Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

A woman with a lifelong hearing impairment obtained a commercial driver’s license (CDL) in New Jersey after receiving a federal exemption from the standard hearing requirement. This exemption allowed her to drive commercial vehicles in interstate commerce but specifically prohibited her from operating passenger vehicles or school buses. Despite this, she was mistakenly issued state endorsements permitting her to drive such vehicles and worked as a campus shuttle bus driver for about eight months. When the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission (NJMVC) realized the error, it revoked her passenger and school bus endorsements without providing a pre-revocation hearing.Instead of seeking review in New Jersey Superior Court, the woman filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. She alleged violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination, as well as a procedural due process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The District Court dismissed some claims and ultimately granted summary judgment to the defendants on all remaining claims, finding she was not “qualified” for the endorsements and had no property interest in them.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The court held that the plaintiff was not a “qualified individual with a disability” under the relevant statutes because she could not meet the essential eligibility requirement of passing the hearing test for the endorsements. The court also held that, even assuming a property interest in the endorsements, due process did not require a pre-revocation hearing given the state’s strong safety interests and the availability of post-deprivation remedies. The court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants on all claims. View "Parker v. New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission" on Justia Law

In 2024, Minnesota enacted a law that revised the criteria for classifying independent contractors in the construction industry, expanding a previous nine-part test to a fourteen-part test. Several construction industry organizations and a general contractor challenged the law, arguing that certain provisions were unconstitutionally vague and that the civil penalties authorized by the statute violated the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. The plaintiffs specifically objected to requirements regarding written contracts, invoicing, expense responsibility, and profit or loss realization, as well as the potential for significant civil penalties for noncompliance.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the law. The court found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claims. The plaintiffs then appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the law, as they alleged specific conduct targeted by the statute and faced a credible threat of enforcement. However, the court concluded that the challenged statutory terms were sufficiently clear for people of ordinary intelligence and did not encourage arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. The court also determined that the plaintiffs’ excessive fines claim was premature, as no penalties had yet been imposed and Minnesota law requires a proportionality analysis before penalties are assessed. Because the plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits, the court found no basis for a preliminary injunction and affirmed the lower court’s judgment. View "MN Chapter of Assoc. Builders v. Blissenbach" on Justia Law

The case involved a defendant who was charged with attempted first-degree murder and related offenses in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland. Before trial, both the defense and prosecution jointly requested a postponement of the trial date due to the resignation of the defendant’s public defender and the need for additional preparation time. During a status hearing, the defendant’s newly assigned counsel informed the court that the defendant wanted to represent himself and keep the original trial date. The matter was referred to the administrative judge, who questioned the defendant about his wishes. The defendant responded that he wanted an attorney but did not want the trial postponed, emphasizing his desire for a speedy trial and expressing frustration about his continued incarceration.After this exchange, the administrative judge postponed the trial date, and the defendant did not further request to discharge counsel or to represent himself. At trial, the defendant was represented by counsel and was convicted by a jury of attempted second-degree murder, armed robbery, and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony or crime of violence. The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the conviction, finding that the defendant had not expressed a present intent to discharge counsel or to represent himself, and that the trial court had provided an adequate opportunity for the defendant to clarify his wishes.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed whether the trial court violated the defendant’s constitutional and procedural rights by not conducting further inquiry into his alleged request for self-representation. The Supreme Court held that when a court is informed that a defendant may wish to represent himself, it must conduct a reasonable inquiry to determine if the defendant clearly and unequivocally asserts that right and must allow the defendant to explain his reasons for discharging counsel under Maryland Rule 4-215(e). However, if the defendant does not express a clear desire for self-representation or to discharge counsel, the court is not required to question him further. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment. View "Goodrich v. State" on Justia Law

