Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Tim Daniels, a commercial fisherman in Florida, challenged the constitutionality of regulations by Florida’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) that restrict where and how Florida-registered vessels can harvest Florida pompano in federal waters. Daniels argued that federal law preempts state regulations affecting fishing in federal waters and that Florida’s regulations violate the Equal Protection Clause by only restricting Florida-registered vessels.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted summary judgment for the FWC, concluding that Florida’s regulations do not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Supremacy Clause, the Commerce Clause, or the Equal Protection Clause. The court also determined that Daniels lacked standing to sue.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that Daniels has standing to sue because he faces a credible threat of prosecution under Florida’s regulations, which affects his commercial fishing activities. The court found that Daniels’s injury is directly traceable to Florida’s regulations and can be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.On the merits, the Eleventh Circuit held that the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act does not preempt Florida’s regulations. The court reasoned that the Act allows states to regulate fishing vessels registered under their laws in federal waters when there is no federal fishery management plan or regulations in place. The court also held that Florida’s regulations do not violate the Equal Protection Clause because they are rationally related to the legitimate governmental purpose of conserving and managing pompano stock, and the regulations only apply to Florida-registered vessels, which are within the state’s jurisdiction.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision, upholding Florida’s pompano regulations. View "Daniels v. Executive Director of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a controlled substance after a stipulated bench trial. The conviction stemmed from evidence found in a locked kitchen cabinet during a warrantless search by police officers who were investigating a gas leak in the defendant's home. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that the search was unreasonable and violated the Fourth Amendment. The trial court denied the motion, and the defendant was subsequently convicted.The Second District Appellate Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the police officers' actions were permissible under the community caretaking or emergency aid exceptions to the warrant requirement. The appellate court found that the use of a flashlight to look into the cabinet did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. One justice dissented, arguing that the use of the flashlight to peer into a locked cabinet was a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.The Supreme Court of Illinois reviewed the case and reversed the lower courts' judgments. The court held that the contraband found in the locked cabinet was not in plain view and that the police officers' actions constituted an unreasonable search. The court concluded that the use of a flashlight to look into the cabinet, which was secured with a chain and padlock, amounted to a search that was not justified by the emergency aid or community caretaking exceptions. As a result, the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence. The Supreme Court reversed the defendant's conviction and vacated his sentence. View "People v. Hagestedt" on Justia Law

In 2021, Aaron Von Ehlinger, a first-year member of the Idaho State House of Representatives, was accused of rape by J.V., a legislative intern. They had dinner together and later went to Von Ehlinger’s apartment, where J.V. alleged that he sexually assaulted her. Von Ehlinger claimed the encounter was consensual. J.V. reported the incident, and a forensic nurse, Ann Wardle, conducted a sexual assault examination, documenting J.V.'s account and collecting evidence. Von Ehlinger was charged with rape and sexual penetration by use of a foreign object.The case proceeded to trial in April 2022 in the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of Idaho. During the trial, Wardle testified about J.V.'s statements, which were admitted despite objections from Von Ehlinger’s defense on hearsay grounds. J.V. testified briefly but left the courtroom before cross-examination, leading the court to strike her testimony. The jury found Von Ehlinger guilty of rape but acquitted him of the second charge. The district court denied Von Ehlinger’s motion for acquittal or a new trial and sentenced him to 20 years in prison, with 8 years fixed.The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed the case. Von Ehlinger argued that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the admission of Wardle’s testimony and that the district court erred in allowing a leading question. The court found that Von Ehlinger failed to demonstrate that the admission of Wardle’s testimony was fundamental error, as his counsel’s failure to object could have been a tactical decision. The court also determined that any error in allowing the leading question was harmless, as Wardle did not answer the question directly. The court affirmed the judgment of conviction, concluding that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict. View "State v. Von Ehlinger" on Justia Law

