Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves a harassment injunction issued against Brian Aish, an anti-abortion protestor, for statements he made to Nancy Kindschy, a nurse practitioner at a family planning clinic. Aish regularly protested outside the clinics where Kindschy worked, initially expressing his Christian and anti-abortion beliefs broadly. However, in 2019, Aish began directing his comments towards Kindschy, which she perceived as threatening. Kindschy petitioned for a harassment injunction under Wisconsin law, which allows for an injunction if there are "reasonable grounds to believe that the respondent has engaged in harassment with intent to harass or intimidate the petitioner."The circuit court heard two days of testimony and found that Aish's statements were intimidating and did not serve a legitimate purpose. The court issued a four-year injunction prohibiting Aish from speaking to Kindschy or going to her residence or any other premises temporarily occupied by her. Aish appealed, but the court of appeals affirmed the issuance of the injunction.The Supreme Court of Wisconsin reversed the decision of the court of appeals and remanded the case to the circuit court with instructions to vacate the injunction. The court concluded that the injunction was a content-based restriction on Aish's speech and therefore violated his First Amendment right to free speech. The court held that the injunction failed to satisfy either of the two standards required for such a restriction to comply with the First Amendment: (1) Aish's statements were not "true threats" and he did not "consciously disregard a substantial risk that his statements would be viewed as threatening violence," or (2) the injunction did not satisfy strict scrutiny, meaning it was not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest. View "Kindschy v. Aish" on Justia Law

Raynard Jackson, a prisoner at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility (WSPF), was placed in a cell without running water for five days. He alleged that Lieutenant Dane Esser, among other WSPF staff, knew that he did not have water and yet failed to turn the water on. After Jackson showed another staff member that he did not have water, the water was promptly turned on; however, he claimed Lt. Esser and other WSPF staff failed to provide him with medical care for his dehydration. Jackson filed grievances pertaining to these issues. After he exhausted his administrative remedies within the WSPF, he sued Lt. Esser and other WSPF staff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.The district court, only considering the processed grievances, and without holding an evidentiary hearing, found that Jackson had not exhausted his administrative remedies as to certain claims and defendants. Additional defendants, Nurse Beth Edge and Captain Dale Flannery, were dismissed at summary judgment, leaving only the claims against Lt. Esser for trial. The jury found for Lt. Esser on both claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed with Jackson that the district court should not have disregarded his allegedly unprocessed grievances without holding an evidentiary hearing. However, the court found no error in the district court’s conclusion that Jackson’s processed grievances did not exhaust remedies as to all his claims. The court also found no error in the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Nurse Edge or its evidentiary rulings before trial. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a hearing on the allegedly unprocessed grievances. View "Jackson v. Esser" on Justia Law

Christopher Grimes, a California state inmate, was convicted of second-degree murder. The conviction was based, in part, on statements Grimes made to an undercover jailhouse informant after he had invoked his Fifth Amendment right to counsel. Grimes appealed his conviction, arguing that his statements to the informant should have been suppressed because they were obtained in violation of his right to counsel.The California Court of Appeal affirmed Grimes' conviction. It held that the statements were admissible because law enforcement is not required to give Miranda warnings to a suspect before placing them in a jail cell with an undercover informant. This decision was based on the U.S. Supreme Court case Illinois v. Perkins, which held that the policy underlying Miranda is not implicated when a suspect makes statements to an individual they believe is a fellow inmate. Grimes' petition for review before the California Supreme Court was denied without comment.Grimes then filed a federal habeas petition, arguing that the California Court of Appeal misapplied Edwards v. Arizona, which held that law enforcement must cease custodial interrogation when a suspect invokes their right to counsel unless they subsequently waive that right. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Grimes' habeas petition. The court held that because the Supreme Court has never squarely addressed whether the Fifth Amendment precludes an undercover jailhouse informant posing as an inmate to question an incarcerated suspect who has previously invoked his right to counsel, the California Court of Appeal’s decision is not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as defined by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. View "Grimes v. Phillips" on Justia Law

