Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Iowa enacted Senate File 2340, which criminalizes the presence of aliens who have illegally reentered the United States within its boundaries. The Act mandates that aliens violating it must return to the country they reentered from and prohibits judges from abating state prosecutions due to pending or possible federal determinations of the alien’s immigration status. The United States sought a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the Act, which the district court granted. Iowa appealed the decision.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa ruled that the United States had standing to sue and could state a cause of action to enjoin the Act. The court found that the United States established a likelihood of success on the merits, showing that federal immigration law preempts the Act under both conflict and field preemption. The court also found that irreparable harm would occur if the Act went into effect and that the balance of equities and public interest favored granting the injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion, examining factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the United States had standing and an equitable cause of action to enjoin the Act. The court found that the Act likely conflicts with federal immigration law, as it obstructs the discretion of federal officials and creates a parallel enforcement scheme. The court also agreed that the United States demonstrated irreparable harm and that the balance of equities and public interest favored the injunction. The preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the Act was affirmed. View "United States v. State of Iowa" on Justia Law

An officer on patrol stopped a vehicle for a traffic infraction after receiving information that the vehicle’s occupants might have been involved in a drug sale. After initially interacting with the driver, the officer waited for backup before removing the occupants and conducting a search with a drug-sniffing dog, which led to the discovery of a gun. The passenger, Tyre Brown, admitted ownership of the gun and was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm. Brown argued that the officer unlawfully prolonged the stop beyond the time necessary to address the traffic infraction, violating his constitutional rights.The Iowa District Court for Polk County denied Brown’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search. Brown was found guilty after stipulating to a trial on the minutes of testimony. Brown appealed the denial of his motion to suppress, and the Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling. The court of appeals concluded that the extension of the stop was permissible under the shared-knowledge doctrine and that the officer had smelled marijuana, justifying further investigation.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that the shared-knowledge doctrine allowed the officer to act on information provided by another officer who had observed a potential drug transaction, thus justifying the extension of the stop. The court found that the extension of the stop to investigate for drugs did not violate Brown’s constitutional rights. Consequently, the district court’s ruling denying Brown’s motion to suppress was affirmed. View "State of Iowa v. Brown" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a class of individuals, filed mortgage foreclosure complaints in Illinois circuit courts and paid "add-on" filing fees mandated by section 15-1504.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. They challenged the constitutionality of these fees, asserting that the statute violated the free access clause of the Illinois Constitution. The Illinois Supreme Court previously agreed, declaring the statute unconstitutional and affirming an injunction against its enforcement.The Will County circuit court initially certified the class and granted partial summary judgment, finding the statute unconstitutional. The appellate court reversed, and the case was remanded. On remand, plaintiffs pursued a refund of the fees. The circuit court dismissed the refund claim, citing sovereign immunity, which bars claims against the State. The appellate court reversed, holding that the circuit court had jurisdiction under the officer-suit exception to sovereign immunity, which allows suits against state officials for unconstitutional actions.The Illinois Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that while the officer-suit exception allowed the circuit court to enjoin the enforcement of the unconstitutional statute, it did not apply to the refund claim. The court determined that the refund claim was a retrospective monetary award to redress a past wrong, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, not the circuit court. Consequently, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's judgment and affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of the refund claim. View "Walker v. Chasteen" on Justia Law

In 1999, Sedrick White, then 20 years old, entered a blind guilty plea to one count of first-degree murder and was sentenced to 40 years in prison by the Cook County circuit court. Over 20 years later, White filed a pro se petition for postjudgment relief under section 2-1401(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure, arguing that his 40-year sentence constituted a de facto life sentence in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution. The circuit court denied the petition, stating that the sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment or the proportionate penalties clause.White appealed the circuit court's decision, arguing that his 40-year sentence violated the proportionate penalties clause. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's decision, holding that White's guilty plea waived any potential constitutional claim regarding his sentence. The appellate court also found that the circuit court did not err in failing to recharacterize White's section 2-1401 petition as a petition under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act.The Supreme Court of Illinois reviewed the case and agreed with the parties that White's blind guilty plea did not waive his constitutional challenge to his sentence. The court clarified that a defendant who enters a blind guilty plea, with no agreement as to the sentence, does not waive the right to challenge the sentence. However, the court found that White's 40-year sentence was not a de facto life sentence and was not "wholly disproportionate to the offense as to shock the moral sense of the community." The court concluded that White failed to state a meritorious claim that his sentence violated the proportionate penalties clause and affirmed the judgments of the appellate court and the circuit court. View "People v. White" on Justia Law

