Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Marc Susselman received a traffic ticket from a Washtenaw County Sheriff’s deputy for failing to yield to a police cruiser with flashing lights. This ticket was later dismissed, but Susselman received another citation for failing to obey a police officer directing traffic. The Michigan circuit court ultimately dismissed the second ticket as well. Susselman then filed a federal lawsuit asserting constitutional and state law claims against Washtenaw County, the Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Office, the sheriff’s deputy, and Superior Township, Michigan.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted the defendants' motions to dismiss all claims. Susselman appealed the decision. The district court had found that the Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Office could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that Susselman had waived certain state-law claims. The court also dismissed Susselman’s federal claims, including First Amendment retaliation and Fourteenth Amendment malicious prosecution, as well as state-law claims for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that Susselman failed to plausibly allege a constitutional violation or behavior by the deputy that would support his claims. Specifically, the court found that the issuance of the second ticket did not constitute a violation of substantive due process or First Amendment rights. Additionally, the court determined that Susselman did not establish a civil conspiracy or meet the requirements for his state-law claims. The court also concluded that Susselman did not identify any municipal policy or custom that resulted in a constitutional violation, thus dismissing his claims against Washtenaw County and Superior Township. View "Susselman v. Washtenaw County Sheriff's Office" on Justia Law

In September 2018, Bryana Baker was arrested and taken to Butler County Jail, where she began experiencing drug withdrawal symptoms. After attempting to escape, she was placed in disciplinary isolation. Despite multiple mental health assessments indicating she was not suicidal, Baker was placed on suicide watch due to erratic behavior. On September 24, she was removed from suicide watch but was not cleared for single-celling. The next day, after a series of altercations with her cellmate, Officer April Riahi closed Baker’s cell door. Shortly thereafter, Baker was found hanging in her cell and later died.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted summary judgment to the defendants, including Officer Riahi, Sheriff Richard Jones, and Butler County. The court found no evidence of deliberate indifference or constitutional violations by the defendants.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that Officer Riahi was entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established law indicated her actions were unconstitutional. The court also found that Sheriff Jones could not be held liable under supervisory liability since there was no underlying constitutional violation by Riahi. Additionally, the court ruled that Butler County was not liable under municipal liability theories because there was no deliberate indifference to a clearly established right. Lastly, the court determined that Riahi and Jones were entitled to Ohio statutory immunity on the state-law claims, as their actions did not amount to recklessness under Ohio law.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, granting summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. View "Campbell v. Riahi" on Justia Law

Rachel Spivack, an employee at the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office (DAO), was subject to a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The DAO denied her request for a religious exemption, leading to her termination. Spivack then sued the City of Philadelphia and District Attorney Lawrence Krasner, alleging that the mandate violated her constitutional right to the free exercise of religion.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, holding that the vaccine mandate was neutral and generally applicable, thus subject to rational basis review. The court found that the mandate was rationally related to the DAO’s interests in curtailing the spread of COVID-19, avoiding staffing shortages, and reducing the risk of death and serious illness among DAO staff and the public. The court also held that the mandate satisfied strict scrutiny as an alternative ruling. Spivack appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and found that there were disputes of material fact that needed to be resolved by a jury. Specifically, the court noted that it was unclear whether Spivack’s exemption request was evaluated under the August 2021 policy, which allowed for individualized, discretionary religious exemptions, or the January 2022 policy, which categorically denied religious exemptions. Additionally, the court found that comments made by Krasner during his deposition could be interpreted as showing hostility toward religious beliefs, which would undermine the neutrality of the policy.The Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s order and remanded the case for trial, instructing that a jury must resolve these factual disputes to determine the applicable standard of scrutiny. If the policy is found to be neutral and generally applicable, it would be subject to rational basis review. If not, it would be subject to strict scrutiny. View "Spivack v. City of Philadelphia" on Justia Law