The case involves two states and five individual social media users who sued several federal officials and agencies, alleging that the government pressured social media platforms to censor their speech in violation of the First Amendment. The plaintiffs' speech was related to COVID-19 and the 2020 election. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction, which was affirmed in part and reversed in part by the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit held that both the state and individual plaintiffs had standing to seek injunctive relief and that the government entities and officials, by coercing or significantly encouraging the platforms’ moderation decisions, transformed those decisions into state action.The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the Fifth Circuit's decision, holding that neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established Article III standing to seek an injunction against any defendant. The Court found that the plaintiffs' theories of standing depended on the platforms’ actions, yet the plaintiffs did not seek to enjoin the platforms from restricting any posts or accounts. Instead, they sought to enjoin the Government agencies and officials from pressuring or encouraging the platforms to suppress protected speech in the future. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs must show a substantial risk that, in the near future, at least one platform will restrict the speech of at least one plaintiff in response to the actions of at least one Government defendant. The Court found that the plaintiffs failed to meet this burden. View "Murthy v. Missouri" on Justia Law

Orthofix, Inc. and KCI USA, Inc., both Delaware corporations with principal places of business outside South Carolina, sold durable medical equipment (DME) in South Carolina and remitted the 6% sales tax without protest. However, they later requested refunds for the sales tax paid during certain periods, arguing that they should qualify for a sales tax exemption for DME paid for by Medicaid or Medicare funds. This exemption, however, was only available to sellers whose principal place of business was in South Carolina. The South Carolina Department of Revenue (DOR) denied the refund claims, stating that the companies did not meet the statutory requirements for the exemption.The companies appealed the decisions within the DOR, arguing that the exemption's limitation to in-state businesses violated the dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The DOR issued determinations finding that the companies were not entitled to a refund of sales tax paid for DME. The companies then filed actions in the circuit court challenging the constitutionality of the exemption under the dormant Commerce Clause. The circuit court granted summary judgment to each company, finding the exemption's discrimination against interstate commerce unconstitutional and severing the "principal place of business in South Carolina" requirement from the remainder of the exemption.The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's decision as modified. The court agreed that the exemption unconstitutionally discriminated against interstate commerce in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause and that the ordered refunds were appropriate. However, the court found that the companies had not satisfied their burden of proof to show the legislature would have passed the remainder of the exemption absent the unconstitutional language. Therefore, the court declined to sever only the offending language and instead declared the entire exemption void going forward. The court invited the legislature to reenact the exemption, excluding the unconstitutional limitation on a seller's principal place of business. View "Orthofix v. South Carolina Department of Revenue" on Justia Law

The case involves the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), which allocated nearly $200 billion to states and the District of Columbia to assist with economic recovery following the COVID-19 pandemic. However, to accept the funds, states had to agree not to use them to "directly or indirectly offset" reductions in state tax revenue. The states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi filed a lawsuit seeking to enjoin the enforcement of this provision, arguing that it was unconstitutionally ambiguous and violated the Spending Clause and the anticommandeering doctrine.The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the states, finding that the provision was unduly coercive and commandeered the states. It held that the amount of money at stake was too great to present the states with a real choice and that the provision unlawfully forced the states to adopt certain tax policies. The court permanently enjoined the enforcement of the provision, and the federal defendants appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the provision was impermissibly ambiguous and fell short of Congress's constitutional obligation to clearly outline the conditions for states accepting federal funding. The court held that the provision violated the Spending Clause's requirement for clarity, as it left states unable to determine the terms of the deal they were agreeing to. The court also affirmed the district court's grant of a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the provision. View "State of Texas v. Yellen" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Joseph Brian McElroy, who was charged with criminal possession of dangerous drugs with intent to distribute, a felony. The charge stemmed from a traffic stop initiated by Trooper Adams for speeding. During the stop, Trooper Adams noticed the smell of marijuana from the vehicle and observed signs of "hard travel." After verifying the driver's information and concluding that the driver was not under the influence, Trooper Adams questioned the occupants about the smell of marijuana. When they denied consent to search the vehicle, Trooper Adams deployed a canine for a sniff test, which led to the discovery of drugs and other items. McElroy filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that the traffic stop was unlawfully extended without sufficient particularized suspicion.The District Court denied McElroy's motion to suppress the evidence. The court found that Trooper Adams had sufficient particularized suspicion to conduct the canine sniff based on the smell of marijuana, signs of hard travel, the occupants' nervousness, and their somewhat differing backstories. McElroy then entered a plea agreement, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reversed the District Court's decision. The court found that Trooper Adams did not have sufficient particularized suspicion to expand the traffic stop into a drug possession investigation. The court held that factors such as signs of hard travel, traveling from a known drug center in a third-party vehicle, and nervous demeanor, even when considered together, do not constitute particularized suspicion. The court also noted that the smell of marijuana itself does not constitute particularized suspicion sufficient to conclude there could be drugs in the vehicle. Therefore, the court concluded that Trooper Adams's further questioning about the marijuana smell and subsequent use of the canine sniff were unlawful. The court reversed the District Court's order denying McElroy's motion to suppress evidence and the resulting judgment of conviction and sentence. View "State v. McElroy" on Justia Law

