Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

In the case between Vans, Inc., VF Outdoor, LLC (collectively "Vans") and MSCHF Product Studio, Inc. ("MSCHF"), the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to grant a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against MSCHF. MSCHF had created a sneaker, the Wavy Baby, which appeared to mimic Vans' Old Skool shoe. Vans sued MSCHF for trademark and trade dress infringement. MSCHF argued that its use of Vans' marks was protected by the First Amendment. However, the Court of Appeals applied the recent Supreme Court decision in Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, which held that special First Amendment protections do not apply when trademarks are used as source identifiers. The Court of Appeals concluded that Vans was likely to prevail in arguing that MSCHF's Wavy Baby shoes used Vans' marks and trade dress as source identifiers, and that there was a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the Wavy Baby shoes. The court also affirmed the district court's decisions requiring MSCHF to escrow its revenues from Wavy Baby sales and not requiring a bond determination because MSCHF never requested security. View "Vans, Inc. v. MSCHF Product Studio, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed challenges to a redistricting plan adopted by the Alaska Redistricting Board. After the 2020 census, the Board adopted a plan for 40 House of Representative districts and 20 Senate districts. Several entities filed challenges to this plan, arguing that certain districts were unconstitutional due to violations of due process and gerrymandering. The superior court found two House districts and one Senate district to be unconstitutional and directed the Board to undertake further redistricting efforts. Four petitions for review were filed with the Supreme Court.The Court affirmed the superior court's ruling regarding the Senate district, but reversed the ruling regarding the two House districts. The Court found that the Board did not violate the "hard look" requirement, which requires that the Board seriously consider all salient problems and engage in reasoned decision-making. The Court also held that the Board sufficiently complied with the Hickel process, a procedural sequence that ensures the redistricting satisfies federal law without unnecessarily compromising the Alaska Constitution.Furthermore, the Court determined that the Board did not have discriminatory intent in its actions, and that the minor deviations in population among various districts did not violate the "one person, one vote" requirement. The Court also concluded that the Board did not violate the provision requiring each House district to contain a population as near as practicable to the quotient obtained by dividing the population of the state by forty.Regarding the Senate district, the Court affirmed the superior court’s conclusion that the relevant Senate district pairings were an unconstitutional gerrymander. The Court remanded the case for further redistricting efforts consistent with its order. View "In the Matter of the 2021 Redistricting Cases" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska upheld a lower court's decision that Williams Alaska Petroleum, Inc. and The Williams Companies, Inc. (collectively, "Williams") were strictly liable for the release of hazardous substances at a North Pole refinery they previously owned and operated. The substances, including sulfolane, a purifying solvent, had contaminated local groundwater. The court also upheld the ruling that Williams was responsible for paying damages to the State of Alaska and making contributions to the current owner, Flint Hills Resources, for its remediation costs.The court rejected Williams's claims that sulfolane was not a hazardous substance under state law. It also rejected the argument that the company's due process rights were violated because, it argued, it did not have fair notice that its conduct was prohibited. The court further denied Williams's argument that the imposition of retroactive liability for past releases constituted an unconstitutional taking of property.In addition, the court determined that Williams had retained liability for offsite sulfolane releases when it sold the refinery to Flint Hills. It also found that Flint Hills could seek statutory contribution from Williams for certain costs related to the contamination. However, the court remanded the grant of injunctive relief for more specificity as required by rule. Williams was ordered to pay damages for loss of access to groundwater due to sulfolane contamination, and for the costs of response, containment, removal, or remedial action incurred by the state. View "Williams Alaska Petroleum, Inc. v. State of Alaska" on Justia Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska, the Attorney General for the State of Alaska, Treg R. Taylor, sued the Alaska Legislative Affairs Agency. The dispute arose from a disagreement between the executive and legislative branches over when an appropriations bill passed by the legislature would take effect, with potential implications for funding state government in the subsequent fiscal year. The Attorney General asked the court for a declaration that any expenditure of state funds without an effective appropriation was unlawful, unless the expenditure was necessary to meet constitutional obligations to maintain the health and safety of residents or federal obligations. The superior court dismissed the case, holding that the lawsuit was barred by a provision of the Alaska Constitution (article III, section 16) that prohibits the governor from suing the legislature. The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska affirmed that decision. The court held that, although the Attorney General brought the suit, it was in substance a suit brought by the Governor "in the name of the State" against the legislature. Therefore, it was barred by the Alaska Constitution. The Supreme Court also remanded the issue of attorney’s fees for further proceedings in the lower court. View "Treg R. Taylor, in his Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State of Alaska v. Alaska Legislative Affairs Agency" on Justia Law

