" on Justia Law

A national trade association of online businesses challenged the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (CAADCA), which aims to protect children's online privacy and ensure that online products accessed by children are designed with their needs in mind. The association argued that the CAADCA's requirements, particularly those mandating businesses to assess and mitigate risks of exposing children to harmful content, violated the First Amendment.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a preliminary injunction, finding that the association was likely to succeed in its First Amendment challenge. The court held that the CAADCA's requirements compelled businesses to express opinions on controversial issues and act as censors, which constituted a violation of free speech. The court enjoined the entire law, concluding that the unconstitutional provisions were not severable from the rest of the statute.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court's preliminary injunction. The Ninth Circuit agreed that the CAADCA's requirement for businesses to create Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) reports, which included assessing and mitigating risks of exposing children to harmful content, likely violated the First Amendment. The court affirmed the injunction against these provisions and those not grammatically severable from them.However, the Ninth Circuit vacated the remainder of the preliminary injunction, finding that it was unclear whether other challenged provisions of the CAADCA facially violated the First Amendment. The court noted that further proceedings were necessary to determine the full scope and impact of these provisions. The case was remanded to the district court for further consideration. View "NETCHOICE, LLC V. BONTA" on Justia Law

In June 2020, plaintiffs were arrested for violating a week-long nighttime curfew imposed by New York City in response to violence and destruction during demonstrations protesting George Floyd's death. They claimed the curfew violated their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, particularly the right to travel.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed the plaintiffs' § 1983 putative class action. The court determined that the curfew had to withstand strict scrutiny but concluded that it did so because it served a compelling governmental interest in curbing escalating crime and restoring public order and was narrowly tailored to that interest.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that the curfew satisfied strict scrutiny. The court found that the curfew served a compelling state interest in reducing crime and restoring public order, which was escalating unpredictably across the city. The curfew was narrowly tailored, being limited in duration to one week, applied only during nighttime hours, and included exceptions for essential workers and homeless individuals. The court concluded that the curfew was the least restrictive means available to address the compelling public interest, given the circumstances of escalating violence and destruction. Thus, the plaintiffs' right-to-travel claim was dismissed as a matter of law. View "Jeffery v. City of New York" on Justia Law

Colby Jenkins contested the results of the 2024 primary election for the Utah Republican Party candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in Utah’s Second Congressional District. After a recount, election officials determined that Celeste Maloy had won by a narrow margin. Jenkins challenged the rejection of certain ballots that were deemed untimely because they were not postmarked by the deadline specified in Utah’s election code. He argued that these ballots were mailed before election day but were delayed in receiving a postmark due to variations in U.S. Postal Service practices.The Lieutenant Governor questioned whether Jenkins had the standing to assert constitutional arguments on behalf of the voters whose ballots were not counted. However, the court did not need to decide on this issue because Jenkins failed to establish that he was entitled to the relief he sought. Jenkins argued that the statutory postmark requirement resulted in unequal treatment of voters and interfered with the fundamental right to vote. However, he did not adequately brief these constitutional arguments, failing to cite relevant case law or provide sufficient analysis.The Utah Supreme Court denied Jenkins’s petition for extraordinary relief. The court held that Jenkins did not meet his burden of demonstrating a constitutional violation. Specifically, Jenkins did not show that election officials failed to comply with any statutory mandate, nor did he provide adequate legal support for his claims that the postmark requirement was unconstitutional. The court concluded that voters could ensure their ballots were timely postmarked by mailing them well in advance or by taking them directly to the post office. Therefore, the petition was denied. View "Jenkins v. Beaver County" on Justia Law

In this case, DEA agents, acting on an anonymous tip, conducted a four-month investigation into Robert Cortez Burrell's alleged drug trafficking activities. They surveilled Burrell, observed suspicious behavior consistent with drug transactions, and corroborated the tip with additional evidence, including Burrell's criminal history and interactions with known drug dealers. Based on this information, they obtained and executed search warrants for four residences associated with Burrell, recovering significant quantities of illegal narcotics, firearms, and drug-manufacturing equipment. Burrell was subsequently convicted by a jury of multiple drug-related offenses and being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition, resulting in a 180-month prison sentence.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied Burrell's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the searches, as well as his motion to dismiss the firearms and ammunition charges on Second Amendment grounds. The court found that the search warrants were supported by probable cause and that Burrell's motion to dismiss was untimely. Additionally, the court admitted testimony that Burrell argued violated the Confrontation Clause and the Federal Rules of Evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court held that the search warrants were supported by probable cause, as the DEA agents had sufficiently corroborated the anonymous tip through extensive surveillance and other investigative methods. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Burrell's motion to dismiss as untimely and that Burrell's constitutional challenges to the firearms and ammunition charges failed under the plain-error standard. Furthermore, the court ruled that the admission of the contested testimony did not violate the Confrontation Clause or the Federal Rules of Evidence, as the statements were not offered for their truth but to explain the DEA's actions. View "United States v. Burrell" on Justia Law

