Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

A man living in Muncie, Indiana, was charged with supplying another individual with counterfeit oxycodone pills (M30s) containing fentanyl, which were then sold to a seventeen-year-old who died from a fentanyl and cocaine overdose. The accused regularly sold M30s to the intermediary, who also obtained such pills from other sources. After the fatal incident, police recovered part of an M30 pill from the victim’s nightstand. During the investigation, the intermediary initially told police that the accused was the supplier of the fatal pills but later recanted, identifying another supplier. The State, planning to use the intermediary’s testimony, withdrew its immunity offer when the intermediary changed his account and decided not to call him as a witness, knowing he would invoke his right against self-incrimination.At the bench trial in Delaware Circuit Court, the prosecution introduced, over objection, the intermediary’s prior statement to police implicating the accused, but the defense was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the intermediary. The court found the accused guilty of multiple charges, including a Level 1 felony for aiding in dealing a controlled substance resulting in death. On appeal, the accused challenged the Level 1 felony conviction, arguing a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witness. The State conceded this violation but argued that the error was harmless. The Indiana Court of Appeals agreed with the State and affirmed the conviction.The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and reviewed whether the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court concluded that the admission of the statement was not harmless, as it was the only direct, non-cumulative, and uncorroborated evidence linking the accused to the fatal pills, and the defense was denied cross-examination. The court vacated the Level 1 felony conviction and remanded for a new trial on that charge. View "Taylor v. State of Indiana" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs in this case are mental health counselors who provide “talk therapy” services, including counseling to minors, guided by their Catholic faith. Their services consist exclusively of spoken words, and they do not use physical or aversive techniques. Some of their clients, including minors with parental consent, seek counseling to address issues related to gender identity or sexual orientation, such as wanting to align their gender identity with their biological sex or to reduce same-sex attraction in accordance with their religious beliefs. The plaintiffs assert an ethical and religious duty to help clients pursue such goals if requested.In 2023, Michigan enacted laws forbidding licensed therapists from engaging in “conversion therapy” with minors, defined as efforts to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, but specifically permitting counseling that assists with gender transition. The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, seeking a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of these laws, arguing that the prohibition restricts their speech based on its content and viewpoint in violation of the First Amendment. The district court denied the motion, reasoning that the counseling in question was conduct, not speech, for constitutional purposes.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that the plaintiffs had standing and disagreed with the district court’s characterization of the therapy as conduct rather than speech. The court held that the Michigan law is a content- and viewpoint-based restriction on speech and is therefore subject to strict scrutiny under the First Amendment. The court determined that the State did not demonstrate a sufficient justification for the restriction, and that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction and remanded for prompt entry of an injunction preventing enforcement of the law during the case. View "Catholic Charities of Jackson v. Whitmer" on Justia Law

Luther Poynter was incarcerated at the Barren County Detention Center in Kentucky for contempt of court related to unpaid child support. After a brief period in COVID-19 observation, he was moved to a general-population cell with two other detainees, Scotty Wix and Timothy Guess. Both Wix and Guess had extensive histories of violent behavior and multiple documented assaults against other detainees while in the facility. Shortly after Poynter entered the cell, Guess and Wix attacked him without apparent provocation, causing a traumatic brain injury and lasting physical impairment.The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky reviewed the case after Poynter, through his guardian, sued the jailer and Barren County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deliberate indifference to his safety in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment to the county, concluding there was insufficient evidence of a constitutional violation or municipal liability, and held that Poynter had not shown he was placed at a substantial risk of harm or that reasonable steps were not taken to abate that risk.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that Poynter had presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that Barren County had a custom of failing to properly classify detainees with violent histories, recklessly disregarded a known risk, and that this failure caused Poynter’s injuries. The Sixth Circuit clarified that municipal liability can attach even without identifying a specific individual as the violator, so long as the unconstitutional harm resulted from a municipal policy or custom. The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Poynter v. Bennett" on Justia Law