Tyrell Gaston was on probation following a deferred judgment for a robbery that resulted in a gunfight, leaving him injured and his cousin dead. Shortly after, he was involved in two more violent incidents involving firearms, leading to charges of attempted murder and other offenses. Despite these charges being dismissed, Gaston continued to violate probation terms, including being out past curfew. During his arrest for these violations, a probation officer found keys to his truck and, upon questioning, Gaston mentioned a backpack in the truck, which led to a search revealing a loaded gun.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa denied Gaston's motion to suppress the evidence found in the truck, concluding that the search was supported by reasonable suspicion. Gaston had consented to searches as part of his probation agreement, which allowed searches based on reasonable grounds. The district court found that the probation officer had reasonable suspicion to search the truck based on Gaston's history and his reaction to the questioning about the backpack.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court held that the search was justified under the Fourth Amendment's reasonable suspicion standard. The court noted that Gaston's history of violent conduct and his immediate disclaimer of the backpack provided a particularized and objective basis for the search. The court also upheld the district court's credibility determination that the probation officer's decision to search was based on Gaston's suspicious response. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Gaston" on Justia Law

The case involves three plaintiffs: Rockne Miller, a former Missouri legislator; John LaVanchy, a committee-records specialist currently working for the General Assembly; and Presidio Environmental, LLC, a company that sought to hire Miller as a lobbyist. They challenged a recent amendment to the Missouri Constitution that imposes a two-year ban on lobbying for former legislators and staff. Miller and LaVanchy argued that the ban prevented them from becoming lobbyists, while Presidio claimed it hindered their ability to hire Miller for lobbying purposes.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted summary judgment in favor of the Missouri Ethics Commission, upholding the lobbying ban. The court found that the ban was consistent with the First Amendment because it was narrowly tailored to further a compelling state interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court determined that the lobbying ban burdens political speech and thus must be subjected to strict scrutiny. The court found that Missouri failed to provide sufficient evidence of actual corruption or the appearance of corruption that the ban purportedly aimed to prevent. The court also concluded that the ban was not narrowly tailored, as it was both over-inclusive and under-inclusive, regulating too broadly and not addressing the specific issue of corruption effectively.The Eighth Circuit held that the two-year lobbying ban, as applied to the plaintiffs, violated the First Amendment. The court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Miller v. Ziegler" on Justia Law

A civilian, Clarissa Gilmore, was strip-searched while visiting her incarcerated husband at Smith State Prison in Georgia. During the search, officers manipulated her breasts, ordered her to bend over, and felt between her buttocks with a gloved hand. The officers did not inform her of the reasons for the search, and no contraband was found. Gilmore sued the officers and the Georgia Department of Corrections, claiming the search violated her Fourth Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia granted summary judgment to the officers, finding that the search did not violate clearly established law and that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The court concluded that the officers acted within the scope of their discretionary authority and that there was no clearly established requirement for reasonable suspicion to conduct a strip search of a prison visitor.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and agreed that the strip search violated Gilmore’s Fourth Amendment rights. The court held that correctional officers must have at least reasonable suspicion that a visitor is concealing contraband before conducting a strip search. However, the court also found that no Supreme Court or Eleventh Circuit precedent expressly prohibited suspicionless strip searches of prison visitors at the time of the search. As a result, the law was not clearly established, and the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment. View "Gilmore v. Georgia Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted by a jury of being a violent felon in possession of body armor after driving from Michigan into Canada without paying a toll. He was arrested by a Canadian customs agent, Officer Lavers, and returned to the U.S., where American customs agent Officer Stockwell took custody of him and a bulletproof vest. The Canadian government did not allow Lavers to testify at trial. The defendant moved to exclude evidence of the vest, arguing it violated the Confrontation Clause since Lavers could not testify. The trial court denied the motion but barred testimony about statements made by Lavers. At trial, Stockwell testified about taking custody of the defendant and the vest based on communications with Lavers. Other evidence included the defendant’s statements about wearing the vest due to threats.The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to vacate the conviction, but the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Lavers’s out-of-court statement was testimonial and admitted in violation of the Confrontation Clause. The court also found the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the only other evidence supporting the vest’s admission violated the corpus delicti rule. The case was remanded for a new trial. The prosecution appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.The Michigan Supreme Court held that a defendant’s right to confrontation is violated when a trial witness’s testimony introduces the substance of an unavailable witness’s out-of-court statement if it leads to a clear and logical inference that the statement was testimonial. The court affirmed that the Confrontation Clause was violated but found the Court of Appeals erred in applying the corpus delicti rule to the defendant’s statements. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals to determine if the Confrontation Clause violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "People of Michigan v. Washington" on Justia Law

