Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The case concerns Thomas Osadzinski, who was convicted for providing material support to a terrorist organization. In 2019, Osadzinski, a computer science student, developed a software program to facilitate the rapid duplication of terrorist propaganda videos for ISIS. He shared this program with people he believed were ISIS supporters, taught them how to use it, and used it to assemble and distribute a large collection of ISIS media. Osadzinski appealed his conviction, arguing that it violated the First Amendment because his actions constituted free expression. He also contended that he lacked fair notice that his actions violated the material-support statute.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit disagreed with Osadzinski's arguments. The court held that although Osadzinski's actions could be regarded as expressive activity, this activity was coordinated with or directed by ISIS, a known terrorist organization, and therefore was not protected by the First Amendment. The court also rejected Osadzinski's claim that he lacked fair notice that his actions violated the material-support statute. The court affirmed Osadzinski's conviction, ruling that his conduct fell outside First Amendment protection, clearly violated the material-support statute, and provided a reasonable basis for the jury to return a guilty verdict. View "USA v. Osadzinski" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Nevada addressed whether the provision under NRS 62C.200(1)(b) violates the separation of powers doctrine. This provision requires the district attorney's written approval before a juvenile court may dismiss a delinquency petition and refer a juvenile to informal supervision. The appellant, a juvenile referred to as I.S., was adjudicated a delinquent and placed on formal probation. I.S. appealed, arguing that the provision infringed upon the court's sentencing discretion, essentially granting an unconstitutional prosecutorial veto.The court concluded that I.S.'s appeal was not moot, despite the completion of his juvenile supervision, due to the presumption of collateral consequences of such an adjudication until the juvenile reaches age 18 and/or their juvenile record is sealed.On the main issue, the court held that the requirement under NRS 62C.200(1)(b) does not contravene the separation of powers doctrine. The court reasoned that this provision does not involve a sentencing decision. Rather, the court perceived it as akin to a charging decision, which is within the executive realm. The court further noted that, unlike adult courts, the juvenile court's authority is not derived from the constitution but is limited to the authority expressly prescribed to it by statute. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's order, holding that the requirement for the district attorney's written approval before a juvenile court can dismiss a petition does not violate the separation of powers doctrine. View "In re I.S." on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada dealt with the issue of the scope of a valid search warrant and its implications under the Fourth Amendment. The appellant, Deva One Smith, was convicted of two counts of possession of a visual presentation depicting sexual conduct of a person under sixteen years of age. The case centered on the validity of a search warrant that officers used to seize and conduct a forensic search of Smith's cell phone.The court clarified that under Nevada law, an affidavit may be incorporated into a warrant to establish probable cause, but that affidavit cannot expand the scope of the search and seizure permitted under the warrant's specific language. Officers must search only the places authorized on the face of the warrant. In Smith's case, the officers had a valid warrant for his residence only; however, they seized his cell phone while he was outside his residence.The court found that the imminent destruction of evidence exigency justified the seizure of the cell phone. However, no other exigent circumstance allowed for the subsequent forensic search of the cell phone. The court concluded that because officers failed to obtain a warrant to search the cell phone, the search of that device violated Smith's Fourth Amendment rights. Therefore, the district court erred in denying Smith's motion to suppress the evidence found on the phone. As a result, the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada reversed the judgment of conviction. View "Smith v. State" on Justia Law

The Maine Supreme Court considered a case where Virginia and Joel Parker, a couple who secure some of their food through hunting, challenged the constitutionality of Maine's longstanding ban on Sunday hunting. The Parkers argued that the ban conflicted with the recently enacted right-to-food amendment to the Maine Constitution, which they interpreted as including a right to hunt for food.The Superior Court had dismissed the Parkers' complaint on the grounds that it failed to state a claim. On appeal, the Maine Supreme Court held that the Parkers did present a justiciable claim for a declaratory judgment, and therefore the dismissal by the Superior Court was in error.However, on the question of the constitutionality of the Sunday hunting ban, the Maine Supreme Court found that the ban did not conflict with the right-to-food amendment. The court held that while the amendment does create a limited right to hunt for food, this right does not extend to situations where hunting is illegal. Given that the Sunday hunting ban makes hunting on Sundays illegal, the court concluded that the ban falls within the 'poaching' exception provided in the amendment. Therefore, the court ruled that the Sunday hunting ban is constitutional. The case was remanded to the Superior Court for entry of judgment declaring the challenged statute to be constitutional. View "Virginia Parker v. Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife" on Justia Law

The case revolved around Darron Mayo, who was appealing the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a hidden camera placed by police officers across his apartment door. The evidence from this camera was used to obtain a search warrant for Mayo's apartment, where police found drugs, paraphernalia, cash, a loaded pistol, and an iPhone containing incriminating photographs and videos.Mayo argued that the footage from the hidden camera violated his Fourth Amendment rights and that the search warrant was deficient after removing evidence obtained from the camera. He also contended that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, however, affirmed the decision of the District Court, ruling that the probable cause affidavit remained sufficient even when the evidence from the hidden camera was omitted.The court cited four sets of related facts supporting this conclusion. First, various drugs, a scale, and stolen handguns were found in a car associated with Mayo. Second, Mayo's fingerprints were found on a handgun magazine, and a video linked him to the vehicle. Third, during a traffic stop, Mayo gave a false name, marijuana was found in the car, and he made incriminating phone calls recorded by a police dash camera. Fourth, utilities in Mayo's name connected him to the apartment in question. These facts indicated a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found in his apartment. Therefore, the court held that the hidden camera footage was not necessary to establish probable cause. View "United States v. Mayo" on Justia Law

