Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Roy Scott, who was unarmed and in mental distress, called the police for help. Officers Kyle Smith and Theodore Huntsman from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department responded. Despite Scott complying with their orders and not being suspected of a crime, the officers used force to restrain him. Scott lost consciousness shortly after and was later pronounced dead. Scott’s daughter Rochelle and a representative of Scott’s estate sued the Department and the two officers, alleging violations of Scott’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force and Rochelle’s Fourteenth Amendment right to familial association.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied the officers' motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity for both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims. The officers appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claim, holding that the officers violated Scott’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force. The court found that Scott was mentally ill, not suspected of a crime, and did not present a risk to officers or others, making the use of severe or deadly force constitutionally excessive. The court also held that Scott’s Fourth Amendment rights were clearly established at the time of the violation, referencing Drummond ex rel. Drummond v. City of Anaheim.However, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on Rochelle’s Fourteenth Amendment claim. The court held that while the officers violated Rochelle’s right to familial association, that right was not clearly established at the time of the officers’ conduct, entitling the officers to qualified immunity on this claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "SCOTT V. SMITH" on Justia Law

Courtney Ealy, an inmate in the Illinois prison system, spent five consecutive months in segregation starting in 2019. During this period, he experienced cold temperatures, dirty cells, and faulty plumbing, which he claimed negatively affected his mental and physical health. Ealy sued several prison officials, alleging violations of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. He also filed multiple motions for recruitment of counsel during the litigation.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Cameron Watson, David D. Frank, and Angela McKittrick, and denied Ealy's motions for recruitment of counsel. The court found that Ealy had received due process before being placed in disciplinary segregation and that the conditions of his confinement did not constitute an atypical and significant hardship. The court also determined that Ealy was competent to represent himself despite his claims to the contrary.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Ealy received all the due process he was entitled to, including advance written notice of the charges, an opportunity to be heard, and a written statement of the evidence and reasons for the disciplinary action. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ealy's motions for recruitment of counsel, noting that Ealy's case was not complex and that he appeared competent to represent himself based on his filings. View "Ealy v. Watson" on Justia Law

Exxon Mobil Corporation owned subsidiaries in Cuba that had various oil and gas assets. In 1960, the Cuban government expropriated these assets without compensating Exxon. In 1996, Congress enacted the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, which allows U.S. nationals to sue those who traffic in property confiscated by the Cuban government. Exxon sued three state-owned defendants, alleging they trafficked in the confiscated property by participating in the oil industry and operating service stations.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied one defendant's motion to dismiss based on foreign sovereign immunity. The court held that the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act does not override the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), and jurisdiction depends on an FSIA exception. The court found that the FSIA’s expropriation exception did not apply but that the commercial-activity exception did. The court allowed limited jurisdictional discovery for the other two defendants and later denied their motion for reconsideration.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with the district court that the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act does not confer jurisdiction and that the FSIA’s expropriation exception is inapplicable. However, the court concluded that the district court needed to undertake additional analysis before determining that jurisdiction exists under the FSIA’s commercial-activity exception. The court vacated the district court’s decision and remanded the case for further analysis on the applicability of the FSIA’s commercial-activity exception. View "Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Corporacion CIMEX, S.A. (Cuba)" on Justia Law

The case involves People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and two animal rights advocates, Madeline Krasno and Ryan Hartkopf, who frequently commented on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) social media pages to criticize NIH’s funding of animal testing. NIH used keyword filters to automatically hide comments containing specific words like “animal,” “testing,” and “cruel,” which resulted in the appellants' comments being filtered out and not viewable to the public. The appellants argued that NIH’s policy violated the First Amendment.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that the comment threads on NIH’s social media pages were limited public forums and upheld NIH’s speech restrictions as reasonable. The court found that the restrictions were viewpoint-neutral and reasonable in light of the forum's purpose. The appellants then appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and agreed that NIH’s comment threads are limited public forums. However, the court held that NIH’s “off-topic” restriction, as implemented through its keyword filters, was not reasonable in light of the purpose of the forum and was therefore unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The court found that the restriction lacked objective, workable standards and was inflexible and unresponsive to context, which made it unreasonable. The judgment of the district court was reversed, and summary judgment was directed in favor of the appellants. View "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Tabak" on Justia Law