Police officers observed a parked car with its engine running in an elementary school parking lot at 10:00 p.m. They parked their patrol car 10 feet behind the parked car at a 45-degree angle, with headlights and a spotlight directed at the car. The officers approached the car, noticed signs of intoxication from the driver, and arrested him after he failed field sobriety tests. The driver later consented to a blood draw and admitted to drinking alcohol.The Oakland Circuit Court denied the defendant's motion to suppress evidence of intoxication, arguing it was the result of an unlawful seizure. The Court of Appeals denied interlocutory leave to appeal. The Michigan Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court to determine when the defendant was first seized for Fourth Amendment purposes. On remand, the trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that the defendant was seized when the patrol car parked behind him. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the defendant was not seized when the patrol car parked 10 feet away at a 45-degree angle.The Michigan Supreme Court held that a seizure may occur when a police vehicle partially blocks a defendant’s egress if the totality of the circumstances indicates that a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave. The Court found that the defendant was seized before the officers observed signs of intoxication, considering the police conduct, the time, and the setting. The judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed, and the case was remanded to determine whether the officer had reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct when the defendant was initially seized. View "People of Michigan v. Duff" on Justia Law

Kay “KT” Jacobs, a member of the Columbia Heights City Council, was the subject of a recall petition. The petition alleged that Jacobs used a fake name and made derogatory comments about a city council candidate's heritage during a phone call, lied during a city investigation, and was subsequently censured and stripped of her ability to serve on boards and commissions. Jacobs filed a petition to cancel the recall election, arguing that the recall petition did not meet the legal requirements for recall petitions and failed to allege malfeasance or nonfeasance, which are constitutional prerequisites for recalling an elected municipal official.The district court denied Jacobs' petition, finding that the recall petition met the procedural requirements of the city charter and that the allegations constituted malfeasance. Jacobs appealed, and the Minnesota Supreme Court granted her petition for accelerated review.The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision, concluding that the recall petition did not meet the legal definitions of malfeasance or nonfeasance. The court held that Jacobs' conduct, while inappropriate, did not violate a substantive legal standard established by law, rule, or case law, and that she was not acting in her official capacity during the phone call. Therefore, the recall petition failed to allege the necessary grounds for a recall election under the Minnesota Constitution. The court canceled the recall election scheduled for February 13, 2024. View "Jacobs v. City of Columbia Heights" on Justia Law

A retired Navy chaplain, Allen Lancaster, sued several Navy officials in their official capacities, alleging discrimination in the Navy’s promotion practices. Lancaster claimed he was not promoted due to retaliation based on personal hostility and denominational prejudice. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including orders to remedy the harm to his career and to hold new promotion boards. Lancaster also challenged the six-year statute of limitations for civil actions against the United States and the constitutionality of a statutory privilege for selection board proceedings.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed Lancaster’s amended complaint with prejudice on res judicata grounds, referring to several prior decisions in the longstanding dispute over the Navy’s promotion procedures for chaplains. After Lancaster’s death, his widow, Darlene Lancaster, sought to reopen the case, substitute herself as the plaintiff, and amend the dismissed complaint. The district court denied these requests, leading to the current appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and determined that Lancaster’s death mooted his claims for prospective relief, as he could no longer benefit from the requested declarations and orders. The court also found that any potential claims for retrospective relief were barred by sovereign immunity, as the Lancasters failed to demonstrate an unequivocal waiver of this immunity. Consequently, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to dismiss the case on res judicata grounds or to rule on the widow’s post-dismissal motion. The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss it without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Lancaster v. Secretary of the Navy" on Justia Law