Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The plaintiffs in this case are homeowners and rental-property supervisors in New Orleans who challenged the City’s regulations governing short-term rentals (STRs), defined as lodging offered for less than thirty days. The City’s regulatory scheme requires permits for both owners and operators of STRs, restricts eligibility to “natural persons,” mandates that operators reside at the property, and imposes specific advertising requirements. The regulations were enacted in response to concerns about neighborhood disruption and loss of affordable housing attributed to the proliferation of STRs. Plaintiffs argued that these regulations violated various constitutional provisions, including the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the First Amendment, and the dormant Commerce Clause.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted summary judgment largely in favor of the City, upholding the constitutionality of most aspects of the STR regulations. The district court found that the City had authority under state law to regulate STRs and rejected the plaintiffs’ due process and equal protection claims, except for one provision not at issue on appeal. The court also upheld the advertising restrictions and the operator residency requirement, interpreting the latter as not requiring permanent residency.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The Fifth Circuit held that the City’s prohibition on business entities obtaining owner or operator permits violated the Equal Protection Clause, as the distinction was arbitrary and not rationally related to a legitimate government interest. The court also found that the requirement that each STR advertisement list only one dwelling unit violated the First Amendment. However, the court upheld the City’s authority to regulate STRs, the due process analysis, most advertising restrictions, and interpreted the operator residency requirement as not violating the dormant Commerce Clause. View "Hignell-Stark v. City of New Orleans" on Justia Law

A member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives used public funds and the resources of the House Democratic Caucus to send five pre-recorded, automated phone calls to constituents. These calls provided information about public health resources, employment opportunities, and community events. The calls were approved and administered by House staff, who determined that each served a clear legislative purpose and public benefit. The recipient of these calls, Andrew Perrong, filed suit, alleging that the calls violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which generally prohibits automated or pre-recorded calls made by “any person.”The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the legislator’s motion for summary judgment. The court held that the legislator was a “person” under the TCPA and could be sued in his individual capacity, even though the calls were made as part of his official duties. The District Court also found that the suit was not barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, reasoning that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was not the real party in interest, and that qualified immunity did not apply because the statutory prohibition was clear.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the statutory question and the immunity defenses. The Third Circuit held that the TCPA’s use of the term “person” does not clearly and unmistakably include state legislators acting in their official capacity when performing legitimate government functions. The court reasoned that longstanding interpretive presumptions, constitutional federalism principles, and statutory context all support excluding such official acts from the statute’s reach. As a result, the court reversed the District Court’s denial of summary judgment, holding that the TCPA’s robocall restriction does not apply to calls made by state legislators in connection with their legitimate government functions. View "Perrong v. Bradford" on Justia Law

Novo Nordisk, a pharmaceutical manufacturer, challenged the implementation of the Drug Price Negotiation Program established by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. The Program requires the Department of Health and Human Services, through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), to negotiate prices for certain high-expenditure drugs covered by Medicare. In the first round of selections, CMS grouped six of Novo Nordisk’s insulin aspart products as a single “negotiation-eligible drug” and selected them for price negotiation. Novo Nordisk signed the required agreements to participate but subsequently filed suit, arguing that CMS’s grouping of its products and the procedures used to implement the Program violated statutory and constitutional provisions.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted summary judgment in favor of the government. The court found it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review CMS’s decision to treat the six products as one drug due to a statutory bar on judicial review. It also held that Novo Nordisk lacked standing to challenge the identification of more than ten drugs for the initial pricing period. The court rejected Novo Nordisk’s claims under the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, the Due Process Clause, the nondelegation doctrine, and the First Amendment, concluding that the Program did not deprive the company of a protected property interest, that Congress provided an intelligible principle to guide CMS, and that the Program primarily regulated conduct rather than speech.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The Third Circuit held that the statutory bar on judicial review precluded consideration of Novo Nordisk’s challenge to the grouping of its products. The court also held that CMS was authorized to implement the Program through guidance for the initial years without notice and comment rulemaking, that the Act did not violate the nondelegation doctrine or the Due Process Clause, and that Novo Nordisk’s First Amendment claim was foreclosed by precedent. View "Novo Nordisk Inc. v. Secretary US Dept & Health and Human Services" on Justia Law

