Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves three defendants, Saturnino Andre Lopez-Cardona, Wilmer Mendez, and Gerson Suruy, who were charged with crimes related to the stabbing death of Lucas Andres Cruz-Guzman. Each defendant filed pretrial motions to suppress statements they made during separate interviews with the same police officer. The trial court granted their motions, concluding that the defendants did not voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waive their rights under Miranda v. Arizona before they made the statements. The State appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court's conclusion regarding Lopez-Cardona’s and Mendez’s statements was incorrect and should be reversed. However, the State conceded that the trial court properly suppressed Suruy’s statement.The trial court had found that the defendants did not audibly answer when asked if they understood their rights, and that neither defendant was asked if they waived their rights or wanted to talk to the police. The court also noted that there was evidence of potential mistakes in the translation of the Miranda rights, but did not make specific findings on this point.The Supreme Court of Georgia vacated the trial court's orders suppressing Lopez-Cardona’s and Mendez’s statements and remanded the case back to the trial court for further, specific findings. The court held that the trial court's findings were not sufficiently detailed to permit meaningful review of its rulings suppressing Lopez-Cardona’s and Mendez’s statements. However, the court affirmed the trial court's order suppressing Suruy’s statement, deferring to the State’s discretion not to challenge that order. View "THE STATE v. LOPEZ-CARDONA" on Justia Law

Rachel Hostetler was convicted of a misdemeanor count of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and sentenced to 12 months in prison with 48 hours to serve. During her probation, she was involved in a single-vehicle collision and was charged with another count of DUI. She was convicted and sentenced to 12 months in prison with 48 hours to serve, but her sentence was suspended pending her appeal. Her motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. Hostetler then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that her former counsel was constitutionally ineffective. However, before the habeas court ruled on her petition, she completed her sentence and the habeas court dismissed her petition as moot.The Supreme Court of Georgia granted Hostetler’s application for a certificate of probable cause to appeal the dismissal of her petition. The court was tasked with determining whether she continues to suffer from adverse collateral consequences of her challenged conviction, notwithstanding the completion of her sentence. The court concluded that Hostetler’s petition is not moot, as she could potentially receive an enhanced recidivist sentence for a subsequent DUI conviction, which constitutes an adverse collateral consequence of her conviction and a restraint on her liberty. The court vacated the order of the habeas court and remanded for further proceedings. View "HOSTETLER v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Marcos Mendez was stopped for inspection at O'Hare International Airport after returning from a trip abroad. Customs agents, who had been alerted to Mendez due to his arrest record and travel history, searched his cell phone and found child pornography. Mendez was subsequently indicted on multiple counts related to child pornography. He moved to suppress the evidence found on his phone, arguing that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights as it was conducted without a warrant, probable cause, or reasonable suspicion.The district court denied Mendez's motion to suppress the evidence, ruling that the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment as customs agents had reasonable suspicion to look through Mendez's phone. Mendez pleaded guilty to one count of producing child pornography but preserved his right to appeal the district court's ruling on the suppression motion.In the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Mendez argued that the Supreme Court's decisions in Riley v. California and Carpenter v. United States required a warrant, probable cause, or at least reasonable suspicion for the searches of his phone. The Court of Appeals disagreed, noting that searches at borders do not require a warrant or probable cause. The court held that the routine, manual search of Mendez's phone required no individualized suspicion. The court affirmed the district court's decision, joining the uniform view of other circuits that searches of electronics at the border do not require a warrant or probable cause. View "United States v. Mendez" on Justia Law

The case involves Marshall and Tiffany Todman, who were evicted from their rental property in Baltimore. According to the Baltimore City Code, any personal property left in or around the premises after eviction is immediately considered abandoned, and the landlord takes ownership. The Todmans were evicted earlier than expected and lost their belongings under this ordinance. They sued the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, alleging that the city had deprived them of their personal property without due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the Todmans.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the Todmans were owed more process than they received and that the city was responsible for that failure of process. The court held that the city's Abandonment Ordinance violated the Todmans' constitutional rights by depriving them of their property without due process of law and that the city is liable for that violation. The court also dismissed the Todmans' conditional cross-appeal, which asked the court to review the district court's dismissal of their takings claim if the court found their due process claims lacked merit. View "Todman v. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore" on Justia Law

The case involves Scott Johnson, Harlene Hoyt, and Covey Find Kennel, LLC, who challenged the constitutionality of a Kansas statute that allows warrantless inspections of their homestead, where Mr. Johnson operates a business that houses and trains bird dogs. They also claimed that their constitutional right to travel was infringed by a statutory requirement that they make the premises available for inspection within 30 minutes of the arrival of an inspector. The United States District Court for the District of Kansas dismissed their complaint for failure to state a claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of their right-to-travel claim but remanded for further proceedings to determine whether Mr. Johnson’s business is closely regulated and, if so, whether warrantless inspections are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The court found that the boarding or training kennel industry was not clearly closely regulated, and the government had not shown that warrantless searches were necessary. The court also held that the regulations did not impose burdens beyond those commonly borne by owners of businesses who travel away from the locations of their businesses, and thus did not violate the plaintiffs' right to travel. View "Johnson v. Smith" on Justia Law

