Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant-appellant Jessica Rizor petitioned for post conviction relief, arguing her trial counsel provided inadequate advice with regard to a plea offer. According to Rizor, her trial counsel’s inadequate advice led her to proceed to a trial - where her life sentence was all but assured - in lieu of accepting a plea offer that would have resulted in a five and a half to thirty-year sentence. The Superior Court agreed and reversed the PCRA court order denying relief and remanded “for a new trial or entry of a plea.” The Commonwealth petitioned for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's review, arguing that the PCRA court correctly denied relief and that the Superior Court’s decision rested on a faulty foundation which assumed that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance rather than presuming the opposite. The Commonwealth further believed the Superior Court improperly ignored the PCRA court’s credibility determinations. After review, the Supreme Court agreed with the Commonwealth, finding that the Superior Court erred in reversing the PCRA court order denying relief where Rizor failed to establish a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s alleged deficient advice, she would have accepted the plea deal. The Superior Court's judgment was vacated and the case remanded to address Rizor's remaining challenges. View "Pennsylvania v. Rizor" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing the suit brought by Plaintiff seeking to enjoin the New Hampshire Secretary of State from "accepting or processing" the "ballot access documentation" brought by Donald Trump, the former President of the United States, for the 2024 Republican presidential primary in the state of New Hampshire, holding that Plaintiff lacked standing.Plaintiff, a United States citizen and Republican primary presidential candidate, brought this complaint alleging that section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment barred Tump from "holding" the office of President of the United States again on the ground that he "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against [the U.S. Constitution], or [gave] aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." The district court dismissed the lawsuit on jurisdictional grounds, concluding that Plaintiff lacked standing under U.S. Const. art. III, 2 and that his section 3 claim presented a nonjusticiable political question. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiff failed to show that he could satisfy the "injury-in-fact" component of Article III standing. View "Castro v. Scanlan" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court ruling that the underlying suit was time barred as to all defendants in this action brought by Plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. 1983 on behalf of her late son's estate on the six-year anniversary of his death, holding that the lawsuit was time barred.Plaintiff sued jail staff and a medical contractor (collectively, Defendants), alleging that while her son was detained in the Somerset County Jail, Defendants failed to recognize his serious mental illness, thus leading to his death following a suicide attempt. Defendants moved to dismiss the suit as time barred. The district court granted the motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiff was not entitled to relief on her allegations of error. View "Martin v. Somerset County" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging violations of his First and Fourth Amendment rights when he was arrested as a terrorist for a post on Facebook. The district court granted Detective Randall Iles and Sheriff Mark Wood’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds and dismissed Bailey’s claims with prejudice.The Fifth Circuit reversed. The court held that the district court erred in concluding that Plaintiff’s Facebook was constitutionally unprotected; erred in granting qualified immunity to Defendant on Plaintiff’s Fourth and First Amendment claims; and erred in granting summary judgment to Defendants on Plaintiff’s state law false arrest claim. Therefore, the court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendants and remanded for further proceedings. The court explained that Plaintiff has shown that Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity as to the First Amendment claim. Based on decades of Supreme Court precedent, it was clearly established that Plaintiff’s Facebook post did not fit within one of the narrow categories of unprotected speech, like incitement or true threats. Thus, when Defendant arrested Plaintiff he violated Plaintiff’s clearly established First Amendment right to engage in speech even when some listeners consider the speech offensive, upsetting, immature, in poor taste, or even dangerous. View "Bailey v. Iles" on Justia Law

Trammel was sentenced to 12 years in prison: the upper term of eight years for kidnapping, a consecutive 16 months for burglary, a consecutive eight months for making criminal threats, and a consecutive two years for a June 2017 domestic violence conviction (one year for the conviction plus a year on an attached arming enhancement). The court imposed concurrent three-year terms for two remaining domestic violence convictions and concurrent time-served sentences for misdemeanors.The court of appeal concluded that the court erred by imposing separate punishment for both domestic violence and simple assault, based on the same incident. The trial court conducted a full resentencing, noting that new sentencing laws (effective January 2022) applied. The court reviewed a mitigation assessment and resentenced Trammel to 12 years and four months–eight years for kidnapping; a consecutive 16 months for burglary; a consecutive two years for a 2017 domestic violence conviction–one year for the conviction plus a year on the attached arming enhancement; and consecutive one-year terms on the remaining domestic violence counts. The court stayed the punishment for criminal threats and misdemeanors. The court found that the lower term or middle term would be inappropriate because Trammel showed no remorse.The court of appeal again remanded. The imposition of a longer sentence on remand violates the California Constitution’s prohibition against double jeopardy. The court rejected Trammel’s request for another full resentencing hearing before a different judge, finding no showing of vindictiveness. View "People v. Trammel" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Matthew Mazur appealed his third sentencing for multiple criminal offenses arising out of a fraudulent investment scheme. The sole issue raised on appeal of his reduced 23-year prison sentence was that the trial court erred by refusing to dismiss a five-year white-collar enhancement for loss greater than $500,000. Mazur argued the trial court was required to dismiss this enhancement because its imposition “result[ed] in a sentence of greater than 20 years.” Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "California v. Mazur" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the state from enforcing only this additional, preliminary handgun-licensure requirement. The district court originally dismissed that challenge for lack of Article III standing, but we reversed and remanded for a decision on the merits. On remand, the district court again rejected Plaintiffs’ claims, this time holding that Maryland’s handgun licensure law did not violate the Second Amendment. So Plaintiffs appealed once more.   The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. The court explained that the challenged law restricts the ability of law-abiding adult citizens to possess handguns, and the state has not presented a historical analogue that justifies its restriction; indeed, it has seemingly admitted that it couldn’t find one. The court enjoined the enforcement explaining that under the Supreme Court’s new burden-shifting test for these claims, Maryland’s law fails. The court wrote that Maryland has not shown that this regime is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. There might well be a tradition of prohibiting dangerous people from owning firearms. But, under the Second Amendment, mechanism matters. And Maryland has not pointed to any historical laws that operated by preemptively depriving all citizens of firearms to keep them out of dangerous hands. View "Maryland Shall Issue, Inc. v. Wes Moore" on Justia Law

After committing armed robbery with an unidentified accomplice, Defendant pled guilty to Hobbs Act robbery and a firearm charge pursuant to an agreement with the government. At sentencing, the district court warned that Defendant’s decision to name his accomplice would be a “critical part” of its sentencing determination. When Defendant declined to name his accomplice, the district court imposed a sentence at the top of Carter’s Sentencing Guidelines range. On appeal, Defendant asserted that the district court violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by imposing a harsher sentence due to his failure to identify his accomplice and drawing adverse inferences from that failure. He further alleged that this Fifth Amendment violation rendered his sentence procedurally and substantively unreasonable.   The Fourth Circuit granted the government’s motion to dismiss Defendant’s appeal to the extent he challenges the reasonableness of his sentence. The court explained that the district court had no substantial reason to believe that Defendant’s identification of his accomplice would be incriminating beyond the plea itself. Defendant was asked to name his accomplice in specific conduct for which he had already been convicted or received immunity in his federal case and for which his state charges were dismissed.   The court explained that Defendant’s self-incrimination concerns would have merited further analysis had he raised them before the district court. But he did not, and the district court was left without any substantial reason to believe that Defendant’s identification of his accomplice was likely to be incriminating. Defendant’s reliance on the Fifth Amendment privilege comes too late. Thus, his Fifth Amendment challenge fails. View "US v. Richard Carter" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the appellate division affirming Defendant's conviction on two counts of murder in the second degree and one count of robbery in the second degree, holding that the warrantless entry into Defendant's home was not based on consent, and therefore, the suppression court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress.Defendant was indicted on several charges including kidnapping, robbery, and felony murder. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the warrantless, nonconsensual entry into his home was unlawful. The suppression court denied the motion. The appellate division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the warrantless entry into the apartment in which Defendant was found by police officers and arrested violated Defendant's rights under the New York and United States Constitutions. View "People v. Cuencas" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the order of the appellate division affirming Defendant's conviction, holding Supreme Court should have suppressed a gun as the product of an impermissible stop because the police officers lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or probable cause that Defendant had violated the rules of the road while riding his bicycle.Defendant was riding his bicycle down a road when police officers drove alongside him and asked him to stop. Defendant stopped and, in response to an officer's question, admitted that he was carrying a gun. Defendant pleaded guilty to a weapons charge. The appellate division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) police interference with a bicyclist is a seizure requiring reasonable suspicion of a criminal offense or probable cause of a Vehicle and Traffic Law violation; and (2) the officers in this case violated the New York and United States Constitutions when they stopped Defendant, and therefore, the indictment against Defendant must be dismissed. View "People v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law