David Bernardo-De La Cruz, a Mexican national, has lived in the U.S. without legal authorization for nineteen years. He was pulled over for speeding in 2014, which led to his immigration status being questioned. He conceded removability but applied for cancellation of removal, citing his long-term residence, good moral character, and the potential hardship his removal would cause his U.S. citizen daughters. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied his application, finding that his removal would not cause an "exceptionally high level of hardship" for his daughters. However, the IJ granted him voluntary departure. Bernardo-De La Cruz appealed the denial of cancellation of removal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).The BIA affirmed the IJ's decision. Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge (TAIJ) Gabriel Gonzalez upheld the IJ's findings, including the determination that Bernardo-De La Cruz's daughters would remain in the U.S. after his removal. The TAIJ acknowledged evidence suggesting that one daughter required special educational services but did not find it sufficient to warrant a different outcome. Bernardo-De La Cruz then petitioned for review, arguing that the agency exceeded its authority in promulgating 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(i), the appointment of the TAIJ was unconstitutional, and the IJ and BIA failed to adequately consider the evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(i), which limits voluntary departure for noncitizens contesting a removal order, was within the agency's statutory authority. The court also found that TAIJ Gonzalez was lawfully appointed by the Acting Attorney General, not the EOIR Director, thus complying with the Appointments Clause. Finally, the court determined that the IJ and BIA had adequately considered the evidence regarding the hardship to Bernardo-De La Cruz's daughters. The petition for review was denied. View "Bernardo-De La Cruz v. Garland" on Justia Law

Claude Stephen Bent, a lawful permanent resident from Jamaica, pleaded no contest to two felony charges in California in 2006. The judge did not inform him of the immigration consequences of his plea. After serving his sentence, Bent was detained by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2016 and charged with removability based on his felony conviction. Bent applied for asylum and other relief, but an immigration judge (IJ) denied his application and ordered his removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision. Bent appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which remanded the case to the BIA. The BIA again dismissed his appeal, and Bent petitioned for review.Bent moved to vacate his 2006 conviction in California state court, which was granted in 2022 on the grounds that his plea was involuntary and violated his Fifth Amendment rights. Bent then moved to reopen his removal proceedings before the BIA, arguing that his vacated conviction invalidated the basis for his removal. The BIA denied the motion, stating it was untimely and not subject to equitable tolling, and mischaracterized the California statute as allowing vacatur solely to mitigate immigration consequences.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the BIA erred in its interpretation of California Penal Code § 1473.7(a)(1) and the state court's order, which vacated Bent's conviction due to a constitutional defect, not to alleviate immigration consequences. The Ninth Circuit also held that the BIA misapplied equitable tolling precedent by not properly assessing whether Bent diligently pursued his rights. The court granted Bent's petition for review in part and remanded the case to the BIA to adjudicate his motion to reopen under the correct legal standards. View "BENT V. GARLAND" on Justia Law

A Mexican citizen, Alfredo Viveros-Chavez, was found in the United States without lawful immigration status after previously being removed. He was charged with violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326, which prohibits noncitizens from reentering the U.S. without authorization. Viveros-Chavez moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that § 1326 violates the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee due to its discriminatory intent and disproportionate impact on Mexican and Latino individuals. The district court denied the motion, finding insufficient evidence of racial animus behind the statute’s enactment.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois applied the discriminatory-intent framework from Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., rather than rational basis review. The court acknowledged that the predecessor to § 1326, the Undesirable Aliens Act of 1929, was motivated by racial animus but found little evidence that such animus influenced the enactment of § 1326 in 1952. The court also found the statistical evidence presented by Viveros-Chavez unpersuasive, noting the lack of evidence that the government disproportionately targeted Mexican and Latino individuals for illegal reentry prosecutions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo and its factual findings for clear error. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s ruling, concluding that § 1326 does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee. The court found no clear error in the district court’s determination that the 1952 Congress was not motivated by racial animus when enacting § 1326. The court also noted that the statistical evidence provided by Viveros-Chavez was insufficient to demonstrate a disparate impact on Mexican and Latino individuals. View "USA v. Viveros-Chavez" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiffs, Election Integrity Project California, Inc., and ten former political candidates, challenged the California Secretary of State’s certification of the November 2020 general election results and sought to declare California’s vote-by-mail election system unconstitutional. They alleged that state and county officials diluted the voting power of in-person voters and voters in certain counties by inadvertently counting some invalid vote-by-mail ballots.The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims for failure to state a claim. The district court concluded that even if all the plaintiffs’ allegations were true, they failed to state plausible claims of constitutional violations in the administration of California’s elections. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs’ vote dilution claim failed as a matter of law because they did not show disproportionate voting power for some voters over others. The court found that any effect of counting invalid vote-by-mail ballots was the same for all votes, regardless of voting method or geography. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that California’s election laws and county practices violated the Equal Protection Clause, finding that the state’s election rules and practices satisfied the requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiffs’ allegations of election irregularities did not plausibly demonstrate the scale of disenfranchisement or lack of integrity necessary to state a due process claim.Finally, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiffs a further opportunity to amend their complaint, as any further amendment would likely prove futile. The court affirmed the district court’s order dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims without leave to amend. View "ELECTION INTEGRITY PROJECT CALIFORNIA, INC. V. WEBER" on Justia Law