Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves Darren Tramell Hughes, who was on deferred adjudication community supervision. The State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt, alleging that Hughes had violated the terms of his supervision by committing two forgery offenses and failing to pay required fees. The hearing on the motion was conducted via Zoom due to COVID-19 restrictions. During the hearing, Hughes was muted several times when he attempted to speak. Hughes was subsequently found guilty and sentenced to ten years imprisonment.On appeal, Hughes argued that his right to be present under the Due Process Clause was violated due to his muting during the hearing. The court of appeals reversed the decision, holding that his right to be present under the Confrontation Clause was violated, even though Hughes did not raise this issue in his brief. The court of appeals found that Hughes was turned into a passive observer, unable to communicate with his counsel and participate in his own defense.The case was then brought before the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. The court agreed with the lower court's decision that Hughes's right to be present was violated. However, it clarified that the right to be present under the Due Process Clause, not the Confrontation Clause, applies in hearings on motions to adjudicate guilt. The court further explained that this right is waivable, not forfeitable, and that Hughes did not waive this right. The court concluded that the trial court's action of muting Hughes was not harmless and affected his ability to defend himself. The judgment of the court of appeals was affirmed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. View "HUGHES V. STATE OF TEXAS" on Justia Law

In this case, two candidates for state legislative offices in the 2014 general election, Joe Markley and Rob Sampson, were fined by the State Elections Enforcement Commission for violating state statutes and regulations governing campaign financing. The candidates' campaign committees had received public funding grants and published communications that criticized the then-governor, who was running for reelection. The commission found that the candidates had violated the applicable statutes and regulations by using their campaign funds to pay for communications that criticized the governor while promoting their opposition to his policies.The candidates appealed to the trial court, arguing that the statutes and regulations violated their First Amendment rights by restricting their ability to speak about other, non-opposing candidates. The trial court upheld the commission's decision, agreeing that the candidates had violated the statutes and regulations and concluding that the restrictions did not infringe on the candidates' First Amendment rights.On appeal to the Supreme Court of Connecticut, the candidates argued that the commission's enforcement of the statutes and regulations violated their First Amendment rights. The court held that the commission's enforcement of the statutes and regulations imposed an unconstitutional condition in violation of the First Amendment. The court found that the commission's enforcement of the statutes and regulations penalized the candidates for mentioning the governor's name in a manner that was not the functional equivalent of speech squarely directed at his reelection campaign. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case with direction to sustain the candidates' administrative appeal. View "Markley v. State Elections Enforcement Commission" on Justia Law

In this case, law enforcement officers responded to a drug overdose at the home of Corban Elmore. After securing the scene and prohibiting anyone from entering the house, the officers waited almost eight hours before applying for a search warrant. Once they had a warrant, they searched Elmore’s home and discovered two firearms in his bedroom. Elmore, a convicted felon, entered a conditional guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm and appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the firearms.The District Court for the District of Colorado denied Elmore's motion to suppress the firearms, finding no Fourth Amendment violation. The court determined that the officers reasonably seized Elmore’s home because they had probable cause to believe the home contained evidence of drug possession and had good reason to fear that evidence would be destroyed before they could secure a search warrant. The court also concluded that the officers acted reasonably throughout the seizure, finding it appropriate for them to prohibit anyone from entering the home and to delay obtaining a warrant so that the lead detective could focus on his investigation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that the eight-hour seizure of Elmore’s home was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the exclusionary rule required suppression of the firearms. The court found that the officers made no effort to reconcile their law-enforcement needs with Elmore’s Fourth Amendment interests in his home and extended the seizure longer than reasonably necessary to diligently secure a warrant. The court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "United States v. Elmore" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of private prisons in Arizona. The plaintiffs, the Arizona State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and two former prisoners, argued that private prisons, driven by profit, compromise safety and security and reduce programming and services. They also claimed that private prisons have a financial incentive to keep prisoners incarcerated longer by manipulating disciplinary proceedings.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed the case, leading to an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The district court held that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that private prisons violate prisoners' procedural due process rights, the Thirteenth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the NAACP had standing to bring the suit. However, it held that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that private prisons violate prisoners' procedural due process rights. The court also found that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit incarceration in a private prison, and that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that confinement in a private prison violates the Eighth Amendment. Finally, the court held that the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses do not prohibit incarceration in a private prison. View "NIELSEN V. THORNELL" on Justia Law

