Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

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

The defendant faced serious felony charges and underwent two trials, both ending in mistrials. The second mistrial occurred because a courtroom clerk mistakenly gave the jury an exhibit revealing the defendant's prior felony conviction, which had been excluded from the jury's consideration. The defendant moved to dismiss the charges with prejudice, arguing that a retrial was barred by the former jeopardy provision in the Oregon Constitution, as interpreted in State v. Kennedy. The trial court denied the motion, concluding it could not find "indifference" under the Kennedy test.The Multnomah County Circuit Court initially declared a mistrial due to a deadlocked jury. Months later, a juror contacted the defendant's counsel, revealing that the jury had seen an exhibit disclosing the defendant's prior conviction. The trial court then changed the basis for the mistrial to include the erroneous submission of the exhibit. After further hearings and testimony from jurors and the clerk's supervisor, the trial court found that the clerk had made an error but did not intentionally give the jury the exhibit knowing it disclosed the prior conviction. The court could not determine whether the clerk was indifferent or simply lacked the capacity to do her job.The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed the case and denied the petition for a writ of mandamus. The court held that the record did not compel findings that the clerk knowingly engaged in improper and prejudicial conduct or acted with indifference to the consequences. The court emphasized that the Kennedy test requires a conscious choice of prejudicial action, which was not evident in this case. Therefore, the trial court was not compelled to dismiss the charges with prejudice, and a retrial was not barred under the Oregon Constitution. View "State v. Blackmon" on Justia Law

The petitioner was arrested under a warrant for allegedly violating Maryland's juror intimidation statute. After a bench trial, the circuit court acquitted her based on its interpretation of the statute. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a civil suit against a sheriff’s deputy, claiming false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and violations of her rights under the Maryland Declaration of Rights. The deputy had filed the application for charges after consulting with the State’s Attorney’s Office, which determined that the petitioner’s conduct violated the statute.The Circuit Court for Wicomico County granted summary judgment in favor of the State, ruling that the deputy could not be held civilly liable for the petitioner’s arrest pursuant to a warrant issued by a judicial officer. The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed this decision, concluding that the warrant provided legal justification for the arrest and that the officers’ interpretation of the statute was objectively reasonable.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and upheld the lower courts' decisions. The Court held that the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the State on the common law claims of malicious prosecution, false arrest, and false imprisonment, as well as on the constitutional claims under Articles 24 and 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. The Court emphasized that when an arrest is made pursuant to a warrant, probable cause is predetermined by a judicial officer, creating a strong presumption of objective reasonableness. The petitioner failed to overcome this presumption.Additionally, the Court held that the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment on the petitioner’s claim that her arrest and imprisonment violated her free speech rights under Article 40. The Court found that the judicial officer had probable cause to believe that the petitioner’s speech constituted a “true threat” and thus fell outside the protections of Article 40. Finally, the Court upheld the circuit court’s ruling that the juror intimidation statute was not unconstitutionally vague. View "Rovin v. State" on Justia Law

Mark Rath and Heather Zins share a child, A.J.O., born in 2004. Zins was awarded primary residential responsibility, and Rath was ordered to pay child support. A.J.O. turned 18 in November 2022, ending Rath's ongoing support obligation, but he had accrued arrears. Rath was served with an order to show cause for civil contempt due to non-payment. After an evidentiary hearing, a judicial referee found Rath in contempt and ordered him to make monthly payments towards his arrears, with a suspended 20-day jail sentence contingent on a future hearing.Rath sought review by the District Court of Burleigh County, which adopted the judicial referee's findings. Rath appealed, arguing violations of his right to counsel, errors in child support calculations, and that the Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act limits the State's ability to collect more than fifty percent of his income. He also claimed the defense of laches and third-party standing should prevent enforcement of his obligations.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case under a clearly erroneous standard. The court held that Rath's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated because the contempt hearing did not result in immediate incarceration, and procedural safeguards were followed. The court also found that Rath's child support obligation continued despite temporary custody by the division of juvenile services and that the doctrine of laches does not apply to child support arrearages. Additionally, the court ruled that the State and Zins have standing to collect arrears even after the child reached the age of majority, and the Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act does not limit the State's collection efforts in this context. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. View "Burleigh County Social Service Board v. Rath" on Justia Law