Disney Platform Distribution, BAMTech, and Hulu, subsidiaries of the Walt Disney Company, provide video streaming services to subscribers in the City of Santa Barbara. In 2022, the City’s Tax Administrator notified these companies that they had failed to collect and remit video users’ taxes under Ordinance 5471 for the period January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2020, resulting in substantial assessments. The companies appealed to the City Administrator, and a retired Associate Justice served as hearing officer, ultimately upholding the Tax Administrator’s decision.Following the administrative appeal, the companies sought judicial review by filing a petition for a writ of administrative mandate in the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County. The trial court denied their petition, finding that the Ordinance does apply to video streaming services and rejecting arguments that the Ordinance violated the Internet Tax Freedom Act, the First Amendment, and Article XIII C of the California Constitution. The trial court also found there was no violation of Public Utilities Code section 799’s notice requirements, as the City’s actions did not constitute a change in the tax base or adoption of a new tax.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court held that the Ordinance applies to video streaming services, interpreting the term “channel” in its ordinary, non-technical sense and finding that the voters intended technological neutrality. The court further held that the Ordinance does not violate the Internet Tax Freedom Act because video streaming subscriptions and DVD sales/rentals are not “similar” under the Act. Additionally, the court concluded the tax is not a content-based regulation of speech under the First Amendment, and that delayed enforcement did not constitute a tax increase requiring additional voter approval or notice under the California Constitution or Public Utilities Code section 799. View "Disney Platform Distribution v. City of Santa Barbara" on Justia Law

A nonprofit organization that publishes content critical of United States immigration policy was issued a subpoena by the New York Attorney General’s office seeking documents related to its governance, finances, and relationships with vendors and contractors. The organization alleged that the subpoena was motivated by a desire to suppress its viewpoints and thus violated its rights under the First Amendment and the New York State Constitution. The Attorney General, however, maintained that the investigation was prompted by concerns about possible self-dealing and regulatory noncompliance.After the subpoena was issued, the nonprofit partially responded but maintained objections. It then filed a federal lawsuit seeking damages and an injunction against enforcement of the subpoena, claiming the subpoena was retaliatory and unconstitutional. Shortly thereafter, the Attorney General initiated a special proceeding in New York State Supreme Court to compel compliance. The organization moved to dismiss or stay the state proceeding, raising constitutional arguments. The state court ruled against the nonprofit, ordering compliance with the subpoena (with some redactions allowed), and the New York Appellate Division, First Department affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals dismissed a further appeal.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York denied the nonprofit’s request for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the federal claims, holding that they were precluded by the earlier state court judgment under the doctrine of res judicata. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the state court’s decision was final and on the merits, involved the same parties and subject matter, and therefore barred the federal claims. The court also dismissed as moot the appeal of the denial of preliminary injunctive relief. View "VDARE Foundation, Inc. v. James" on Justia Law

A man was originally convicted of felony burglary for breaking into a bar in Montana and received a twenty-year prison sentence with five years suspended. After serving time and being released, he began the suspended portion of his sentence. The State later filed a petition to revoke his suspended sentence based on several alleged probation violations, including failing to register as a sex offender. While represented by counsel, he admitted to the failure-to-register allegation, and the court set a dispositional hearing to determine the consequences.The Montana Ninth Judicial District Court presided over the revocation proceeding. At the dispositional hearing, the man appeared without counsel after his attempts to retain private counsel failed and after his appointed counsel was allowed to withdraw. He requested reappointment of a public defender but none was assigned before the hearing. The court conducted no inquiry into whether he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel and proceeded with resentencing him to five years in prison. The man appealed, arguing he was denied his right to counsel at a critical stage and that he did not waive that right.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana held that the district court erred by conducting the dispositional hearing and resentencing without counsel and without a valid waiver of the right to counsel. The Court found this to be a structural error requiring automatic reversal, noting the man’s consistent efforts to obtain representation and the absence of any meaningful waiver inquiry. The Court vacated the dispositional order and remanded for a new hearing at which the man must be represented or must validly waive representation. The Court declined to resolve his request to withdraw his earlier admission, leaving it for further proceedings if appropriate. View "State v. Lambert" on Justia Law

A group of Oklahoma taxpayers, parents of public school children, teachers, and clergy challenged the adoption of the 2025 Oklahoma Academic Standards for Social Studies. They argued that the new standards promoted Christianity over other religions, required teaching religious stories as historical fact, and included instructions to question the legitimacy of the 2020 Presidential Election and the origins of COVID-19. The petitioners claimed these standards violated state statutes, the Oklahoma Constitution, and their rights as parents and citizens. They further alleged that the procedure used to adopt the standards violated the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act, as the public and several Board members received the final version less than twenty-four hours before the Board meeting where the standards were approved.No lower court reviewed this case prior to the current proceeding. The petitioners brought their claims directly to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma by seeking original jurisdiction, requesting declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief, and a stay of enforcement. The Supreme Court previously issued a temporary stay to prevent the implementation of the 2025 Standards while considering the matter.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma assumed original jurisdiction due to the statewide importance and urgency of the controversy. The Court held that the 2025 Oklahoma Academic Standards for Social Studies were adopted in violation of the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act, specifically because the public and Board members did not receive proper notice of the content to be considered and acted upon. The Court determined that legislative “deemed approval” did not cure this procedural violation. As a result, the Court declared the 2025 Standards unenforceable, dissolved the earlier stay, and reinstated the 2019 standards until new standards are properly adopted and reviewed. The request for mandamus relief was withheld without prejudice. View "RANDALL v. FIELDS" on Justia Law