Chad R. Clausen was charged with violating Nebraska’s Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) after an investigation revealed he had been intermittently staying at his fiancé’s house without notifying authorities. Clausen was registered under SORA at an address in Douglas County, Nebraska, but law enforcement received an anonymous tip that he was residing at a Washington County address. Evidence showed that Clausen had been staying at his fiancé’s residence in Washington County for several months. Clausen admitted to staying there for three days and then returning to his registered address for three days. The district court found Clausen guilty of violating SORA, determining that he had established a habitual living location and temporary domicile at his fiancé’s house without registering.Clausen appealed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals, arguing that the State failed to prove he established a habitual living location or temporary domicile and that the definitions of these terms were unconstitutionally vague. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, interpreting the definitions in line with a federal district court decision in Doe v. Nebraska, which required a person to stay at a location for three consecutive weekdays to establish a temporary domicile. The Court of Appeals found that Clausen’s admission of staying at the Washington County residence “most nights” allowed a rational trier of fact to conclude he stayed there for three consecutive weekdays.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and disagreed with the Court of Appeals’ interpretation. The Supreme Court held that “working days” in the context of SORA refers to Mondays through Fridays, excluding legal holidays. The Court found that there was insufficient evidence to prove Clausen stayed at the Washington County residence for three consecutive weekdays or more than three consecutive days. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed Clausen’s conviction and vacated his sentence, concluding that the State failed to prove he violated SORA’s registration requirements. View "State v. Clausen" on Justia Law

Damion Giglio, while on supervised release for a previous felony, was arrested and convicted for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the felon-in-possession statute. He appealed, arguing that the statute is unconstitutional as applied to him and that the district court erred in calculating his sentencing guideline range, entitling him to a less severe sentence.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi denied Giglio's motion to dismiss the indictment, rejecting his constitutional challenge. Giglio pleaded guilty, and the court sentenced him to 27 months' imprisonment, noting that it would have imposed the same sentence regardless of any potential guideline calculation errors.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the government could regulate Giglio’s firearm possession without violating the Second Amendment, as historical practices support disarming individuals serving criminal sentences. The court also found that any error in the sentencing guideline calculation was harmless because the district court explicitly stated it would have imposed the same sentence regardless of the guideline range.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision on both grounds, upholding Giglio's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Giglio" on Justia Law

