Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The First Circuit granted the government's petition for rehearing en banc in these consolidated appeals regarding Defendants' 2016 convictions for violating the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, 46 U.S.C. 70501 et seq. (MDLEA), holding that 46 U.S.C. 70503(e)(1) does not limit the subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts under Article III of the United States Constitution.Defendants pleaded guilty unconditionally to the underlying charges, but a panel of the First Circuit vacated the convictions and ordered the underlying charges dismissed. The government petitioned for rehearing en banc. The First Circuit granted the petition, vacated the panel's ruling, and affirmed Defendant's convictions, holding that section 70503(e)(1) merely limits the substantive reach of the MDLEA and that Defendants' claims on appeal failed. View "United States v. Davila-Reyes" on Justia Law

Willow purchased a house that needed repairs. Bids for the work exceeded $100,000. Renovations began in 2017 but soon halted. After several years passed, with the house remaining empty, the Village proposed its demolition as a nuisance. The Village published notice, posted notices on the house, and mailed notice to Willow, which concedes having actual knowledge of the impending demolition. Willow did not respond until the week scheduled for the demolition when its lawyer proposed a meeting. The parcel was sold at auction to satisfy the Village’s lien for demolition expenses.Willow sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming a taking without compensation. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the Village. Demolition of a dilapidated structure that constitutes a public nuisance is not problematic under the Due Process Clause and does not require compensation. The protection that the federal Constitution offers to property owners is notice and an opportunity for a hearing. The Village gave such a notice to Willow, which did not ask for a hearing. Illinois law offers procedures that are constitutionally adequate; someone wanting to stop a demolition need only file suit in state court, which automatically blocks action until the judge decides whether the building meets the statutory criteria for demolition. The district court was not required to decide a state law inverse-condemnation claim. View "Willow Way, LLC v. Village of Lyons, Illinois" on Justia Law

James Heyward was convicted of multiple crimes arising from the armed robbery, brutal beating, and murder of Alice Tollison during the burglary of her home. The South Carolina Supreme Court granted Heyward's petition for a writ of certiorari to address the trial court's refusal to remove Heyward's leg shackles during the striking of the jury, and four evidentiary issues. As to three of the evidentiary issues, the authentication of a fingerprint card, the admission of gruesome autopsy photographs, and the State's use of Heyward's alias, the Supreme Court found the trial court acted within its discretion. As to the other evidentiary issue, a firearms expert's testimony Heyward's pistol was operational at the time of the crimes, the Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' ruling that if there was any error in the admission of that testimony it did not prejudice Heyward. As to the leg shackles, the Court found the trial court erred in failing to exercise its discretion in determining whether Heyward should have been required to wear leg shackles in the presence of the jury. However, because the State conclusively proved Heyward's guilt through overwhelming evidence such that no rational conclusion could have been reached other than Heyward is guilty of these crimes, the Court nevertheless affirmed. View "South Carolina v. Heyward" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of two counts of rape, one count of aggravated assault, and two counts of domestic violence in the presence of a child, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his multiple claims of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in not withholding from jury deliberations a video exhibit of Defendant's police interview; (2) Defendant failed to show that he was prejudiced by the alleged deficient performance of his trial counsel; and (3) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motions for a mistrial and a new trial arising out of a child witness's breakdown on the witness stand. View "State v. Centeno" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Bentley Streett was arrested for, and eventually pleaded guilty to, various counts of child pornography and sexual activity with minors. His actions were discovered by the mother of one of the minors from whom Streett attempted to solicit pornography, prompting the mother to contact the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. An investigation ensued, resulting in the production of Streett’s cell phone records, followed by his arrest and a search of his home, computers, and phones. Streett appealed, arguing: (1) the search warrant permitting the search of his home lacked probable cause, and that the search could not be justified by an exception to the requirement that officers obtain a legitimate warrant; and (2) the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss counts 3 through 7 of his indictment. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of Streett's motion to suppress and motion to dismiss. View "United States v. Streett" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of second-degree murder and sentencing him to forty years in prison, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) as concerning the prosecutor's effort to conceal the State's involvement in Defendant's transfer proceedings, the circuit court properly exercised its discretion to neutralize any error; (2) the circuit court acted within its discretion to denying Defendant's motion for mistrial; (3) viewed in their entirety, the instructions given to the jury correctly stated the applicable law; (4) the exercise of the circuit court's discretion did not contravene Defendant's right to present a complete defense; and (5) Defendant's sentence could not be described as grossly disproportionate to his crime. View "State v. Black Cloud" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant and co-Defendant of conspiracy to distribute 400 grams or more of mixtures and substances containing a detectable amount of fentanyl, as well as individual counts of possession with intent to distribute 40 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of fentanyl. Co-Defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Both defendants appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying their request for a jury instruction on multiple conspiracies. Co-defendant contends that the district court erred by ordering him to be handcuffed and shackled throughout the trial and by admitting into evidence portions of a post-arrest interview. Defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his possession with intent to distribute conviction.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the lack of any substantial prejudice stemming from the absence of a multiple-conspiracies instruction and the presence of sufficient single-conspiracy supporting evidence leads the court to conclude that no reversible error occurred with respect to the drug quantity finding. Further, the court wrote that given co-Defendant’s noncompliant behavior in jail and during transport, the district court acted well within its discretion by ordering that co-Defendant be shackled and handcuffed during trial and by taking appropriate precautions to minimize any prejudice to co-Defendant. View "United States v. Kevin Green" on Justia Law