Thomas Zundel attempted to purchase a firearm but was denied due to a 1990 simple assault charge in Jamestown Municipal Court, which was flagged in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The charge was noted as continued for a year pending counseling, with no conviction confirmed. Zundel's voluntary appeal to the FBI was denied because the final disposition of the case was missing. Zundel sought records from various agencies, but none had documentation beyond the initial arrest. He then petitioned the North Dakota Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to close the case and restore his constitutional rights.The Jamestown Municipal Court and other respondents argued that Zundel had an adequate remedy in federal court, referencing Ross v. Fed. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. However, the North Dakota Supreme Court found that a federal suit would not adequately address the state court records issue. The court emphasized the municipal court's duty to maintain accurate records and noted that the missing record should have been retained permanently according to administrative rules.The North Dakota Supreme Court granted the petition in part, ordering the Jamestown Municipal Court to conduct a diligent inquiry to locate or reconstruct the missing record and document the results. The court denied Zundel's requests for declaratory relief regarding the nature of the 1990 charge and his right to possess a firearm, citing a lack of evidence in the record to make such determinations. The court's decision underscores the importance of accurate court records for due process and public accountability. View "Zundel v. City of Jamestown" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to the Parental Consent for Abortion Act of 2013 (Consent Act) in Montana, which requires minors to obtain parental consent or a judicial waiver to have an abortion. The plaintiffs, Planned Parenthood of Montana and Dr. Samuel Dickman, argue that the Act violates the Montana Constitution by infringing on minors' fundamental rights to privacy and equal protection.The First Judicial District Court in Lewis and Clark County initially issued a preliminary injunction against the Consent Act, keeping the Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 2011 (Notice Act) in effect. The District Court later granted summary judgment in favor of Planned Parenthood, ruling that the Consent Act violated the Montana Constitution. The court found that the Act was not narrowly tailored to achieve the State's compelling interests, such as protecting minors from sexual offenses, ensuring informed decision-making, and promoting parental rights. The court did not address the equal protection challenge but noted that the Notice Act, while serving similar ends, was less onerous.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo. The Court held that the Consent Act violates minors' fundamental rights to privacy and equal protection under the Montana Constitution. The Court found that the Act's classification between minors seeking abortions and those carrying pregnancies to term was unjustified. The State failed to demonstrate that the Act was narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests, such as protecting minors from sexual victimization, psychological and physical harm, and immaturity, or promoting parental rights. The Court also found that the judicial waiver provision did not save the Act, as it introduced unnecessary delays and burdens on minors seeking abortions.The Montana Supreme Court concluded that the Consent Act infringes on minors' fundamental rights without adequate justification and does not enhance their protection. Therefore, the Court held that the Consent Act is unconstitutional. View "Planned Parenthood v. State" on Justia Law

Four female hockey players filed a lawsuit against the University of North Dakota, alleging that the university violated Title IX by eliminating the women’s ice hockey program after the 2016-17 season. None of the plaintiffs were enrolled at the university at the time of the program's termination. They sought to represent a class of current, prospective, and future female students and requested a declaratory judgment and an injunction to reinstate the women’s hockey program.The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a "concrete" injury as required for standing under Article III.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court found that two plaintiffs, Calli Forsberg and Maya Tellmann, had standing. Forsberg was recruited to play for the university’s hockey team but chose another school after the program was cut. Tellmann, a two-time state hockey champion, was accepted as a student but had no opportunity to play due to the program's elimination. Both plaintiffs demonstrated a concrete injury by being denied the opportunity to compete for the team of their choice, and they expressed a definite intent to attend the university if the program were reinstated.The court found that the other two plaintiffs, Emily Becker and Morgan Stenseth, did not allege sufficient facts to establish standing. Becker did not provide details about her qualifications or acceptance to the university, and Stenseth did not express an intent to attend the university in the future.The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded the case in part, allowing Forsberg and Tellmann’s claims to proceed, but affirmed the dismissal of Becker and Stenseth’s claims. View "Becker v. North Dakota University System" on Justia Law

Two non-domiciliary companies, S&H Independent Premium Brands East, LLC, and S&H Independent Premium Brands West, LLC, import and distribute European alcoholic beverages in the United States. They hold certificates of compliance under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 138, Section 18B, allowing them to sell alcoholic beverages to licensed wholesalers in Massachusetts. In 2019, an Austrian malt beverage producer, Stiegl Getränke & Service GmbH & Co. KG, terminated its distribution agreement with S&H without prior notice and entered into a new agreement with another distributor, Win-It-Too, Inc.S&H filed a petition with the Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission (ABCC), alleging that Stiegl violated Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 138, Section 25E, which prohibits suppliers from refusing to sell to any licensed wholesaler without good cause. The ABCC dismissed the petition, stating that Section 25E protections apply only to wholesalers licensed under Section 18, not to certificate holders under Section 18B. S&H then sought judicial review in the Superior Court, which upheld the ABCC's decision, agreeing that Section 25E protections do not extend to Section 18B certificate holders.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The Court held that the term "any licensed wholesaler" in Section 25E refers only to wholesalers licensed under Section 18, not to certificate holders under Section 18B. The Court also concluded that this interpretation does not violate the dormant commerce clause of the United States Constitution, as Section 18B certificate holders and Section 18 licensed wholesalers serve different roles in the regulatory framework. Therefore, the ABCC's decision to dismiss S&H's petition was upheld. View "S&H Independent Premium Brands East, LLC v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission" on Justia Law