Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Carl Langston was convicted of possessing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the felon-in-possession statute. Langston argued that this statute is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment as applied to him, given his prior convictions for theft and drug trafficking under Maine law. He also challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a police stop and several sentencing decisions.The United States District Court for the District of Maine denied Langston's motion to suppress, finding that the police stop was based on reasonable suspicion. Langston then entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling. At sentencing, the district court applied a four-level enhancement for possessing a firearm during a felony assault on an officer and denied Langston a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, citing his conduct during pretrial release.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed Langston's claims. The court held that Langston's Second Amendment challenge failed under the plain-error standard because it was not "clear" or "obvious" that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to him. The court noted that the Supreme Court has consistently referred to felon-in-possession laws as "presumptively lawful."The court also upheld the district court's denial of the motion to suppress, agreeing that the totality of the circumstances gave rise to reasonable suspicion for the police stop. Additionally, the court found no plain error in the application of the sentencing enhancement for felony assault on an officer and ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion in relying on hearsay evidence to conclude that Langston violated his pretrial release conditions. Finally, the court affirmed the denial of the acceptance-of-responsibility credit, noting the similarities between Langston's conduct at the time of his arrest and during his pretrial release.The First Circuit affirmed Langston's conviction and sentence. View "US v. Langston" on Justia Law

A nominee for Lieutenant Governor in Georgia and the Libertarian Party of Georgia challenged a state law that allows only certain political parties to form "leadership committees" capable of accepting unlimited campaign contributions. The Libertarian Party, classified as a "political body" under Georgia law, was excluded from forming such committees, which they argued violated their First Amendment and Equal Protection rights.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing because their alleged injury was not traceable to the defendants and could not be redressed by the requested relief. The court also noted that the plaintiffs failed to show that the defendants had enforced or threatened to enforce the law against them. Additionally, the court concluded that the plaintiffs did not meet the prerequisites for a preliminary injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and determined it was moot because the 2022 election had already occurred, and the nominee had lost. The court found that the plaintiffs' claims were specific to the 2022 election and did not present a live controversy. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the case fell under the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception to mootness, as there was no reasonable expectation that the same controversy would recur involving the same parties.The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's judgment, dismissed the appeal, and remanded the case to the district court to dismiss it as moot. View "Graham v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Ahmad Hashimi was indicted on four counts in the Eastern District of Virginia, including drug-related charges and charges involving violence against his ex-girlfriend. Hashimi and his court-appointed lawyer, Bruce Johnson, had a contentious relationship, with Hashimi repeatedly complaining about poor communication and the lack of a plea deal. Despite these issues, the district court did not replace Johnson. During the trial, Johnson attempted to negotiate a plea deal for the violence charges, but the court rejected it, and the case proceeded to the jury. In his closing argument, Johnson conceded Hashimi's guilt on the violence charges without Hashimi's explicit consent, focusing his defense on the drug charges. The jury found Hashimi guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to 300 months in prison.Hashimi appealed his conviction, arguing that Johnson's concession of guilt without his consent violated his Sixth Amendment rights. The Fourth Circuit initially affirmed the conviction but reconsidered after the Supreme Court's decision in McCoy v. Louisiana, which established a defendant's right to maintain innocence. On remand, the Fourth Circuit again affirmed but allowed Hashimi to raise his claim in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Hashimi filed the motion, presenting evidence that he did not consent to the concession and highlighting his poor communication with Johnson.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied Hashimi's § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing, reasoning that Hashimi did not explicitly object to the concession. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in denying the motion without a hearing. The appellate court held that the record did not conclusively show that Hashimi was informed of and consented to the concession, as required by McCoy. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's decision and remanded the case for further factual development. View "US v. Hashimi" on Justia Law