A minor, L.M., represented by his father and stepmother, sued the Town of Middleborough, Massachusetts, the Middleborough School Committee, and various school officials, alleging that his First Amendment rights were violated when he was prohibited from wearing a t-shirt that read "There Are Only Two Genders" at his public middle school. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied L.M.'s motion for a preliminary injunction and granted final judgment in favor of the defendants.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the District Court's rulings. The Court of Appeals held that the school officials reasonably interpreted the message on L.M.'s t-shirt as demeaning to the gender identities of other students. The court also found that the school officials reasonably forecasted that the t-shirt's message would negatively affect the psychology of students with the demeaned gender identities and disrupt the learning environment. The court concluded that the school's actions were permissible under the "material disruption" limitation of the Supreme Court's decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which allows schools to regulate student speech that materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder.The Court of Appeals also rejected L.M.'s facial challenges to the school's dress code, finding that he lacked standing to challenge one provision and that the other provision was not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. View "L. M. v. Town of Middleborough, Massachusetts" on Justia Law

In March 2020, Idaho enacted the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, a law that categorically bans transgender women and girls from participating in women's student athletics. The Act also provides a sex dispute verification process, which allows any individual to dispute the sex of any student athlete participating in female athletics in the State of Idaho and require her to undergo intrusive medical procedures to verify her sex. Lindsay Hecox, a transgender woman who wished to try out for the Boise State University women’s track and cross-country teams, and Jane Doe, a cisgender woman who played on high school varsity teams and feared that her sex would be disputed under the Act due to her masculine presentation, filed a lawsuit against the Act.The United States District Court for the District of Idaho granted a preliminary injunction against the Act, holding that it likely violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court found that the Act subjects only students who wish to participate in female athletic competitions to an intrusive sex verification process and categorically bans transgender girls and women at all levels from competing on female teams. The court also found that the State of Idaho failed to provide any evidence demonstrating that the Act is substantially related to its asserted interests in sex equality and opportunity for women athletes.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the Act likely violates the Equal Protection Clause. The court found that the Act discriminates on the basis of transgender status and sex, and that it is not substantially related to its stated goals of equal participation and opportunities for women athletes. The court remanded the case to the district court to reconsider the appropriate scope of injunctive relief. View "Hecox v. Little" on Justia Law

The case involves Dorian McMullen, who was found by police in a high-crime neighborhood, sitting in his car with his legs sticking out the open door. As police approached in an unmarked vehicle, they observed McMullen reaching for something on the car's floorboard, which they suspected to be a gun. McMullen exited his car and engaged in a brief conversation with the police, during which he allegedly admitted to having a gun and crack cocaine in his car. The police then searched the car, finding a loaded pistol and narcotics. McMullen was arrested and later charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm.McMullen moved to suppress the gun evidence, arguing that it was seized in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court denied the motion, finding that the police had reasonable suspicion to temporarily stop and question McMullen, based on factors such as the high-crime neighborhood, proximity to a gang member's car, and McMullen's reaching motion towards the car's floorboard. The court also found that the police lawfully frisked McMullen and searched his car due to officer-safety concerns. McMullen pleaded guilty and appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the police had a valid basis for initiating a Terry stop, considering the totality of the circumstances. The court also found that the police took reasonable protective measures during the stop, including searching McMullen's car, which did not violate his constitutional rights. The court rejected McMullen's argument that the gun in his car was not immediately accessible to him at the time of the search, stating that a weapon is not necessarily inaccessible just because it is temporarily behind a closed door. View "United States v. McMullen" on Justia Law

Seattle Pacific University (SPU), a religious institution, filed a lawsuit against the Washington Attorney General, alleging First Amendment violations arising from the Attorney General's investigation into the university's employment policies and history under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). SPU prohibits employees from engaging in same-sex intercourse and marriage. After receiving complaints, the Attorney General requested documents related to SPU's employment policies, employee complaints, and job descriptions. SPU sought to enjoin the investigation and any future enforcement of WLAD.The district court dismissed the suit, citing lack of redressability and Younger abstention. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court held that SPU failed to allege a cognizable injury for its retrospective claims, as the Attorney General's request for documents carried no penalties for non-compliance. However, the court found that SPU had standing for its prospective pre-enforcement injury claims, as SPU intended to continue employment practices arguably proscribed by WLAD, the Attorney General had not disavowed its intent to investigate and enforce WLAD against SPU, and SPU's injury was redressable. The court also held that Younger abstention was not warranted as there were no ongoing enforcement actions or any court judgment. The case was remanded to the district court to consider prudential ripeness. View "SEATTLE PACIFIC UNIVERSITY V. FERGUSON" on Justia Law

In 2001, the defendant was charged with aggravated domestic assault after shaking his five-week-old daughter, causing her severe neurological injuries. He pleaded nolo contendere to the charge and served ten years of a fifteen-year maximum sentence. The victim was placed in foster care, later adopted, and died in 2016, at age fifteen, from complications resulting from the injuries she received as an infant. In 2022, the State charged the defendant with second-degree murder relating to the victim's death. The defendant moved to dismiss the charge, claiming that the prosecution was barred by the common-law year-and-a-day rule, the Double Jeopardy Clause, and his plea agreement. The trial court dismissed the murder charge based on the year-and-a-day rule.The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision, abrogating the common-law year-and-a-day rule, which stated that no defendant could be convicted of murder unless the victim had died by the defendant’s act within a year and a day of the act. The court concluded that the justifications for the rule were no longer relevant due to advances in medical science and changes in the law. The court also held that the abrogation of the rule applied retroactively to the defendant's case. The court further found that the prosecution was not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause or the defendant's plea agreement. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "State v. Roberts" on Justia Law