The case involves the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany and other entities, who provide medical insurance plans to their employees. They challenged a regulation by the Department of Financial Services, which requires New York employer health insurance policies that provide hospital, surgical, or medical expense coverage to include coverage for medically necessary abortion services. The plaintiffs argued that the exemption for "religious employers" was too narrow, violating the First Amendment rights of certain types of religiously affiliated employers who do not meet the terms of the exemption.The case began in 2016, raising a federal Free Exercise Claim that was similar to a previous case, Catholic Charities of Diocese of Albany v Serio. The lower courts dismissed the plaintiffs' complaints based on the principle of stare decisis, and the Appellate Division affirmed on the same ground. The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which remanded the case to the Appellate Division to reconsider in light of a recent decision, Fulton v Philadelphia.On remand, the Appellate Division held that Serio was still good law and affirmed its previous decision that neither the medically necessary abortion regulation nor the "religious employer" exemption as defined violated the Free Exercise Clause. The Court of Appeals agreed, stating that under Fulton, both the regulation itself and the criteria delineating a "religious employer" for the purposes of the exemption are generally applicable and do not violate the Free Exercise Clause. The court concluded that the "religious employer" exemption survives the general applicability tests delineated in Fulton, and therefore, the Appellate Division order should be affirmed. View "Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v Vullo" on Justia Law

In August 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom and the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) introduced the Blueprint for a Safer Economy, a color-coded, risk-based framework for managing restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Blueprint included restrictions on business activities, including customer capacity limitations. Plaintiffs, Central California businesses and their owners, filed suit against the Governor and others responsible for creating and enforcing the Blueprint, alleging that its creation and enforcement were unlawful. They claimed that the Governor and CDPH lacked statutory authority to implement the Blueprint, and that broadly interpreting the Emergency Services Act (ESA) and Health and Safety Code section 120140 conferred unfettered discretion on defendants to impose restrictions on businesses, violating the California Constitution’s non-delegation doctrine.The trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the Blueprint. On appeal, the court dismissed the appeal as moot because the Governor had rescinded the Blueprint. After this, the parties cross-moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted defendants’ motion and denied plaintiffs’ motion, holding that the Third District Court of Appeal’s decision in Newsom v. Superior Court (Gallagher) had rejected the same challenges to the Governor’s emergency powers that plaintiffs assert. The court entered judgment in defendants’ favor.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Fifth Appellate District affirmed the judgment. The court followed Gallagher and concluded it governs the outcome of this appeal. The court held that the ESA permitted the Governor to amend or make new laws and did not violate the constitutional separation of powers by delegating quasi-legislative power to the Governor in an emergency. The court also found that the ESA contained several safeguards on the exercise of the power, including that the Governor must terminate the state of emergency as soon as possible and that the Legislature may terminate the emergency by passing a concurrent resolution. View "Ghost Golf, Inc. v. Newsom" on Justia Law

The case involves 360 Virtual Drone Services LLC and its owner, Michael Jones, who sought to provide customers with aerial maps and 3D digital models containing measurable data. However, the North Carolina Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors argued that doing so would constitute engaging in the practice of land surveying without a license, in violation of the North Carolina Engineering and Land Surveying Act. Jones and his company sued the Board, arguing that the restriction on their ability to offer these services without first obtaining a surveyor’s license violates their First Amendment rights.The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Board. The court concluded that Jones had standing to challenge the statute based on his desire to create “two-dimensional and three-dimensional maps with geospatial data.” It also concluded that the Engineering and Land Surveying Act implicated the First Amendment. However, it found that the Act constituted “a generally applicable licensing regime that restricts the practice of surveying to those licensed” and primarily regulated conduct rather than speech, such that intermediate scrutiny applied. Finally, the court concluded that the Act survived intermediate scrutiny.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court concluded that the Act, as applied to the plaintiffs, was a regulation of professional conduct that only incidentally impacts speech. Therefore, it applied a more relaxed form of intermediate scrutiny that mandates only that the restriction be “sufficiently drawn” to protect a substantial state interest. The court found that the Act met this standard and therefore did not violate the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. View "360 Virtual Drone Services LLC v. Ritter" on Justia Law