Melissa Zielinski was convicted of first-degree intentional murder and second-degree intentional murder under aiding-and-abetting theories. The case arose from the robbery and fatal shooting of Karl Henderson. Zielinski and her brother, Nicholas, planned to rob Henderson, who was known to keep large sums of money in a safe. During the robbery, Nicholas shot Henderson. Evidence included DNA on the stolen safe, phone location data, and witness testimony.The district court denied Zielinski’s pretrial motion to suppress evidence obtained from her cell phone and her statements to police, finding the search warrants valid and the police questioning lawful. Zielinski was convicted by a jury and sentenced to life without parole for first-degree murder. Her postconviction petition, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for not challenging the search warrants on particularity grounds, was summarily denied.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that any potential Fourth Amendment violation from police questioning was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to the overwhelming evidence of guilt. Similarly, any Sixth Amendment violation from limiting cross-examination of Nicholas was also deemed harmless. The court agreed that the district court erred in entering convictions for both first-degree and second-degree murder, as the latter is a lesser-included offense of the former. The court affirmed the first-degree murder conviction, reversed the second-degree murder conviction, and remanded to vacate the latter. The court also upheld the denial of Zielinski’s postconviction relief petition, finding no reasonable probability that the trial outcome would have been different even if the challenged evidence had been excluded. View "State of Minnesota vs. Zielinski" on Justia Law

In 2008, Diontai Moore was investigated for drug crimes, leading to his arrest and a guilty plea for distributing cocaine base. He was sentenced to 72 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. In 2013, while on supervised release, Moore was found with a handgun and subsequently pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, resulting in a 60-month prison sentence and another three years of supervised release. In 2021, during his supervised release, Moore used a firearm to confront intruders at his fiancée’s home, leading to his arrest and charges for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania sentenced Moore to 84 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release after he pleaded guilty to the firearm possession charge. Moore reserved the right to appeal the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) as applied to him.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and held that Moore, as a convict on supervised release, does not have a Second Amendment right to possess a firearm. The court found that historical analogues, such as 18th-century forfeiture laws, supported the disarmament of convicts during their sentences. The court concluded that these historical practices justified the application of § 922(g)(1) to Moore. Consequently, the court affirmed Moore’s conviction, rejecting his as-applied and facial challenges to the statute. View "United States v. Moore" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Miriam Lowell and Seth Healey, challenged the Vermont Department for Children and Families (DCF) after being investigated for child abuse and neglect. DCF substantiated the allegations and notified the plaintiffs, who then requested an administrative review. The review process was delayed, and the plaintiffs filed a federal lawsuit claiming the process violated their due process rights. The federal court denied their injunction request, and the plaintiffs later filed a similar complaint in state court, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, and mandamus under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 75.The Superior Court, Washington Unit, Civil Division, dismissed the complaint, assuming the plaintiffs had a protected liberty interest but finding the administrative review process constitutionally sufficient. The court noted that the plaintiffs' claims of potential procedural violations were speculative and not reviewable. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the administrative review process did not provide adequate due process protections.The Vermont Supreme Court dismissed Lowell's claims as moot because the administrative reviewer overturned the substantiation against her, providing her with no further relief. For Healey, the court assumed a protected liberty interest but found the administrative review process constitutionally adequate under the Mathews v. Eldridge test. The court noted that the process provided sufficient notice and an opportunity to be heard, with a neutral arbiter and the ability to present evidence. The court emphasized the importance of DCF's interest in protecting children and the availability of a prompt post-deprivation hearing before the Human Services Board, which offers more extensive procedural protections. The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Healey's complaint, concluding that the administrative review process met due process requirements. View "Lowell v. Department for Children and Families" on Justia Law

Four parents of students in the Independence School District challenged the District’s policy of removing library materials upon receiving a complaint, pending a formal review. They argued that this policy violated their children's First Amendment rights and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. The District moved to dismiss the case.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted the District’s motion to dismiss. The court concluded that the parents failed to demonstrate an injury-in-fact necessary for standing, as their claims were based on hypothetical future challenges rather than any current or imminent harm. The court noted that the plaintiffs did not allege any ongoing or threatened challenges to library materials, nor did they challenge the removal of any specific book.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court agreed that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they did not show a concrete and particularized injury that was actual or imminent. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs’ claims were speculative, as they were based on the possibility of future book challenges and removals. The court also noted that the plaintiffs did not allege any self-censorship or chilling effect on their children’s speech due to the policy. Therefore, the court held that the plaintiffs failed to meet the requirements for pre-enforcement review and affirmed the dismissal of the case. View "L.H. v. Independence School District" on Justia Law