Three shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac sued the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and the Department of the Treasury, alleging harm from the unconstitutional removal restriction of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. Their claims were based on the premise that if President Trump had been able to remove the FHFA Director without restrictions, he would have ended a provision that, in the event of liquidation, allowed the Treasury to recover its full preference before any other shareholder. The district court dismissed the shareholders' claims, finding that they did not sufficiently demonstrate any harm.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court noted that to challenge agency action, a party must not only show that the removal restriction is unconstitutional but also that the provision caused or would cause them harm. The court found that the shareholders' assertions did not satisfy this standard. They relied heavily on a post-presidency letter from President Trump expressing his desire to have removed the FHFA Director during his presidency. The court determined that this letter did not meet the criteria of a "public statement expressing displeasure" as outlined by the Supreme Court in Collins v. Yellen. Furthermore, the court found the shareholders' circumstantial evidence of harm speculative and insufficient to state a claim for relief. Therefore, the court affirmed the dismissal of the claims. View "Bhatti v. Fed. Housing Finance Agency" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Arkansas ruled in favor of the county assessor and other similarly positioned defendants, affirming the lower court's dismissal of a lawsuit brought by Ronald and Mitzi Kimbrough. The plaintiffs, representing themselves and other similarly situated taxpayers, had argued that the county assessor's method of calculating property tax assessments for homeowners over 65 or who are disabled violated the Arkansas Constitution's Amendment 79. In their view, the amendment should freeze the assessment on a homeowner's principal residence at the time of purchase. However, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, as required by law, before taking the case to court.The Supreme Court agreed with the defendants, noting that the plaintiffs' complaint must be handled by the County Court according to the Arkansas Constitution due to its relation to county taxes. The Court held that the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust the necessary administrative remedies before bringing the case to court, which deprived the court of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court dismissed the plaintiffs' arguments about the potential policy implications of its ruling, noting that public policy is declared by the General Assembly, not the courts. Thus, the Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the case and dismissed the defendants' cross-appeal as moot. View "KIMBROUGH V. GRIEVE" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed a lower court's decision dismissing Floyd Sagely's claim that Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-73-103, which prohibits a person who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution from owning or possessing a firearm, is unconstitutional. Sagely was involuntarily committed to a mental health treatment facility in 2010, and in 2019, was charged with a misdemeanor for possessing a firearm in his car due to his previous commitment.Sagely argued that the statute violated both the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the precedent set by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen. He contended that the law treated felons and persons involuntarily committed to a mental health facility differently, as felons could petition to have their gun rights reinstated, while those who were involuntarily committed could not.The Supreme Court of Arkansas found that Sagely's equal protection claim failed because he could not demonstrate that he and persons convicted of a felony offense were similarly situated. The court stated that civil litigants like Sagely are not similarly situated to criminal defendants for equal-protection purposes. The court further held that the statute is presumptively constitutional under Supreme Court precedent. Therefore, the court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of Sagely's complaint. View "SAGELY v. HUTCHINSON" on Justia Law

This case concerns the constitutionality of several Montana election laws. The plaintiffs, a variety of political and human rights organizations, sued the Montana Secretary of State, arguing that certain election laws were unconstitutional. The challenged laws included provisions restricting absentee voting, changing voter registration deadlines, banning paid absentee ballot collection, and revising voter ID requirements.The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding that each of the challenged statutes were unconstitutional. The Court held that the laws either impermissibly interfered with or minimally burdened the right to vote, a fundamental right under the Montana Constitution. The Court applied a strict scrutiny or a middle-tier analysis, depending on the extent of the burden on the right to vote, and determined that the state failed to show that the laws were the least onerous path to a compelling state interest or were reasonable and more important than the burden on the right to vote. The Court rejected the Secretary of State's argument that the laws were necessary for administrative efficiency and to ensure the integrity, reliability, and fairness of the election process. View "Democratic Party v. Jacobsen" on Justia Law

In a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the petitioner, Terry Eugene Iversen, appealed the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Iversen had been sentenced to life without parole (LWOP) for the crime of public indecency under Oregon’s sex offender recidivism statute due to his extensive criminal history, which included prior convictions for public indecency, rape, and sodomy. Iversen argued that the LWOP sentence was grossly disproportionate to his offense, in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.The court, applying the demanding standard required by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, upheld the district court’s decision. The court found that the Oregon state court’s decision concerning Iversen’s sentence was not contrary to Supreme Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. The court considered Iversen’s extensive history of adult felony recidivism, his mental health record, his failed opportunities to reform, and the fact that he remained dangerous to others. The court also noted Oregon’s public-safety interest in incapacitating and deterring recidivist felons like Iversen.The court concluded that Iversen’s sentence did not raise an inference of gross disproportionality given the gravity of his offense and criminal history. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court’s denial of Iversen’s habeas petition. View "Iversen v. Pedro" on Justia Law