A transgender inmate serving a lengthy sentence in the Connecticut prison system was diagnosed with gender dysphoria after several years of incarceration. The inmate requested various treatments, including stronger hormone therapy and a vaginoplasty, but was initially denied hormone therapy due to a prison policy that only allowed continuation, not initiation, of such treatment. After a policy change, the inmate received hormone therapy, mental health counseling, antidepressants, and some lifestyle accommodations. Despite these measures, the inmate continued to request additional treatments, including surgery, and expressed dissatisfaction with the care provided, alleging it was inadequate and not delivered by specialists in gender dysphoria.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut reviewed the inmate’s claims of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment. The district court found that the corrections officials had deprived the inmate of adequate care by providing mental health treatment from unqualified providers, delaying and inadequately administering hormone therapy, and denying surgical intervention. The court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, holding that the right to be free from deliberate indifference to serious medical needs was clearly established.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. The Second Circuit held that there is no clearly established constitutional right for inmates to receive specific treatments for gender dysphoria or to be treated by gender-dysphoria specialists. The court found that reasonable officials could disagree about the adequacy and legality of the care provided, which included talk therapy, antidepressants, and hormone therapy. The Second Circuit concluded that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and remanded the case with instructions to grant summary judgment in their favor. View "Clark v. Valletta" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with twenty-one felony counts stemming from a fifteen-minute crime spree in February 2019, during which he attempted to break into homes, engaged in a physical altercation, stopped vehicles at gunpoint, and was ultimately apprehended by police. He was arraigned in May 2019 and held on high bail. Over the next several years, the case was delayed by issues including the Commonwealth’s slow production of mandatory discovery, changes in defense counsel, and the defendant’s own motions and requests. The COVID-19 pandemic led to statewide orders suspending jury trials for extended periods, further delaying proceedings.The case was heard in the Hampden Superior Court, where the defendant filed multiple motions to dismiss, arguing that the delay violated both the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure (rule 36) and his constitutional right to a speedy trial. The Superior Court judge excluded various periods from the speedy trial calculation, including time attributable to COVID-19 orders, delays caused by defense motions, and periods when the defendant changed counsel or requested continuances. The defendant was ultimately convicted on most counts after a bench trial, and he appealed directly to the Supreme Judicial Court.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that delays resulting from its COVID-19 orders do not weigh against the Commonwealth in evaluating constitutional speedy trial claims. The Court further found that, after excluding periods attributable to the pandemic, defense motions, and other justified delays, the remaining delay did not violate rule 36 or the defendant’s constitutional rights under the Sixth Amendment or Article 11 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The Court affirmed the defendant’s convictions. View "Commonwealth v. Larace" on Justia Law

In 2009, after a history of domestic violence and threats, the defendant killed his wife and five young children by cutting their throats and then fled to Haiti, where he was apprehended and confessed. He attributed his actions to “bad spirits” and voodoo spells. Upon return to Florida, he pled guilty to six counts of first-degree murder, waived his right to a penalty-phase jury, and declined to present mitigation evidence. Throughout the proceedings, his competency to stand trial was repeatedly evaluated, with findings alternating between competent and incompetent, but ultimately he was found competent at the time of his plea and sentencing. His defense team, which included both public defenders and later court-appointed attorneys, conducted extensive mitigation investigations, including mental health and cultural background assessments, despite the defendant’s lack of cooperation.The Circuit Court for Collier County imposed six death sentences, finding multiple aggravating factors and twelve mitigating factors, including some evidence of mental illness. On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the convictions and sentences, rejecting claims regarding self-representation, aggravator duplication, and the constitutionality of the death penalty. The defendant then filed a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851, raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel related to competency and mitigation, and challenging restrictions on access to public records. The circuit court denied all claims after an evidentiary hearing.The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed the appeal from the denial of postconviction relief and a related habeas corpus petition. The court held that claims regarding competency were procedurally barred, as they could have been raised on direct appeal, and that the defendant failed to show ineffective assistance of counsel under the Strickland standard. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the denial of public records requests and rejected the habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief and denied habeas corpus relief. View "Damas v. State of Florida" on Justia Law