LaVance LeMarr Cooper was found guilty of being a drug user in possession of a firearm after officers discovered a Glock 20 pistol in his car during a traffic stop. Cooper admitted to smoking marijuana three to four times a week, including two days before the traffic stop. He was sentenced to 37 months in prison by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.The district court, referencing the case United States v. Veasley, acknowledged that as-applied challenges to the drug-user-in-possession statute are available but concluded that Congress's decision to disarm drug users as a class left no room for individual assessments. Cooper argued that his prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) violated the Second Amendment, but the district court disagreed, maintaining that the statute applied categorically to all drug users.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that while keeping firearms out of the hands of drug users does not always violate the Second Amendment, it can in certain circumstances. The court emphasized that historical analogues, such as the confinement of the mentally ill and going-armed laws, support disarmament only when the individual poses a danger to others. The court found that the district court erred in not considering whether Cooper's marijuana use made him dangerous or induced terror.The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for a reexamination of Cooper's motion to dismiss the indictment, instructing the lower court to determine whether Cooper's specific circumstances justified disarmament under the Second Amendment. View "United States v. Cooper" on Justia Law

Keshon Baxter was charged with being an unlawful user of a controlled substance in possession of a firearm. In May 2023, police encountered Baxter in Des Moines, Iowa, and found a loaded pistol and a baggie of marijuana on him. Baxter moved to dismiss the charge, arguing that the statute under which he was charged, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), violated the Second Amendment as applied to him and was unconstitutionally vague. The district court denied his motion without a hearing, and Baxter entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving his right to appeal.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa rejected Baxter's arguments. The court found that the government had shown adequate historical analogues to reject the Second Amendment challenge and that Baxter had not demonstrated that the statute was vague as applied to his conduct. Baxter then appealed these rulings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court did not make sufficient factual findings regarding Baxter's drug use and its overlap with his firearm possession to properly address the as-applied Second Amendment challenge. Therefore, the appellate court remanded the case to the district court for the necessary factual findings. The appellate court affirmed the district court's rejection of Baxter's vagueness challenge, noting that Baxter had not shown that the term "unlawful user" was vague as applied to his conduct. The court also affirmed the rejection of any facial Second Amendment challenge, as it was foreclosed by precedent.In conclusion, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision on the vagueness and facial Second Amendment challenges, reversed the ruling on the as-applied Second Amendment challenge, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Baxter" on Justia Law

A developer purchased a historical property in Newton, Massachusetts, and began restoration work. The Newton Historical Commission issued a stop-work order, claiming the developer violated the permit by demolishing large portions of the building. The developer, 29 Greenwood, LLC, disagreed but complied with the order and submitted revised proposals, all of which were denied. The developer then filed a lawsuit, alleging a violation of the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution and state law.The case was initially filed in state court but was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The district court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the dispute was a typical zoning issue not rising to the level of a constitutional taking. The developer appealed the dismissal, arguing that the Commission acted in bad faith and would never permit the reconstruction.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that two related actions were pending in state court, which could potentially resolve or narrow the federal constitutional issues. The court decided to abstain from ruling on the federal issues until the state court proceedings concluded, invoking the Pullman abstention doctrine. The court vacated the district court's dismissal and remanded the case with instructions to stay the federal proceedings pending the outcome of the state court cases. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs. View "29 Greenwood, LLC v. City of Newton" on Justia Law

Kelly Patrick Donaldson was convicted of second-degree rape in 2005 and became subject to the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA). At that time, SORA did not prohibit sex offenders from residing near parks. The Oklahoma Legislature later amended the law to prohibit sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a city park. In 2021, Donaldson sought to live in El Reno, Oklahoma, but was informed by the police that the property he intended to purchase was within 310 feet of a city park, violating the amended residency restrictions.The District Court of Canadian County granted summary judgment in favor of Donaldson, ruling that applying the 2019 residency restrictions to him violated the ex post facto clauses of the federal and state constitutions. The court found that the version of SORA in effect at the time of Donaldson's conviction should apply, which did not include the park residency restriction.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case and reversed the lower court's decision. The court held that the residency restrictions in 57 O.S.Supp.2019, § 590(A) do not amount to punishment and therefore do not violate the ex post facto clause. The court determined that the legislative intent behind SORA was civil and regulatory, aimed at protecting the public and reducing recidivism, rather than punitive. Consequently, the current residency restrictions apply to all sex offenders, regardless of when they became subject to SORA. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine whether Lake El Reno qualifies as a park under the statute and if the property in question falls within the restricted area. View "DONALDSON v. CITY OF EL RENO" on Justia Law