The case involves Johnnie Davis, who was convicted of committing multiple carjackings in Montgomery, Alabama. Before his trial, Davis sought to suppress evidence obtained through a geofence warrant that tracked his girlfriend’s phone and his inculpatory statements made after his arrest. He also argued that the government failed to prove his intent to cause death or serious harm during the carjackings. The district court denied his motions.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama initially reviewed the case. Davis moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the geofence warrant and his post-arrest statements, arguing that the warrant was invalid and that he should have been presented to a federal magistrate judge before being interviewed. The district court found that Davis lacked Fourth Amendment standing to challenge the geofence warrant and that the federal presentment requirements did not apply as he was in state custody. The court also found sufficient evidence of Davis’s intent to cause death or serious harm and denied his motion for judgment of acquittal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Davis lacked Fourth Amendment standing to challenge the geofence warrant because the search did not disclose any information about his own electronic device and only reflected his limited movements in public areas. The court also agreed with the district court that the federal presentment requirements did not apply since Davis was in state custody and there was no improper collusion between federal and state law enforcement. Finally, the court found that Davis’s use of a gun during the carjackings sufficiently established his intent to cause death or serious harm. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions. View "USA v. Davis" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted by a jury in the Wayne Circuit Court of three counts of torture, three counts of unlawful imprisonment, one count of felonious assault, and one count of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The defendant held his wife and their two children at gunpoint in their home, threatening to kill them and burn down the house. The court sentenced the defendant to various prison terms for these convictions and placed him on the sex-offender registry as a Tier I offender under the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA) because two of the unlawful imprisonment convictions involved minors.The defendant appealed his convictions, arguing insufficient evidence for the torture convictions and that his placement on the sex-offender registry violated constitutional protections against cruel or unusual punishment. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions but remanded the case to remove the defendant from the sex-offender registry, concluding that imposing SORA for a crime lacking a sexual component constituted cruel or unusual punishment under the Michigan Constitution. The defendant sought further appeal, and the prosecution cross-appealed regarding the removal from SORA.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the application of SORA to non-sexual offenders like the defendant constitutes cruel or unusual punishment under the Michigan Constitution. The Court found that the 2021 SORA, despite legislative intent as a civil regulation, imposed punitive effects that outweighed this intent when applied to non-sexual offenders. The Court emphasized that the registry's requirements and the social stigma attached to being labeled a sex offender were excessive and not rationally related to the nonpunitive purpose of public safety. Consequently, the Court vacated the part of the Court of Appeals opinion that extended beyond non-sexual offenders and affirmed the judgment that the defendant and similar offenders should be removed from the sex-offender registry. View "People Of Michigan v. Lymon" on Justia Law

Karen Carter filed a lawsuit against DTN Management Company after she slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk at her apartment complex on January 10, 2018. She alleged negligence and breach of statutory duties. Carter filed her complaint on April 13, 2021. DTN Management moved for summary disposition, arguing that the claim was time-barred by the three-year statute of limitations. The trial court agreed and granted the motion.The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that Administrative Order No. 2020-3, which extended certain filing deadlines during the COVID-19 state of emergency, was within the Michigan Supreme Court's authority. The appellate court found that the order excluded days from the computation of time under MCR 1.108, making Carter's filing timely. DTN Management appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.The Michigan Supreme Court held that Administrative Orders 2020-3 and 2020-18 were constitutional exercises of the Court's authority under Const 1963, art 6, §§ 4 and 5. The Court determined that these orders affected the computation of time rather than tolling the statute of limitations, which is within the Court's power to regulate practice and procedure. The Court concluded that Carter's lawsuit was timely filed, as the days during the state of emergency were not counted in the limitations period. Consequently, the trial court's grant of summary disposition was improper. The Court of Appeals judgment was affirmed, and the case was remanded to the Ingham Circuit Court for further proceedings. View "Carter V DTN Management Company" on Justia Law

