Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs David Moore and David Ermold sued Kim Davis, the clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for refusing to issue them a marriage license, claiming it violated their constitutional right to marry. This refusal occurred after the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Davis, citing her religious beliefs, stopped issuing all marriage licenses until the state provided her with an accommodation. Plaintiffs sought damages for the emotional distress caused by Davis's actions.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on liability, and a jury awarded them compensatory damages. Davis appealed, arguing she was entitled to qualified immunity, had defenses under the Free Exercise Clause and the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and that the evidence of emotional distress was insufficient to support the jury's award.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Davis was not entitled to qualified immunity because Obergefell clearly established the right to same-sex marriage, and Davis's actions violated that right. The court also rejected Davis's Free Exercise Clause defense, stating that the First Amendment does not protect state actions that violate constitutional rights. Additionally, the court found that Kentucky's RFRA did not apply in this case because the state was not a party to the lawsuit.The court further upheld the jury's award of damages, finding that the plaintiffs provided sufficient evidence of emotional distress. The court noted that the plaintiffs' detailed testimony about their emotional harm was corroborated and not merely conclusory. Davis's request for remittitur was not considered because it was raised for the first time in her reply brief. The Sixth Circuit thus affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. View "Ermold v. Davis" on Justia Law

A church in Washington, Cedar Park Assembly of God, challenged the state's Reproductive Parity Act (Parity Act), which mandates insurance carriers to cover all federally approved contraceptives and, if maternity care is included, abortions. The church argued that this law violated its First Amendment rights and religious autonomy because it could not find a comparable health plan that excluded abortion coverage after its insurer, Kaiser Permanente, stopped offering such a plan.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted summary judgment in favor of the state officials, Myron Kreidler and Jay Inslee, who were sued in their official capacities. The district court found that the church did not have standing to challenge the Parity Act because it could not demonstrate that its inability to obtain a suitable health plan was directly caused by the Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and vacated the district court's summary judgment, remanding with instructions to dismiss the action for lack of standing. The Ninth Circuit held that Cedar Park Assembly of God failed to establish that its injury was traceable to the Parity Act or that invalidating the Act would redress its injury. The court noted that Washington's conscientious-objection statute allows insurers to accommodate religious objections, and nothing in the Parity Act prevents insurers from offering plans that exclude abortion coverage. The court concluded that the church's injury was due to the independent decisions of insurers, not the Parity Act, and thus, the church lacked standing to sue. View "CEDAR PARK ASSEMBLY OF GOD OF KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON V. KREIDLER" on Justia Law

In Washington State, most voters cast their votes by mail, and each voter must swear under oath that they are eligible to cast that ballot. Election workers must verify that the signature on the voter’s sworn ballot declaration matches the signature on file. If the signature cannot be verified, the ballot may be challenged, and if the voter does not cure their ballot in time, their vote will not be counted. The plaintiffs argue that this signature verification process results in some lawfully cast ballots not being counted, thus violating the due process, privileges and immunities, and freedom of elections clauses of the state constitution.The trial court denied all parties' summary judgment motions and adopted the Anderson-Burdick framework to determine the level of scrutiny for the case. The court concluded that additional factual development was required and reserved ruling on whether signature verification was severable from the rest of the statutory scheme. The defendants moved to certify the trial court’s order for immediate review, which the plaintiffs did not oppose. The court certified two questions for review: the appropriate standard of judicial review for the plaintiffs’ facial challenges and whether any party is entitled to summary judgment under that standard.The Washington Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that signature verification, when coupled with the increasingly expansive cure system, does not facially violate the state constitution. The court held that the defendants are entitled to summary judgment, reversing in part, affirming in part, and remanding for entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court emphasized that the right to vote is fundamental and that the signature verification process, as part of a robust system of checks, provides both security and ease of voting. View "Vet Voice Foundation v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

Mary Mercedes was accused of animal cruelty based on evidence obtained during a warrantless search of her property. Officers visited her property multiple times after receiving complaints about the condition of her animals. During these visits, Mercedes allowed the officers to view the animals, and based on their observations, a search warrant was later issued. The officers then seized the animals, and Mercedes was charged with two counts of animal cruelty.The trial court granted Mercedes's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the property visits, ruling that the officers' consent to enter was invalid without providing Ferrier warnings, which inform individuals of their right to refuse, limit, and revoke consent. The trial court dismissed the charges due to lack of probable cause. The State appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, concluding that Ferrier warnings were not required for the search of Mercedes's outdoor property and remanded the case to determine if her consent was voluntary.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that Ferrier warnings are required only when officers seek to enter a person's home to conduct a warrantless search for evidence of a crime. Since the officers' visits to Mercedes's property were for investigative purposes and did not involve entering her home, Ferrier warnings were not necessary. The case was remanded to the trial court to determine if Mercedes's consent was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances. View "State v. Mercedes" on Justia Law