The case involves three consolidated appeals concerning the constitutionality of the Child Victims Act of 2023, which retroactively eliminated the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse claims. The plaintiffs, who are alleged survivors of childhood sexual abuse, filed lawsuits against various institutions, including the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington, the Board of Education of Harford County, and The Key School, Inc. The defendants argued that the 2023 Act unconstitutionally abrogated their vested rights by reviving claims that were previously time-barred.In the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, the court denied the Archbishop’s motion to dismiss, determining that the relevant statute was a statute of limitations, not a statute of repose, and thus did not create vested rights. The Circuit Court for Harford County reached a similar conclusion regarding the Board of Education of Harford County. In the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, the court certified the question of the 2023 Act’s constitutionality to the Supreme Court of Maryland without ruling on The Key School’s motion to dismiss.The Supreme Court of Maryland held that the 2017 statute, which the 2023 Act amended, was a statute of limitations rather than a statute of repose. The court reasoned that the statute of limitations is a procedural device that does not create vested rights, whereas a statute of repose creates substantive rights that cannot be retroactively abrogated. The court concluded that the 2023 Act did not retroactively abrogate vested rights and was constitutional as applied to the defendants. The court applied heightened rational basis review and found that the 2023 Act bore a real and substantial relation to addressing the problem of delayed reporting of child sexual abuse and the need for justice for survivors. The judgments of the lower courts were affirmed, and the certified question was answered in the negative. View "Archbishop of Washington v. Doe" on Justia Law

Rhonda Fleming, an inmate at Federal Correctional Institution Tallahassee (FCIT), filed a pro se lawsuit against Warden Erica Strong and the United States, alleging Eighth Amendment violations due to her exposure to mold, asbestos, and COVID-19, which she claimed caused severe health issues. Fleming sought injunctive relief and damages under Bivens and the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). She alleged that despite her complaints, the prison officials, including Warden Strong, failed to address the hazardous conditions, leading to her contracting COVID-19 twice and requiring hospitalization.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida partially granted and partially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. The magistrate judge recommended dismissing most of Fleming's claims, including all claims against Strong, citing that Bivens did not provide a remedy for her Eighth Amendment claim. However, the district court disagreed, finding that Fleming's Eighth Amendment claim was similar to a previously recognized Bivens claim and allowed it to proceed. The district court did not address the issue of qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court had to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal from the district court's order recognizing a Bivens cause of action. The Eleventh Circuit joined four other circuits in holding that the collateral-order doctrine does not extend to Bivens-extension orders that do not address qualified immunity. The court emphasized that qualified immunity adequately protects government officials from the burdens of litigation and that separation-of-powers concerns with Bivens extensions do not justify immediate appeal. Consequently, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Fleming v. FCI Tallahassee Warden" on Justia Law

Corrigan Clay, an American citizen, pleaded guilty to sexually abusing his minor adopted daughter while living in Haiti, violating 18 U.S.C. § 2423(c). Clay argued that Congress lacked the power to enact § 2423(c), which criminalizes illicit sexual conduct by U.S. citizens abroad. He contended that his non-commercial conduct did not fall under Congress's authority to regulate foreign commerce or its treaty power.The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied Clay's motion to dismiss the indictment, ruling that § 2423(c) was a constitutional exercise of Congress's power to regulate the channels of foreign commerce. The court did not address the treaty power arguments. Clay then pleaded guilty without a plea agreement and was sentenced to 235 months' imprisonment, the bottom of the Sentencing Guidelines range. He appealed, challenging the constitutionality of § 2423(c) and the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and upheld the District Court's decision. The Third Circuit held that § 2423(c) is a permissible exercise of congressional power under both the Foreign Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. The court reasoned that Congress has broader authority to regulate foreign commerce than interstate commerce, and § 2423(c) fits within this power as it regulates the channels of foreign commerce and activities that substantially affect foreign commerce. Additionally, the court found that § 2423(c) is rationally related to implementing the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution, and Child Pornography, thus falling under the Necessary and Proper Clause.The Third Circuit also found no procedural or substantive errors in Clay's sentencing, affirming the District Court's judgment. The court concluded that the sentence was reasonable and appropriately reflected the seriousness of the offense, the need for just punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. View "USA v. Clay" on Justia Law