The case involves a group of appellants, collectively referred to as "Challengers", who appealed judgments declaring section 67.1175.1 of the Missouri Statutes constitutionally invalid. This provision, in conjunction with section 67.1177, required a political subdivision to grant public money to a private entity, which was deemed to violate article VI, section 23 of the Missouri Constitution. The circuit court attempted to rectify the constitutional invalidity by modifying section 67.1175.1. The Challengers, however, argued that despite the modification, the sections still required a political subdivision to grant public money to a private entity in violation of the constitution. They further argued that the entire statutory scheme must be struck down because the sections were not severable.The circuit court had declared section 67.1175.1 constitutionally invalid because it mandated the lake area business districts to transfer tax funds to the advisory board, a private nonprofit entity. The court modified the section by removing the phrase "which shall be a nonprofit entity". The Challengers appealed this decision, arguing that the modified sections still violated the constitution.The Supreme Court of Missouri found that the circuit court erred in modifying section 67.1175.1. The court concluded that the section, as modified, and section 67.1177, still required political subdivisions to grant public money to a private entity, violating the Missouri Constitution. The court also concluded that the void provisions were not severable from the remaining provisions of the statutory scheme. As a result, the entire statutory scheme was declared constitutionally invalid. The circuit court’s judgment was reversed, and the Supreme Court entered the judgment the circuit court should have entered, declaring sections 67.1170, 67.1175, 67.1177, and 67.1170 constitutionally invalid and void in their entireties. View "Salamun v. The Camden County Clerk" on Justia Law

The case involves Angel Landa-Arevalo, who was indicted for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine. He was tried alongside nine co-defendants. Landa-Arevalo was in pretrial confinement for 1,196 days, during which he objected to the protracted timeline and moved to sever his trial from his co-defendants to protect his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. He also requested a mental competency hearing, arguing that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated by not providing him with a second, more extensive evaluation.The district court denied his motions and proceeded with the trial. A forensic psychologist was appointed to examine Landa-Arevalo and concluded that he was competent to stand trial. The court found him competent and proceeded with sentencing.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Landa-Arevalo argued that the district court violated his Fifth Amendment rights by not ordering a second competency evaluation and his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining Landa-Arevalo's competency and denying another evaluation. The court also found that Landa-Arevalo's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was not violated, as the delays were caused by co-defendants and not the government. View "United States v. Landa-Arevalo" on Justia Law

The Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma, on behalf of the state, sought a writ of mandamus and declaratory relief against the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board and its members. The state argued that the board's contract with St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, a religious charter school, violated state and federal law and was unconstitutional. The state contended that the contract violated the Oklahoma Constitution, which mandates that all charter schools be nonsectarian in their programs, admission policies, and other operations. The state also argued that the contract violated the federal Establishment Clause, which prohibits the state from using public money for the establishment of a religious institution.The Charter School Board had approved St. Isidore's application to become an Oklahoma virtual charter school and later approved its contract for sponsorship. The contract recognized certain rights, exemptions, or entitlements applicable to St. Isidore as a religious organization under state and federal law. The contract also stated that St. Isidore had the right to freely exercise its religious beliefs and practices consistent with its religious protections.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma assumed original jurisdiction over the case. The court found that the contract violated the Oklahoma Constitution, the Oklahoma Charter Schools Act, and the federal Establishment Clause. The court held that St. Isidore, as a public charter school, was a governmental entity and a state actor. The court also held that the contract violated the Establishment Clause because it allowed for the use of state funds for the benefit and support of the Catholic church and required students to participate in religious curriculum and activities. The court granted the extraordinary and declaratory relief sought by the state and directed the Charter School Board to rescind its contract with St. Isidore. View "DRUMMOND v. OKLAHOMA STATEWIDE VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOL BOARD" on Justia Law