Donika Rae Gonzales was convicted in 2014 by a jury of first-degree manslaughter and aggravated assault for beating her boyfriend’s four-year-old son to death. Gonzales filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the jury district, which included residents from both Brule and Buffalo Counties, diluted the percentage of prospective Native American jurors, violating her constitutional rights. She also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for her attorney’s failure to introduce certain evidence at trial. The habeas court found that the jury district violated both federal and state constitutions and reversed her conviction without addressing the ineffective assistance claims.The Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit initially sent jury questionnaires to only Buffalo County residents, but due to an inadequate number of responses, included Brule County residents as well, based on a 2011 standing order. Gonzales agreed to hold the trial in Brule County and use a combined jury pool from both counties. The jury pool consisted of 236 jurors, with 22% Native American representation, compared to 29% in the combined population of the two counties. Gonzales appealed her conviction, but it was summarily affirmed by the South Dakota Supreme Court in 2016.The South Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the habeas court’s decision. The court held that the use of a jury district comprising Buffalo and Brule Counties did not violate the South Dakota Constitution’s requirement for a trial by a jury of the “county or district” where the offense occurred. The court also found that Gonzales failed to establish a violation of the Sixth Amendment’s fair cross-section requirement, as the absolute disparity in Native American representation was only 7%, below the constitutional threshold. Consequently, Gonzales’ ineffective assistance claims were also deemed without merit, and the order granting habeas relief was vacated. View "Gonzales v. Markland" on Justia Law

Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) operates a space launch business and a global satellite-based internet service called Starlink. In June 2022, a group of SpaceX employees sent an open letter demanding certain actions from the company and solicited support through a survey. SpaceX discharged four employees involved in the letter's distribution for violating company policies. Additional employees were later discharged for lying during a leak investigation and for unrelated performance issues. These employees filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in November 2022, alleging violations of the National Labor Relations Act.The NLRB Regional Director found merit in the claims and issued an order consolidating the employees' cases with a hearing set for March 2024. SpaceX sued the NLRB in the Southern District of Texas (SDTX) in January 2024, challenging the NLRB's structure as unconstitutional and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The NLRB moved to transfer the case to the Central District of California (CDCA), arguing improper venue. The SDTX granted the transfer motion in February 2024. SpaceX petitioned for an emergency writ of mandamus to vacate the transfer order, which was initially stayed but later denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. SpaceX argued that the district court effectively denied its motion for a preliminary injunction by failing to rule on it by May 2, 2024. The Fifth Circuit found that SpaceX did not demonstrate the "serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence" required for an immediate appeal. The court noted that participating in the administrative proceeding did not constitute irreparable harm and that the district court did not act unreasonably in waiting to resolve procedural challenges. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit dismissed SpaceX's appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Space Exploration Technologies Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

The case involves two charitable organizations, Catholic Medical Mission Board, Inc. (CMMB) and Food for the Poor, Inc. (FFP), which were issued cease and desist orders and civil penalties by the California Attorney General for allegedly overvaluing in-kind donations and making misleading statements in their solicitations. The Attorney General found that both organizations used inflated domestic market prices for donated medicines, which could not be distributed within the U.S., and misrepresented their program efficiency ratios to donors.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed the case and found that the challenged statutory provisions, sections 12591.1(b) and 12599.6(f)(2) of the Government Code, were unconstitutional as they constituted prior restraints on speech. The court vacated the civil penalties and issued permanent injunctions against the Attorney General, preventing the enforcement of these provisions. The court also reformed section 12591.1(b) by adding language to exclude violations of section 12599.6 from the Attorney General's cease and desist authority.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by granting the permanent injunctions without requiring the plaintiffs to plead and prove their entitlement to such relief. The appellate court vacated the injunctions and remanded the case to allow the plaintiffs to amend their complaints and prove their entitlement to injunctive relief. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's reformation of section 12591.1(b), allowing the Attorney General to issue cease and desist orders for violations unrelated to speech. The appellate court also vacated the postjudgment orders awarding attorney fees and directed the trial court to reconsider the fees in light of the remand. View "Catholic Medical Mission Board v. Bonta" on Justia Law