Juan Alaniz was convicted of possessing a firearm and ammunition as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Alaniz had prior state felony convictions for illegally possessing a controlled substance and for burglary. He challenged his conviction on constitutional grounds, arguing that the statute exceeded Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause, violated the Second Amendment on its face, and violated the Second Amendment as applied to him.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas reviewed the case and entered a conviction against Alaniz. On appeal, Alaniz raised the same constitutional arguments before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. He specifically argued that only his controlled substance conviction should be considered as the predicate for his § 922(g)(1) conviction, and that his burglary conviction should not be relevant to the constitutional analysis.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected Alaniz’s Commerce Clause and facial Second Amendment challenges, citing circuit precedent. The court reviewed his as-applied Second Amendment challenge de novo and held that the government may consider Alaniz’s entire criminal record, including his burglary conviction, when evaluating the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) as applied to him. The court found that founding-era laws support the constitutionality of disarming individuals convicted of burglary. Therefore, Alaniz’s as-applied challenge was foreclosed by circuit precedent, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Alaniz" on Justia Law

Dewayne Keith Parker faced criminal charges in both Fresno and Napa counties, including murder, burglary, and assault. He was found incompetent to stand trial in Fresno County and admitted to Napa State Hospital. While hospitalized, Parker allegedly assaulted another patient, leading to new charges in Napa County. The Napa County Superior Court found him incompetent to stand trial and committed him to the Department of State Hospitals. After Parker was restored to competency, he was discharged to Fresno County due to his primary commitment there. More than a year later, after being arrested on a Napa County bench warrant, Parker was returned to Napa County, where the court again found him incompetent to stand trial.The Napa County Superior Court held a restoration hearing and, relying on equitable tolling, paused the two-year maximum commitment period for Parker’s Napa County charges during the time he was involved in proceedings in Fresno County. Parker argued that this tolling was unauthorized by statute and violated his due process and equal protection rights. The court rejected these arguments, denied his request for release or conservatorship, and set a new commitment expiration date based on the tolled period.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court held that, although the statutory scheme for competency commitments does not expressly address tolling, courts have inherent equitable powers to pause the running of the commitment period when a defendant is unavailable due to proceedings in another jurisdiction. The court found that the delay caused by Parker’s simultaneous proceedings in Fresno County constituted good cause for tolling. The appellate court affirmed the Napa County Superior Court’s order, concluding that the tolling did not violate Parker’s constitutional rights. View "People v. Parker" on Justia Law

Three nonprofit organizations brought suit challenging an executive order that denies U.S. citizenship to children born in the United States whose fathers are neither citizens nor lawful permanent residents, and whose mothers are present in the country either unlawfully or only temporarily. The organizations alleged that they have members who are expecting children affected by the order, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the order violates the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act.The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire found that the plaintiffs had standing and a cause of action for injunctive relief. The court determined that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional and statutory claims, and that the equitable factors favored granting relief. It issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the executive order against the plaintiffs and their members, but not against nonparties. The government appealed the scope and propriety of the injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion, with de novo review of legal issues and clear error review of factual findings. The court affirmed the district court’s determination that the plaintiffs had standing and were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims under the Citizenship Clause and 8 U.S.C. § 1401. However, the First Circuit vacated the injunction to the extent that it ran directly against the President and the agencies themselves, holding that injunctive relief should be limited to agency officials. The court affirmed the injunction as applied to the organizations’ members who are likely to be harmed, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support v. Trump" on Justia Law

The case concerns challenges to Executive Order No. 14160, issued in January 2025, which seeks to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the United States after its effective date if their fathers are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents and their mothers are either unlawfully or temporarily present in the country. Plaintiffs include individual immigrants, nonprofit organizations, and a coalition of states and local governments. They allege that the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment, the Separation of Powers doctrine, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of the Order.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted preliminary injunctions to both sets of plaintiffs, finding they were “exceedingly likely” to succeed on their claims under the Citizenship Clause and § 1401(a). The injunctions barred federal agencies and officials from enforcing the Executive Order against the plaintiffs and, in the case brought by the states, issued a nationwide injunction to provide complete relief. The government appealed, challenging the plaintiffs’ standing, the scope of the injunctions, and the merits of the constitutional and statutory claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s findings that the plaintiffs have Article III standing and are likely to succeed on the merits. The First Circuit held that the Executive Order’s denial of birthright citizenship to children born in the United States under the specified circumstances violates both the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), as interpreted by United States v. Wong Kim Ark and subsequent precedent. The court affirmed the preliminary injunctions in part, vacated them in part as to agency defendants, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Doe v. Trump" on Justia Law