Matthew Douglas Hutto pled guilty to two counts of felony murder and received two consecutive hard 25 life sentences. After sentencing, Hutto filed a pro se motion to withdraw his pleas, which the district court denied. Hutto appealed the denial, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. Before the deadline to file a motion for rehearing or modification of the Supreme Court's decision, Hutto was subpoenaed to testify against his accomplice, Richard Daniel Showalter. Hutto invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refused to testify. The district court ruled that Hutto no longer had the privilege and found him in contempt, imposing a six-month jail sanction.Hutto appealed the contempt finding, arguing that he retained his Fifth Amendment privilege because he had not exhausted all methods of attacking his convictions and sentences, including a potential motion for rehearing or modification and a possible habeas corpus motion. The Kansas Court of Appeals rejected Hutto's argument, holding that defendants lose their privilege against self-incrimination at sentencing when they plead guilty and do not move to withdraw their plea before sentencing. The appellate court affirmed the district court's finding of contempt.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the proper standard to determine whether the Fifth Amendment privilege protects a witness from being compelled to testify is whether the testimony sought exposes the witness to a legitimate risk of incrimination, not a hypothetical or speculative one. The court overruled previous decisions that terminated the privilege at sentencing for guilty pleas. The court concluded that Hutto faced a legitimate risk of incrimination if forced to testify because he still had a legally viable opportunity to challenge the court's decision by filing a motion for rehearing or modification. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's order finding Hutto in contempt and vacated the six-month jail sanction. View "State v. Showalter" on Justia Law

Desiree Elaine Karst was a passenger in a car stopped by police in Kootenai County, Idaho. During the stop, a drug dog alerted to the presence of drugs, and Karst admitted to having drugs in the car. Additional drugs and paraphernalia were found on her at the jail. She was charged with multiple drug offenses and introducing contraband into a correctional facility. Karst moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the stop was impermissibly extended. The district court partially denied her motion, and Karst entered conditional guilty pleas, reserving her right to appeal. She was ordered to pay $569.50 in various court fees.Karst appealed the partial denial of her motion to suppress. The Idaho Supreme Court found the traffic stop was impermissibly extended, reversed the district court’s decision, and remanded the case. Subsequently, the prosecutor dismissed all charges against Karst. Karst then filed a motion to reimburse the fees she had paid, arguing that retaining her funds violated her due process rights. The district court denied her motion, citing a lack of jurisdiction and suggesting she sue each governmental entity that received the fees.The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the district court had both personal and subject matter jurisdiction to consider Karst’s motion for reimbursement. The court found that the State, by initiating the criminal case, had submitted to the district court’s jurisdiction. The court also determined that requiring Karst to file multiple civil suits to recover the fees would impose more than minimal procedures, violating her due process rights. The court reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing that Karst should be reimbursed if she proves she paid the fees and her conviction was invalidated. View "State v. Karst" on Justia Law

A computer science professor and a tech inventor challenged the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), arguing that its provisions against circumventing technological protections on copyrighted works and distributing circumvention tools violate the First Amendment. They claimed these provisions unduly stifle fair use of copyrighted works, which they argued is protected speech. The plaintiffs sought to invalidate these provisions as facially overbroad and a prior restraint on speech.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the plaintiffs' facial First Amendment challenges and their Administrative Procedure Act claims but allowed their as-applied First Amendment claims to proceed. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to show that the DMCA's impact on third-party free speech interests was different from its impact on their own. The court also held that the triennial rulemaking process for exemptions did not constitute content-based censorship. The plaintiffs' as-applied claims were later dismissed after the Librarian of Congress granted an exemption for the professor's security research, and the court found that the tech inventor's proposed device would likely lead to widespread piracy.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the facial challenges. The court held that the DMCA's anticircumvention and antitrafficking provisions are not facially overbroad because they regulate conduct, not speech, and their legitimate applications, such as preventing digital piracy, far outweigh any potential unconstitutional applications. The court also rejected the argument that the triennial rulemaking process constitutes a prior restraint on speech, noting that the DMCA does not target expression and that alternative avenues for lawful access to copyrighted works remain available. View "Matthew Green v. DOJ" on Justia Law