Parolees sued the Missouri Department of Corrections (MDOC), claiming that its parole revocation system violated the Due Process Clause. Recognizing the system’s flaws, MDOC rewrote its policies and consented to summary judgment. Later, MDOC moved to dismiss for failure to join a required party—the Missouri Public Defender Commission (Commission). The district court denied MDOC’s motion and held a hearing to determine whether MDOC’s revised policies satisfied due process. Finding additional problems, the district court issued a remedy order instructing MDOC to make changes.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The court explained that the state must hold a revocation hearing “within a reasonable time after the parolee is taken into custody.” The court wrote that MDOC has a policy requiring a revocation hearing within 30 days, but it does not always follow that policy. The district court ordered MDOC to follow its 30-day policy. The court wrote that because it has held that longer delays may be reasonable in some cases, the remedy is not tailored to the violation and was an abuse of discretion. View "Stephanie Gasca v. Anne Precythe" on Justia Law

While riding a bicycle, Plaintiff ran into an open car door being operated by a recruiter for the U.S. Marines. Plaintiff brought a claim for negligence against the United States, pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act. The district court found the United States liable but concluded Plaintiff was also negligent and, therefore, partially liable.On appeal, the Second Circuit found that the evidence of Plaintiff's negligence was "dubious," and, even if Plaintiff was negligent, the district court failed to make the findings necessary to any holding that the plaintiff’s negligent conduct sufficiently caused the collision so as to make Plaintiff 40% responsible for the damages. View "Dooley v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and Defendant both members of the State Bar, represent opposing parties in a dissolution/annulment proceeding pending in Los Angeles Superior Court. Following an incident at Plaintiff’s office relating to the canceled deposition of Defendant’s client, Plaintiff obtained a three-year civil harassment restraining order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 protecting her, as well as her paralegal and office receptionist, from further harassment by Defendant.   On appeal Defendant argued, in part, that all of the conduct upon which the trial court based its findings of harassment was constitutionally protected activity and there was insufficient evidence his actions, to the extent not constitutionally protected, were directed at Plaintiff, caused Plaintiff substantial emotional distress, or would cause a reasonable person substantial emotional distress as required to support issuance of the restraining order. Defendant also argued that the court erred in including in the order members of Plaintiff’s office staff as protected individuals.   The Second Appellate District reversed and directed the trial court to enter a new order denying Plaintiff’s request for a restraining order. The court explained that Defendant’s Emails regarding his client’s deposition constituted constitutionally protected activity. The court explained that because the emails were constitutionally protected, it was an error for the trial court to conclude they were properly considered part of a course of conduct of harassment. Further, the court found that the evidence of Defendant’s nonprotected conduct did not support the court’s findings of a willful or knowing course of conduct that would cause a reasonable person and did cause Plaintiff substantial emotional distress. View "Hansen v. Volkov" on Justia Law