In this case from the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska, the court examined a claim brought by an inmate, Jeffrey Hout. Hout, who was convicted in 2010 of kidnapping and murder, accused Governor Michael Dunleavy of failing to provide him with proof of various bonds, oaths, and licenses, and alleged that certain people involved in his criminal trial had practiced law without valid licenses. He also filed a Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Financing Statement seeking to secure a purported debt of $250 million in gold dollars owed to him by Governor Dunleavy and the State of Alaska. The superior court dismissed the lawsuit because it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, prompting Hout to appeal.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska affirmed the superior court’s decision. The court highlighted that Hout's claims were consistent with the expressed belief system of a group known as “sovereign citizens” and stated that courts across the country have universally rejected these types of claims. The court noted that their jurisdiction to decide the case was derived from Alaska citizens who have provided “consent of the governed” by ratifying the Alaska Constitution. The court rejected Hout's argument that Alaska’s laws do not apply to him unless he provides personal consent to be governed by those laws.On the merits, the court found Hout's fraud claim to be without merit. The primary allegation underpinning Hout’s fraud claim was that Governor Dunleavy was legally obligated to provide him with proof of oaths, licenses, and bonds. The court held that there was no legal basis for this claim. The court also dismissed Hout’s civil rights claim seeking release from prison on the ground that certain officials who participated in his criminal trial were practicing law without valid licenses. The court explained that the proper vehicle for Hout’s claim seeking release from prison would be an application for post-conviction relief. Since Hout had already applied once for post-conviction relief, any subsequent application would be dismissed. View "Jeffrey Hout v. State of Alaska, Office of the Governor" on Justia Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska, a group of trade associations (Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc., Alaska Trucking Association, Inc., Alaska Miners Association, Inc., Associated General Contractors of Alaska, Alaska Chamber, and Alaska Support Industry Alliance) sued the State and a ballot initiative group "Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share" (Fair Share), seeking to invalidate the State’s approval of a ballot initiative petition. The litigation primarily revolved around the constitutionality of a statute limiting the compensation that could be paid for obtaining signatures on ballot initiative petitions. The superior court ruled that the statute was unconstitutional and dismissed the trade associations’ claims that a large number of petition signatures should be invalidated because the statutory compensation limits had been exceeded.Following this ruling, Fair Share moved for an attorney’s fees award against the trade associations, contending that it was a qualified prevailing constitutional claimant entitled to full reasonable attorney’s fees under AS 09.60.010, or at least an award of partial attorney’s fees under Alaska Civil Rule 82. The trade associations responded that Fair Share could not be a constitutional claimant because it was not a “plaintiff, counterclaimant, cross claimant, or third-party plaintiff.”The superior court concluded that Fair Share was a constitutional claimant because its claim was effectively a counterclaim. However, it also concluded that the Trade Associations did not have sufficient economic incentive to bring their claim, and thus were constitutional claimants protected from an award of full attorney’s fees under AS 09.60.010. The court nonetheless awarded Fair Share partial attorney’s fees under Rule 82.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska affirmed the superior court’s determination that the trade associations did not have a sufficient economic incentive to bring their claims. Thus, the trade associations are qualified, non-prevailing constitutional claimants and the Rule 82 attorney’s fees award must be vacated. View "Vote Yes for Alaska's Fair Share v. Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc." on Justia Law

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled on an appeal by former President Donald J. Trump regarding his claim of presidential immunity from civil damages liability related to the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. Plaintiffs included Capitol Police officers and members of Congress who alleged that Trump, through his actions and speech, incited the riot that resulted in physical injuries and emotional distress.The court determined that, at this stage in the proceedings, Trump has not demonstrated an entitlement to presidential immunity. It distinguished between actions carried out in a president’s official capacity, which are protected by immunity, and those carried out in a private or unofficial capacity, which are not. The court rejected Trump's argument that presidential speech on matters of public concern is always an official function, stating that such speech can be either official or unofficial depending on context.The court also rejected Trump's claim that his actions leading up to and on January 6 were official because they were under his Article II duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," stating that this claim is not independent of his ability to show that he engaged in the relevant actions in his official capacity as President rather than his unofficial capacity as a presidential candidate.The court held that Trump's actions as alleged in the complaints, if proven to be true, were carried out in his capacity as a presidential candidate, not as the sitting President. Therefore, he is subject to civil suits like any private citizen. However, the court specified that Trump must be allowed to present facts and make arguments in the district court that his actions were taken in his official capacity. View "Blassingame v. Trump" on Justia Law