A father appealed a Family Court order terminating his parental rights. The Department of Services for Children, Youth and their Families (DFS) took custody of the father's son shortly after birth due to the father's mental health issues, substance abuse, unstable housing, employment status, previous involvement with DFS, history of domestic violence, and failure to plan for the child. DFS moved to be excused from case planning with the father under 13 Del. C. § 1103(d), arguing that grounds for termination existed under 13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(7) because the father's parental rights to another child had been involuntarily terminated in an earlier proceeding. The Family Court granted the motion and later terminated the father's parental rights after finding clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the best interests of the child.The father argued on appeal that Section 1103(d) is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Delaware reviewed the case and concluded that Section 1103(d) is not unconstitutional as applied to the father. The court found that the Family Court's analysis under Sections 1103(a)(7) and 1103(d) was supported by the record and that termination of the father's parental rights was in the best interests of the child. The court also rejected the father's argument that the "least restrictive means" standard should be applied, instead following the due process framework established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Mathews v. Eldridge.The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the Family Court's judgment, holding that the statutory grounds for termination were met and that the termination was in the best interests of the child. The court found that the father received sufficient process before the termination of his parental rights and that the Family Court's findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence. View "Schnell v. Department of Services for Children, Youth and their Families" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to an Arizona law that requires criminal defense attorneys and their agents to initiate any contact with crime victims through the prosecutor’s office. The plaintiffs, a group of criminal defense attorneys and their association, argue that this law violates the First Amendment's Speech Clause by restricting their ability to communicate directly with victims.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona initially dismissed the case for lack of standing, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, allowing the case to proceed. On remand, the district court held a bench trial and concluded that the law was unconstitutional on its face, issuing a permanent injunction against its enforcement. The district court found that the law's requirement for defense attorneys to communicate through the prosecutor's office was a content- and viewpoint-based regulation of speech.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s judgment. The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs' facial challenge failed because they did not challenge the law's primary application to victim-interview requests, which remain regulated under a similar Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure. The court noted that the unchallenged applications of the law, which include requests for victim interviews, are substantial and legitimate. Therefore, the challenged applications related to non-interview contacts are not substantial enough to render the entire statute unconstitutional.The Ninth Circuit vacated the permanent injunction and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that the facial challenge to the Victim Contact Limit, as framed by the plaintiffs, must fail. View "ARIZONA ATTORNEYS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE V. MAYES" on Justia Law

Curtis Wells parked his car near Arlington Cemetery and was noticed by Officer Armstrong due to his animated gestures while on a phone call. Armstrong approached Wells and discovered that his car had an expired registration. Arlington County police were called, and they found that Wells did not have a driver's license and had weapons in his car. The police decided to tow Wells's car and conducted an inventory search, which revealed various weapons and tactical gear, including a ballistic plate carrier. Wells was sent home, but further investigation suggested that the plate might have been stolen from the Army. Nine days later, Wells was arrested for receiving stolen property.In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Wells brought state and federal claims against various officers and entities, alleging Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations, among other claims. The district court dismissed all his claims, reasoning that the officers were protected by qualified immunity and that Wells had not plausibly alleged the necessary elements for his state tort claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The court held that the officers' actions were protected by qualified immunity because Wells did not have a clearly established right against the officers' conduct. The court found that the initial approach by Officer Armstrong was justified under the community-caretaking exception, the inventory search of Wells's car was conducted according to standard procedures, and Wells had consented to the safekeeping of his property. Additionally, the court held that Wells's Second Amendment claims failed because the right to public carry was not clearly established in 2020. The court also dismissed Wells's state law claims, finding that he had not plausibly alleged the necessary elements for false imprisonment or malicious prosecution. View "Wells v. Fuentes" on Justia Law

Courthouse News Service, a news organization, sought remote online access to civil court records from the Circuit Court for Prince William County, Virginia, similar to the access granted to Virginia attorneys. Virginia law prohibits the clerk from providing such access to non-attorneys. Courthouse News sued, claiming this restriction violated its First Amendment and Equal Protection rights.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed Courthouse News's Equal Protection claim and granted summary judgment for the defendants on the First Amendment claims. The court found the restrictions to be content-neutral time, place, and manner regulations justified by the state's interests in the orderly administration of justice and protecting sensitive personal information.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's ruling on the First Amendment and Equal Protection claims, holding that the access restriction was a content-neutral regulation narrowly tailored to serve significant governmental interests. The court found that the restriction did not violate the First Amendment as it provided ample alternative channels for accessing court records and did not burden more access than necessary. The court also concluded that the restriction did not violate the Equal Protection Clause for the same reasons it passed First Amendment scrutiny.However, the court vacated the district court's ruling on the Dissemination Restriction claim, finding that Courthouse News lacked standing to challenge it since the restriction only applied to those with remote access, which Courthouse News did not have. The case was remanded for the district court to dismiss this claim without prejudice. View "Courthouse News Service v. Smith" on Justia Law