The case involves Brandyn Lepage, who was convicted of first-degree murder on the theory of felony-murder. Lepage shot and killed Aja Pascual in her car on September 29, 2012. The police obtained call logs from the victim's phone, which showed that Lepage had called the victim shortly before her death. The police also obtained Lepage's cell phone records, including call detail records, historical cell site location information (CSLI), and ping data, without a warrant. Lepage appealed his conviction and the denial of his motion for a new trial, arguing that the police illegally obtained his cell phone records.The Superior Court Department had denied Lepage's pretrial motions to suppress the cell phone records. The court found that the police did not illegally obtain Lepage's call detail records and did not use the CSLI or ping data in the manner Lepage alleged. Lepage's motion for a new trial was also denied by the same judge who had previously denied his motions to suppress.The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Lepage's conviction of murder in the first degree and the denial of his motion for a new trial. The court concluded that Lepage did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his call detail records, and therefore the police did not need a warrant to obtain this information. The court also found that the police did not use Lepage's CSLI or ping data to secure evidence against him. Therefore, the court concluded that there was no violation of Lepage's constitutional rights. However, the court vacated Lepage's conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm and remanded for a new trial on that indictment. View "Commonwealth v. Lepage" on Justia Law

This case involves a mistaken identification by two sheriff's office investigators, Joseph Bultman and Jon Hixon, who identified George Angel Harris as the individual captured on security camera footage using a stolen debit card. Based on this identification, Hixon obtained two arrest warrants for Harris for financial transaction card fraud. Harris was arrested and held in jail for a few hours before being released. The criminal case against him was eventually dismissed.Previously, Harris filed a lawsuit against the investigators under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging they violated his Fourth Amendment rights by causing him to be falsely arrested and unlawfully detained without probable cause. The district court construed Harris' claims as ones for malicious prosecution and granted summary judgment in favor of the investigators on qualified immunity grounds.In the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Harris argued that the investigation leading to his arrest was inadequate, that the district court erred in excluding his expert's testimony about the unreasonableness of the investigation, and that Hixon's arrest affidavit was based on conclusory statements without supporting facts, making the warrants for his arrest constitutionally inadequate.The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision. It held that the investigators' mistaken identification of Harris was a reasonable mistake and did not violate Harris' Fourth Amendment rights. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Harris' expert's testimony, as it would not have been helpful to a jury. Finally, the court held that even if the arrest warrant application was insufficient, the investigators had probable cause to arrest Harris based on their own knowledge and the brief period of Harris' detention. View "Harris v. Hixon" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed a case involving a group of plaintiffs who owned properties near proposed wind turbine sites in Page County, Iowa. The plaintiffs sued the county, its board of supervisors, and county officials after the board issued a commercial wind energy permit to Shenandoah Hills Wind Project, LLC (SHW). The plaintiffs claimed that the issuance of the permit violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Iowa Constitution, Iowa Code, and county ordinances. They also claimed that county officials violated the Iowa Open Meetings Act by holding nonpublic meetings on SHW's application. The defendants removed the case to federal court based on the federal due process claim.The district court dismissed the federal due process claim for lack of prudential standing and as implausibly pleaded under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). It also dismissed the state claims as time-barred under Iowa law and implausibly pleaded under Rule 12(b)(6). After the district court's decision, the county revoked the permit. Despite the revocation, the plaintiffs appealed the district court's order.The Court of Appeals held that the county's revocation of SHW's permit mooted the plaintiffs' claims, except for their claims under the Iowa Open Meetings Act. The court affirmed the district court's exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining claims and its dismissal of them. The court vacated the remainder of the district court's order and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss the non-Open Meetings claims as moot. View "Hunter v. Page County, Iowa" on Justia Law