The defendant was apprehended after two separate incidents in which he was found in possession of firearms and drugs. In the first incident, after a car accident, he attempted to dissuade the other driver from calling the police due to the presence of contraband in his vehicle, then fled but was quickly caught. In the second incident, a traffic stop led to the discovery of additional firearms, ammunition, and drugs. He was charged with two counts of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon and pleaded guilty.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky calculated his base offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines as twenty-two, based in part on a prior Kentucky conviction for second-degree manslaughter, which the court classified as a “crime of violence.” The defendant did not object to this calculation at sentencing and was sentenced to 145 months in prison.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed whether Kentucky’s second-degree manslaughter qualifies as a “crime of violence” under the Sentencing Guidelines, applying plain error review because the issue was not raised below. The court held that the Kentucky statute’s “wantonness” mens rea is functionally equivalent to “recklessness” as defined in Borden v. United States, 593 U.S. 420 (2021), and does not meet the standard for a “crime of violence,” which requires purposeful or knowing conduct. The court found that the district court’s reliance on this conviction to enhance the sentence was plain error, affected the defendant’s substantial rights, and undermined the fairness of the proceedings. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Tooley" on Justia Law

Iowa enacted a law making it a state crime for certain noncitizens who had previously been denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed from the United States to enter or be found in Iowa. The law also required state judges to order such individuals to return to the country from which they entered and prohibited state courts from pausing prosecutions based on pending or possible federal immigration status determinations. Two noncitizens residing in Iowa, both of whom had previously been subject to federal removal orders but later lawfully reentered the United States, along with a membership-based immigrant advocacy organization, challenged the law, arguing it was preempted by federal immigration law.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa found that the plaintiffs had standing and granted a preliminary injunction, concluding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Iowa law was preempted by federal law under both conflict and field preemption doctrines. The district court also found that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm if the law went into effect and that the balance of equities and public interest favored an injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion, reviewing legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction, holding that the plaintiffs had standing and were likely to succeed on the merits because every application of the Iowa law would conflict with federal immigration law by interfering with the discretion Congress grants to federal officials. The court also found that the other factors for a preliminary injunction were met. The Eighth Circuit remanded for the district court to determine the appropriate scope of the injunction in light of recent Supreme Court guidance. View "IA Migrant Movement for Justice v. Bird" on Justia Law

A police officer applied for a search warrant for a residence based on information from a confidential reliable informant (CRI). The CRI reported that, within the previous 72 hours, they had visited the residence and observed people smoking methamphetamine and meth pipes inside. The CRI was not directed by law enforcement to visit the house and had a history of providing reliable information to the police. Based on this information, a district court judge issued a search warrant. When the warrant was executed, officers found drug paraphernalia and items testing positive for methamphetamine. The resident was charged with two drug-related offenses.The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the warrant was not supported by probable cause. The Swift County District Court denied the motion, finding the warrant application sufficient. After a jury found the defendant guilty, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in a divided opinion. The majority held that the totality of the circumstances, including the CRI’s reliability and basis of knowledge, established probable cause, and rejected the argument that corroboration of the CRI’s tip was always required. The dissent argued that corroboration was necessary and that the lack of it meant probable cause was lacking.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case to clarify whether corroboration of a confidential reliable informant’s tip is an independent requirement for probable cause. The court held that corroboration is not an independent requirement but is always a relevant factor in the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis. Applying this standard, the court concluded that the limited, uncorroborated observations in the warrant application did not establish a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found in the house at the time of the search. The court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "State of Minnesota vs. Nagle" on Justia Law

In the early morning hours of September 17, 2024, police responded to a report that a man had drawn a knife and approached a woman in her vehicle at a Fargo gas station. Surveillance video captured the incident, and Shawn King was apprehended near the scene. He was charged with terrorizing, carrying a concealed weapon, and possession of drug paraphernalia, though the drug paraphernalia charge was dismissed before trial. At trial, the victim testified that King approached her on a bicycle, threw it down, brandished a knife, and advanced toward her in an angry manner, causing her to fear for her safety. The jury viewed the surveillance footage and heard testimony from three officers. Ultimately, the jury found King guilty of terrorizing but acquitted him of carrying a concealed weapon.Following the jury’s verdict, the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, entered judgment and sentenced King to five years, with four years to be served and one year suspended during two years of supervised probation. King appealed, arguing that the terrorizing statute was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad as applied to his conduct, and that the combination of the terrorizing and concealed weapon statutes violated his right to lawfully carry a weapon. He did not raise these constitutional arguments in the district court.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed King’s claims for obvious error, as they were not preserved below. The court held that King failed to demonstrate any clear or obvious deviation from current law regarding the constitutionality of the statutes as applied to him. The court found that the terrorizing statute incorporates both subjective and objective standards, and that King’s overbreadth and Second Amendment arguments did not establish plain error. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "State v. King" on Justia Law