A bakery, owned by Catharine Miller, refused to sell a predesigned, plain white cake to a same-sex couple, the Rodriguez-Del Rios, for their wedding reception. The bakery's policy prohibited the sale of any preordered cake for same-sex weddings based on Miller's religious beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman. The couple ultimately obtained a similar cake from another bakery.The Civil Rights Department (CRD) filed a lawsuit against the bakery and Miller, alleging discrimination under the Unruh Civil Rights Act (UCRA). The Kern County Superior Court ruled in favor of the bakery, concluding there was no intentional discrimination and that Miller's referral of the couple to another bakery constituted full and equal access under the UCRA. The court also found that the bakery's refusal was protected by the First Amendment as both pure speech and expressive conduct.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court determined that the bakery's policy was facially discriminatory as it required a distinction in service based on the sexual orientation of the end user. The court concluded that the trial court erred in its determination that the policy was facially neutral and in its application of the intentional discrimination standard. The court also found that Miller's referral to another bakery did not satisfy the UCRA's full and equal access requirement.Regarding the First Amendment defenses, the appellate court held that the plain white cake was not pure speech or expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. The court reasoned that the cake was a generic, multi-purpose product and did not convey any particularized message about marriage. The court also upheld the UCRA's application under the federal and state Constitutions' free exercise clauses, concluding that the law is neutral and generally applicable and that there are no less restrictive means to achieve the state's compelling interest in ensuring full and equal access to goods and services irrespective of sexual orientation. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Civil Rights Dept. v. Cathy's Creations" on Justia Law

Rebecca Hartzell, a parent of children attending Dove Mountain K-CSTEM school, was banned from the school premises following an incident where she allegedly assaulted the school principal, Andrea Divijak. Hartzell claimed that she was banned in retaliation for her protected speech criticizing the school and its administration. The Marana Unified School District and Divijak argued that the ban was due to Hartzell's conduct, specifically the alleged assault.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Hartzell's procedural due process claim, her First Amendment retaliation claim against Divijak, and part of her defamation claim. The court also denied Hartzell's motion to amend her complaint to add a First Amendment theory to her procedural due process claim. At trial, the court precluded Hartzell from pursuing a Monell claim against the District based on a "final policymaker" theory and granted judgment as a matter of law in favor of the District on her First Amendment claim. The jury found in favor of Divijak on the remaining defamation claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Hartzell's "final policymaker" theory but erred in granting judgment as a matter of law on her First Amendment claim against the District. The court found that a reasonable jury could conclude that Hartzell was banned pursuant to an unconstitutional District policy prohibiting "offensive or inappropriate" speech. The court also affirmed the district court's ruling that Divijak was entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim. Additionally, the court reversed the summary judgment on Hartzell's defamation claim regarding one of the documents sent to her employer, finding it potentially defamatory. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these findings. View "HARTZELL V. MARANA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT" on Justia Law

Amber Simpson, Britney Foster, and Stephanie Olivarri, former inmates at the Linda Woodsman State Jail in Texas, filed a lawsuit in August 2020 against Joe Cisneros, a jail guard, alleging sexual abuse and harassment. They claimed violations of their Eighth Amendment rights under the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause and their Fourteenth Amendment rights under the Due Process Clause. The plaintiffs described various instances of inappropriate sexual conduct by Cisneros, including sexual comments, physical assaults, and requests for sexual favors.The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Jeffrey C. Manske in the Western District of Texas. Cisneros moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs' claims under both the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments were invalid. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment for Cisneros on the Eighth Amendment claims but denying it on the Fourteenth Amendment claims. The district court adopted this recommendation, leading Cisneros to appeal the denial of summary judgment on the Fourteenth Amendment claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Eighth Amendment, not the Fourteenth Amendment, protects inmates from abusive treatment. The court found that the plaintiffs did assert a Fourteenth Amendment claim in their initial complaint but concluded that the Eighth Amendment provides the explicit textual source of protection for prisoners, making the Fourteenth Amendment inapplicable in this context. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's ruling on the Fourteenth Amendment claim, granted summary judgment in favor of Cisneros on that claim, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Simpson v. Cisneros" on Justia Law