Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Law enforcement responded to the defendant's home after his ex-girlfriend reported that he had threatened suicide during a phone call. The officers, aware of his history of alcohol abuse and mental health issues, entered his home without a warrant after he failed to respond to their attempts to contact him. Inside, an officer shot the defendant, believing he was armed. The defendant was charged with Assault on a Peace Officer.The District Court of the Third Judicial District denied the defendant's pretrial motions to dismiss and suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless entry. The court also denied his motion for a new trial based on an alleged Brady violation, where the defendant claimed the State failed to disclose that the officer who shot him had been shot at in a prior incident. The jury found the defendant guilty.The Supreme Court of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decisions. The court held that the officers' warrantless entry was justified under the community caretaker doctrine, given the exigent circumstances of a potential suicide. The court also found no Brady violation, as the undisclosed evidence about the officer's prior incident would not have changed the trial's outcome. The court concluded that the officers acted reasonably in their entry and subsequent actions, and the defendant's conviction was upheld. View "State v. Case" on Justia Law

Anthony Cordero, a student at Montana State University (MSU) during the Spring 2020 semester, sued MSU for prorated reimbursement of his tuition and fees after the university transitioned to online learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Cordero claimed that MSU breached an express contract to provide in-person education and services. He also asserted claims for breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, due process violation, violation of the takings clause, and inverse condemnation.The First Judicial District Court of Lewis and Clark County dismissed four of Cordero’s six claims, including the implied contract and unjust enrichment claims, under M. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The court granted summary judgment in favor of MSU on the remaining claims, including the express contract claim, and denied Cordero’s motion to certify the case as a class action. The court found that Cordero did not identify a specific, bargained-for promise by MSU to provide in-person education and that he had no compensable property interest in the tuition and fees paid.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decisions. The court held that there was an express contract between Cordero and MSU, but it did not include a specific promise to provide in-person education. The court found that MSU had the right to change its regulations and policies, including transitioning to online learning during emergencies. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the implied contract and unjust enrichment claims, noting that an implied contract cannot exist when an express contract is present. The court concluded that MSU did not breach its contractual duties regarding tuition and fees, as it maintained campus facilities and services to the extent possible during the pandemic. View "Cordero v. Montana State University" on Justia Law

The case involves The Satanic Temple, Inc. (TST), an atheistic organization that venerates Satan, which sued the City of Boston. TST alleged that Boston's failure to invite it to give an invocation before City Council meetings violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the Free Exercise Clause of the Massachusetts Constitution. TST also argued that the district court abused its discretion by issuing a protective order preventing the deposition of Michelle Wu, a former City Councilor and current Mayor of Boston.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment in favor of Boston and denied TST's cross-motion for summary judgment. The court found that TST had not shown that Boston's legislative prayer practice violated the Establishment Clause or the Massachusetts Free Exercise Clause. The court also ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion by issuing a protective order preventing TST from deposing Mayor Wu.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that TST had not demonstrated that Boston's legislative prayer practice, either on its face or as applied, violated the Establishment Clause or the Massachusetts Free Exercise Clause. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the protective order preventing the deposition of Mayor Wu. The appellate court emphasized that Boston's practice of selecting invocation speakers based on their contributions to the community was constitutional and did not show evidence of religious discrimination. View "Satanic Temple, Inc. v. City of Boston" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Word Seed Church, now known as Grace Fellowship Covenant Church, sought to establish a permanent location in the Village of Hazel Crest but faced difficulties due to the village's zoning ordinance. The church claimed that the ordinance discriminated against religious assemblies by not listing churches as a permitted use in any zoning district and requiring a special use permit for churches in certain residential districts. The church argued that this process was burdensome and discriminatory, violating the Equal Protection Clause and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois initially denied the church's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the church had standing but was unlikely to succeed on the merits. Later, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the village, concluding that the church did not have a property interest in Hazel Crest and had not shown that comparable secular organizations were treated more favorably. The court also rejected the church's vagueness challenge to the zoning ordinance. The church did not appeal the summary judgment but instead filed a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment, arguing that the district court had evaluated the wrong version of the zoning ordinance. The district court denied this motion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's denial of the Rule 60(b) motion. The appellate court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its decision. The court noted that the church's argument regarding the zoning ordinance amendments was not raised during the summary judgment proceedings and that the church had waived any challenge to the B-2 district, which was affected by the 2008 amendment. The appellate court concluded that the church's difficulties in finding a property were due to the lack of suitable parcels, not the zoning ordinance. View "Word Seed Church v. Village of Hazel Crest" on Justia Law

Randy Price was charged with possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number and possession of a firearm by a felon. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Price moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that both statutes were facially unconstitutional. The district court denied the motion regarding the felon-in-possession charge but granted it for the obliterated serial number charge, finding that the analysis required under Bruen rendered the statute an impermissible restriction on the Second Amendment.The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia denied Price's motion to dismiss the felon-in-possession charge but granted it for the obliterated serial number charge. The court concluded that the conduct prohibited by the statute was protected by the Second Amendment and that there was no historical tradition of firearm regulation consistent with the statute. The Government appealed the dismissal of the obliterated serial number charge.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Fourth Circuit held that the conduct regulated by the statute does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment because a firearm with a removed, obliterated, or altered serial number is not a weapon in common use for lawful purposes. The court concluded that there is no compelling reason for a law-abiding citizen to possess such a firearm, and such weapons are primarily used for illicit purposes. Therefore, the statute's regulation of these firearms does not violate the Second Amendment. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "United States v. Price" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to Maryland's Firearms Safety Act of 2013, which prohibits the sale and possession of certain military-style assault weapons, including the AR-15, AK-47, and Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifle. The plaintiffs, consisting of individual Maryland residents, gun rights organizations, and a firearms dealer, argued that the Act violates the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, citing the Fourth Circuit's en banc decision in Kolbe v. Hogan, which upheld the same Maryland statute. The district court agreed with the plaintiffs' acknowledgment that their argument was foreclosed by Kolbe. The plaintiffs appealed, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, noting that a panel could not reconsider an en banc holding. The plaintiffs then petitioned the Supreme Court, which remanded the case for reconsideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, upon reconsideration, upheld the district court's judgment. The court held that the assault weapons regulated by Maryland's statute fall outside the protection of the Second Amendment because they are military-style weapons designed for combat, not self-defense. The court also found that the Maryland law aligns with the nation's tradition of regulating excessively dangerous weapons. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, rejecting the plaintiffs' challenge to the statute. View "Bianchi v. Brown" on Justia Law