The case concerns a defendant who was convicted by a jury of multiple sexual offenses, including rape, against his young daughter. The central issue on appeal relates to the jury selection process, specifically whether the defendant’s trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to challenge a particular juror, referred to as Juror McCarthy, for cause. During voir dire, Juror McCarthy expressed some initial uncertainty about his ability to be impartial in a case involving a child witness and indicated discomfort with the presumption of innocence, but also participated in group responses affirming his willingness to be fair and follow the law.After conviction, the defendant appealed to the Twelfth District Court of Appeals, arguing that his counsel’s failure to challenge Juror McCarthy deprived him of a fair trial. The appellate court reviewed the voir dire transcript and concluded that Juror McCarthy’s statements reflected an internal struggle common to many jurors faced with difficult subject matter, rather than actual bias against the defendant. The court also noted that Juror McCarthy, through group responses and direct questioning, indicated he could be fair and impartial. The appellate court therefore rejected the ineffective assistance claim and affirmed the convictions.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case, focusing on whether a reviewing court may consider group answers during voir dire when determining actual juror bias, and whether a juror who expresses partiality can be rehabilitated through such group responses. The court held that, in assessing actual bias, the entire voir dire record—including group answers—must be considered. The court found that the defendant failed to demonstrate that Juror McCarthy was actually biased, and thus did not establish ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the judgment of the Twelfth District Court of Appeals. View "State v. Rogers" on Justia Law

During the 2023–2024 academic year, students at a private university in Massachusetts engaged in a series of pro-Palestinian protests following violence in the Middle East. The protests included rallies, walkouts, chalk messages, and an encampment near the campus Hillel center. Some Jewish and Israeli students reported feeling unsafe or unwelcome, and a few specific incidents were alleged, such as being blocked from campus areas or subjected to hostile remarks. The university responded by revising protest policies, suspending student groups, and eventually clearing the encampment, but did not discipline all protestors or end the demonstrations immediately.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit, which alleged violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the Ku Klux Klan Act, and state law, for failure to state a claim. The court found that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged actionable harassment or that the university was deliberately indifferent to any such harassment. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The First Circuit held that most of the protestors’ conduct constituted protected speech under the First Amendment and did not amount to actionable harassment under Title VI. The court further found that the university was not deliberately indifferent, as it took a series of escalating actions in response to the protests. The court also concluded that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Ku Klux Klan Act because they did not plausibly allege a conspiracy with the purpose of depriving Jewish or Israeli students of their rights. The dismissal of the state-law claims was affirmed, and the court found no abuse of discretion in denying further leave to amend the complaint. View "StandWithUs Center for Legal Justice v. MIT" on Justia Law

Several healthcare employees in Colorado, including those at the University of Colorado Hospital Authority and South Denver Cardiology Associates, were terminated after refusing to comply with their employers’ COVID-19 vaccination mandates. These mandates, implemented in 2021, required employees to either be vaccinated or obtain a medical or religious exemption. The plaintiffs declined vaccination and did not seek exemptions, resulting in their dismissal.Following their terminations, the plaintiffs filed separate lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, asserting nearly identical claims. They alleged violations of statutory, constitutional, and contractual rights, including claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, state-law breach of contract and tort claims, and an implied private right of action under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The defendants moved to dismiss on grounds such as sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, and failure to state a claim. The district courts dismissed all claims, finding that the plaintiffs had not adequately pled any viable legal theory. The courts also denied the plaintiffs’ requests to amend their complaints after judgment was entered.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the dismissals de novo. The court held that none of the statutes cited by the plaintiffs—including the Emergency Use Authorization statute, the PREP Act, and 10 U.S.C. § 980—unambiguously conferred individual rights enforceable under § 1983. The court also found that the constitutional claims, including those based on due process and equal protection, were not adequately pled and that the breach of contract claim was waived for lack of argument. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district courts’ judgments, holding that the plaintiffs failed to state any claim upon which relief could be granted and that the lower courts did not abuse their discretion in denying leave to amend. View "Timken v. South Denver Cardiology Associates" on Justia Law