In this case, an individual attended the 2022 Kentucky Derby in Louisville, Kentucky, with a group to engage in expressive activities such as preaching, distributing literature, and displaying signs near the event. The area surrounding Churchill Downs was subject to a special event permit issued by the city government, which allowed Churchill Downs to restrict access to certain public streets and sidewalks to ticket holders and credentialed individuals. The plaintiff and his group entered a fenced-off, restricted area beyond posted “No Trespassing” signs, despite lacking event tickets or credentials. After repeated warnings from private security and law enforcement, the plaintiff was arrested by a Kentucky State Police trooper for criminal trespass.The plaintiff filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his free speech, free exercise, and due process rights, as well as a Monell municipal liability claim against the city government and claims against the arresting officer. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims. It found the free speech restriction content-neutral and justified under intermediate scrutiny, concluded the free exercise claim was not properly developed, determined the permitting scheme was not unconstitutionally vague, dismissed the Monell claim for lack of an underlying constitutional violation, and granted qualified immunity to the arresting officer.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the restricted area was a limited public forum and the ticketing and access restrictions were content-neutral and survived intermediate scrutiny. The court found no evidence of viewpoint discrimination, held that ample alternative channels for communication existed, and determined that the plaintiff failed to preserve his free exercise claim and did not establish a due process violation. The Monell claim failed for lack of a constitutional violation, and qualified immunity was properly granted to the officer. View "Blankenship v. Louisville-Jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov't" on Justia Law

The plaintiff claimed that Michigan had taken custody of between $200 and $600 in unclaimed property belonging to her. She alleged that, under Michigan’s Uniform Unclaimed Property Act, the state would return her property if she requested it but would not pay her any interest earned while the property was in the state’s custody, unless the property was originally interest bearing. Without first submitting a claim to reclaim her property, she brought a suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials responsible for Michigan’s unclaimed property program, arguing that the state’s failure to pay interest amounted to an unconstitutional taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment. She sought declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of herself and a putative class.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed her case, concluding that she lacked Article III standing because Michigan law did not grant her a property right to interest earned on her unclaimed property. The district court reasoned that, without such a property right, she could not demonstrate an injury from the state’s retention of interest.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that the plaintiff had standing, as her complaint alleged a concrete financial injury: the state’s withholding of interest that she claimed was rightfully hers. The court held that the district court improperly conflated the merits of whether she was entitled to interest with the standing inquiry. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal for lack of standing and remanded for further proceedings, emphasizing that the record was insufficient to resolve the merits of the takings claim at this stage. View "Hendershot v. Stanton" on Justia Law

TwinSpires, an Oregon-based electronic wagering platform, facilitates interstate betting on horseraces. Under the federal Interstate Horseracing Act (IHA), such betting is lawful if the operator obtains consent from both the state where the bet is accepted and the state where the race occurs, as well as the relevant racetrack. Michigan, however, enacted a law requiring additional state-specific licensing for platforms like TwinSpires to accept bets from Michigan residents. After TwinSpires partnered with Michigan’s only racetrack and obtained the requisite license, its license was suspended when the racetrack temporarily lost its own license. Even after the racetrack’s license was restored, Michigan maintained the suspension of TwinSpires’ license, prompting the company to sue, arguing that Michigan’s requirements conflicted with the IHA.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan granted a preliminary injunction, preventing Michigan from enforcing its licensing requirements against TwinSpires. The district court found that the IHA preempted Michigan’s additional licensing regime, concluding that TwinSpires was likely to succeed on the merits of its preemption claim and that other injunction factors favored TwinSpires.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion, applying de novo review to legal conclusions and clear error review to factual findings. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order, holding that the IHA conflict-preempts Michigan’s licensing requirement for interstate wagering platforms. The court concluded that Michigan’s law imposed an additional regulatory hurdle beyond what the IHA requires, interfering with the federal scheme and frustrating Congress’s intended objectives. The court also found that the remaining factors for a preliminary injunction—irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest—favored TwinSpires. View "Churchill Downs Tech. Initiatives Co. v. Mich. Gaming Control Bd." on Justia Law