In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the Independence-Alliance Party of Minnesota, a minor political party, challenged a Minnesota statute that required voters to swear an oath before signing a minor-party nominating petition. The party argued that this requirement violated the First Amendment as it deterred voters from signing nominating petitions, thus, burdening the expressive associational rights of minor political parties, their members, and their candidates.The court, applying the Anderson-Burdick framework, held that the burden imposed by the oath requirement was insubstantial at most and did not warrant strict scrutiny. The court reasoned that the oath only required potential signatories to express their present intent not to vote at the primary election for the office for which the nominating petition is made, and did not preclude them from changing their intentions in the future. The court also reasoned that voters were expected to understand the law, and therefore, understand the oath's actual meaning. It also noted that the party's complaint did not plausibly allege that the oath requirement prevented signatories from signing nominating petitions with any meaningful frequency.The court held that any insubstantial burden imposed by the oath requirement was justified by legitimate state interests, such as protecting the democratic voting process by requiring a preliminary showing of support for a candidate, preventing the distortion of the electoral process, promoting election integrity and reliability, and discouraging party raiding. Therefore, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Independence-Alliance Party's complaint. View "Independence-Alliance Party of Minn. v. Simon" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico affirmed a lower court's decision denying a defendant's motion to suppress evidence. The case involves Hugo Vasquez-Salas, a passenger in a car that was pulled over for a broken rear license-plate light. Upon approaching the vehicle, Officer Stacy noticed a partially open backpack containing bolt cutters, protective eyeglasses, gloves, and a face mask. After determining that the driver was an unlicensed minor, Officer Stacy asked Vasquez-Salas for his identifying information. Vasquez-Salas provided inconsistent answers about his age and was later found to have given a false name.The court held that the officer's inquiry into Vasquez-Salas's identifying information was permissible under both the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution. The court found that Officer Stacy had reasonable suspicion to expand the investigation beyond the initial traffic stop based on the totality of the circumstances, which included the time of the stop, the items found in the backpack, the driver's and Vasquez-Salas's unusual behavior, the driver's status as an unlicensed minor, and Vasquez-Salas's false identifying information.The court further clarified that the primary inquiry under the Fourth Amendment in cases where the legality of the initial stop is uncontested is whether the officer's questions extended the time that a driver was detained, regardless of the questions’ content. The court also overruled a previous case, State v. Affsprung, which held that an officer's questions about a passenger's identifiers violated the Fourth Amendment because the officer had no reasonable suspicion that the passenger was engaged in criminal activity. The court stated that this holding no longer aligns with current Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. View "State v. Vasquez-Salas" on Justia Law

This case arises from an incident in which Ricky Anthony Ayon was stopped by police while walking on the street. The police officer, recognizing Ayon from past encounters and knowing he had a warrant, immediately handcuffed Ayon and later discovered a small bag of a substance that tested positive for opiates. During a preliminary hearing, Ayon successfully argued that the police officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him, leading the district court to refuse to bind Ayon over for trial on a heroin possession charge. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, leading to this appeal.The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico held that a district court judge presiding over a preliminary hearing does not have the authority to decide whether evidence was obtained from an unconstitutional search or seizure. The Court remanded the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion. The Court reasoned that even though preliminary hearings and grand jury proceedings have different procedures and afford different rights to the defendant, they share a common goal of providing a neutral evaluation of whether the state has demonstrated probable cause to prosecute a serious crime. Additionally, the Court noted that allowing suppression of evidence at the preliminary hearing stage would be largely duplicative and not necessary for effective screening, as a motion to suppress evidence could still be utilized to gain a pretrial ruling excluding the evidence and precluding a trial. The Court also held that the New Mexico Constitution does not provide the right at a preliminary hearing to exclude evidence obtained from an unconstitutional search or seizure. View "State v. Ayon" on Justia Law