Christopher Redding was wanted for parole violations related to robbery charges and was classified as a "Violent Felony Offender of Special Concern." On February 28, 2017, police officers, including Deputy Jason Popovich, attempted to arrest Redding at an apartment complex. Redding did not comply with the officers' commands and instead started shooting, injuring one officer. He fled, dropping his gun during the chase. Eventually, Redding was shot multiple times and fell to the ground. As officers, including Popovich, approached him, Redding made a sudden movement, prompting Popovich to shoot him twice in the head, resulting in Redding's death.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted summary judgment in favor of Popovich on qualified immunity grounds. The court found that while there was a genuine issue of fact regarding whether Popovich's use of force was objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, Franklin, representing Redding's estate, failed to show that Popovich violated clearly established law. The court concluded that a reasonable officer could believe Redding's sudden movement was an attempt to fight back, distinguishing the case from precedents cited by Franklin.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court concluded that there was no genuine dispute of fact that Popovich did not know Redding was unarmed. Given the severity of Redding's crimes, his recent shootout with police, and his sudden movement, a reasonable officer could have believed Redding posed a threat. Therefore, Popovich's use of deadly force did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and Franklin failed to show that Popovich's actions violated clearly established law. Consequently, Popovich was entitled to qualified immunity. View "Franklin v. Popovich" on Justia Law

Nathaniel Jackson was convicted of a capital offense and sentenced to death. His sentencing was marred by judicial bias and misconduct, including ex parte communications between the judge and prosecutor and the prosecutor ghostwriting the judge’s sentencing opinion. When this misconduct was revealed, the Ohio appellate courts ordered new sentencing proceedings. However, the trial judge denied Jackson’s motion to present additional mitigating evidence and resentenced him based on the old record, issuing a nearly identical opinion to the original one.The Ohio appellate courts affirmed Jackson’s sentence despite the trial judge’s misconduct. Jackson then filed a habeas corpus petition in federal district court. The district court granted the petition on the grounds that Jackson was unconstitutionally denied the opportunity to present mitigating evidence but denied his other claims, including judicial bias.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Ohio’s standard for assessing judicial bias was contrary to clearly established federal law. On de novo review, the court found that the trial judge was unconstitutionally biased. The court also held that the exclusion of mitigating evidence at Jackson’s resentencing violated the Eighth Amendment, as capital defendants have the right to present all relevant mitigating evidence. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus on the mitigating-evidence claim, reversed the denial on the judicial-bias claim, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Jackson v. Cool" on Justia Law

Delaware residents and organizations challenged two new state gun laws in federal court. One law bans the possession, manufacture, sale, and transport of "assault weapons," while the other bans magazines that hold more than seventeen rounds. The plaintiffs argued that these laws violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments and sought a preliminary injunction to prevent their enforcement.The United States District Court for the District of Delaware consolidated three related cases and held a preliminary-injunction hearing. The plaintiffs did not present live witnesses or evidence that Delaware had attempted to enforce the laws against them. The court found that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits because the laws were consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. It also found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated irreparable harm, as they still had access to other means of self-defense. Consequently, the court denied the preliminary injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court's decision. The appellate court emphasized that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should not be granted automatically, even if the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits. The court found that the plaintiffs had not shown irreparable harm, as they did not provide evidence that the laws were being enforced against them or that they had an urgent need for the banned firearms and magazines. The court also noted that the plaintiffs delayed seeking the injunction, which undermined their claim of urgency. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's denial of the preliminary injunction, stating that the plaintiffs had other avenues for prompt relief, such as an accelerated trial. View "Delaware State Sportsmens Association Inc v. Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Indian nationals residing in the U.S. on nonimmigrant work visas and their children, sought to adjust their status to permanent residents. They challenged policies by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the U.S. Department of State (DOS) that determine the eligibility of derivative beneficiaries, claiming these policies violate the Equal Protection Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim, allowing them to amend their complaint. Instead of amending, the plaintiffs appealed. During the appeal, the Supreme Court decided Patel v. Garland, which held that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review factual findings in discretionary-relief proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1255. The government argued that this ruling meant the courts also lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal and remanded the case, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction over most of the plaintiffs' claims because they were not ripe. The Ninth Circuit concluded that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) does not strip federal district courts of jurisdiction to hear collateral challenges to generally applicable policies and procedures. However, the claims were not ripe because the plaintiffs had not applied for adjustment of status, and USCIS had not denied their applications based on the challenged policies. For the one plaintiff who did apply and was denied, the court held that her claims must be channeled through a petition for review from a final order of removal, as per §§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) and (D). The Ninth Circuit's interpretation aligns with other circuits, maintaining that general policy challenges are not precluded by § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). View "NAGENDRA NAKKA V. USCIS" on Justia Law