In the first case, Kent County foreclosed on the homes of Matthew Schafer and Harry and Lilly Hucklebury for unpaid taxes. The properties were sold at auction in 2017, and the county retained the surplus proceeds beyond the owed taxes. Following the Michigan Supreme Court's 2020 decision in Rafaeli, LLC v Oakland Co, which held that retaining surplus proceeds from tax-foreclosure sales is an unconstitutional taking, the Schafer plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking those proceeds. The Kent Circuit Court denied the county's motion to dismiss, ruling that Rafaeli applied retroactively. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.In the second case, the state of Michigan, acting as the foreclosing governmental unit (FGU) for Shiawassee County, foreclosed on property owned by Lynette Hathon and Amy Jo Denkins in 2018. The state retained the surplus proceeds from the sale. The Hathon plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit in the Court of Claims, which certified the class and denied the state's motion for summary disposition. After Rafaeli, the plaintiffs moved for summary disposition, and the state moved to revoke class certification. The Court of Claims granted the state's motion to revoke class certification but later recertified an amended class. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Court of Claims' decisions.The Michigan Supreme Court held that Rafaeli applies retroactively to claims not yet final as of July 17, 2020. The court also ruled that MCL 211.78t, which provides a procedure for processing claims under Rafaeli, applies retroactively, while the new two-year limitations period in MCL 211.78l applies prospectively. Claims that arose before December 22, 2020, but expired between that date and the court's decision must be allowed to proceed if filed within a reasonable time. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision in Schafer and remanded the case for further proceedings. In Hathon, the court vacated the Court of Appeals' judgment affirming class recertification and remanded the case to the Court of Claims for reconsideration. View "Schafer v. Kent County" on Justia Law

An Indonesian national, Jani, sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming an Immigration Judge's (IJ) order that found him ineligible for asylum due to his past provision of material support to a foreign terrorist organization. Jani argued that the agency violated his constitutional due process rights and its own regulations in making this determination.The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiated removal proceedings against Jani in 2003 for overstaying his visa. Jani conceded removability but applied for asylum, claiming persecution as an ethnically Chinese Indonesian. During his asylum application process, Jani admitted to joining Jemaah Islamiya, a terrorist organization, and identifying targets for extortion. The IJ initially granted Jani derivative asylum status based on his wife's successful asylum claim. However, DHS appealed, arguing Jani's ineligibility due to his terrorist affiliations. The BIA remanded the case for further proceedings due to an incomplete transcript of the initial hearing. Subsequent hearings reaffirmed Jani's admissions, leading the IJ to deny asylum and order his removal. The BIA dismissed Jani's appeal, supporting the IJ's findings and rejecting Jani's procedural claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court found no due process violation in the IJ and BIA's reliance on the defective 2006 hearing transcript, noting that Jani had ample opportunity to present his case and that the transcript was used appropriately for impeachment. The court also rejected Jani's claim that his derivative asylum status was final, noting that DHS had properly reserved its right to appeal his claim, making the IJ's decision non-final. Consequently, the court denied Jani's petition for review. View "Jani v. Garland" on Justia Law

A group of parents, represented by Parents Defending Education (PDE), challenged the Olentangy Local School District's policies that prohibit harassment based on gender identity, including the intentional use of non-preferred pronouns. PDE argued that these policies violated the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause. The policies in question include the Anti-Harassment Policy, the Personal Communication Devices (PCD) Policy, and the Code of Conduct, all of which aim to prevent harassment and bullying within the school district.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denied PDE's motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of these policies. The court found that PDE had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment claims. Specifically, the court held that the policies did not unconstitutionally compel speech, did not constitute viewpoint discrimination, and were not overbroad. The court also determined that PDE had not shown that the policies would likely cause irreparable harm.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that PDE had not met the burden of showing a clear likelihood of success on the merits. The court found that the school district's policies were consistent with the standard for regulating student speech established in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which allows schools to regulate speech that could substantially disrupt school activities or invade the rights of others. The court also held that the policies did not unconstitutionally compel speech, as students could use first names instead of pronouns, and that the policies were not overbroad. The court concluded that PDE had not demonstrated that the balance of equities or the public interest favored granting a preliminary injunction. View "Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District" on Justia Law