Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The plaintiff resided at an apartment complex with his son, who was arrested for aggravated armed robbery by the local police department. After the arrest, the police informed the apartment management, which then evicted both the plaintiff and his son based on a lease provision prohibiting criminal conduct. The plaintiff sought information about his son’s arrest from the city and police department under the Texas Public Information Act, but his request was denied after the city consulted the Texas Attorney General and invoked a law-enforcement exception.In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, the plaintiff filed suit against the city, the police department, the apartment complex, a debt collection agency, and the Texas Attorney General, alleging violations of the U.S. Constitution, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and Texas law. All defendants either appeared, filed answers, or moved to dismiss. The plaintiff moved for default judgment against each defendant, but the district court denied those motions and granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. On appeal, the plaintiff only challenged the denial of default judgment, as he did not brief arguments regarding the dismissals and thus forfeited them.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed only the denial of default judgment for abuse of discretion. The court held that default judgment was not warranted because the city, police department, and debt collector had all appeared or answered, and the Attorney General had not been properly served. The court also found that arguments regarding attorney conflict and judicial bias were either forfeited or unsupported. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of default judgment. View "Clark v. City of Pasadena" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted by a jury of sexual intercourse without consent in 2017 and sentenced to 40 years in prison, with 20 years suspended. After an appeal, the Montana Supreme Court reversed the conviction due to the improper admission of statistical evidence and remanded for a new trial. While awaiting retrial, the defendant was released on bail, returned to work, and cared for his mother. At the second trial, both parties presented expert witnesses who testified about general behaviors of sexual assault victims, but did not opine on the specific facts of the case. The State’s expert, Dr. Vanino, remained in the courtroom during the defense expert’s testimony, in violation of a witness exclusion order. The District Court allowed Dr. Vanino to be recalled as a rebuttal witness, and the defense was permitted to recall its own expert in response.After the second conviction, a new psychological evaluation indicated the defendant had made progress in treatment and matured. At resentencing, the defendant requested a sentence consistent with a prior plea offer, while the State sought a harsher sentence. The District Court increased the sentence to 50 years with 30 years suspended, citing the defendant’s decision to appeal, retry the case, lack of remorse, and the impact on the victim.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed two main issues. First, it held that the District Court erred in interpreting Montana Rule of Evidence 615 to categorically exempt expert witnesses from exclusion orders, but found the error harmless because both parties’ experts were allowed to rebut each other and neither testified to case-specific facts. Second, the Court held that the increased sentence after retrial violated due process, as it was based on the defendant’s exercise of constitutional rights and not on new, objective information. The Court affirmed the conviction, reversed the increased sentence, and remanded for amendment of the judgment to restore the original suspended term. View "State v. Grimshaw" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, a law firm and its principal, challenged a Montana statute enacted in 2021 that prohibits discrimination based on an individual’s vaccination status or possession of an immunity passport. The law applies broadly to businesses, governmental entities, employers, and public accommodations, with certain exceptions for schools, daycare facilities, and healthcare providers. One provision of the law also prohibits requiring individuals to receive vaccines authorized only for emergency use or still undergoing safety trials. The plaintiffs alleged that the statute violated several provisions of the Montana Constitution, including rights to a clean and healthful environment, equal protection, inalienable rights, and the constitutional requirement that a bill’s subject be clearly expressed in its title.The case was first heard in the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, Richland County. The District Court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction and dismissed most of their constitutional claims, but allowed the claim regarding the bill’s title and single-subject requirement to proceed. On remand from the Montana Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Netzer Law Office, P.C. v. State, the District Court ultimately held that the main antidiscrimination provision of the law complied with the constitutional clear-title requirement, but that the provision prohibiting mandates for emergency use or trial vaccines did not, and voided that subsection.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ other constitutional claims. The Supreme Court held that the law’s title was sufficiently clear and not misleading as to its main antidiscrimination provision, affirming its validity. However, the Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s invalidation of the provision regarding emergency use and trial vaccines, holding that this subsection was germane to the bill’s general purpose and did not violate the clear-title or single-subject requirements. Thus, both challenged provisions of the statute were upheld. View "Netzer v. State" on Justia Law

A man was involved in a single-vehicle accident in Gallatin County, Montana, where his Jeep left the road, struck a sign, and then drove away. Witnesses reported the incident, and law enforcement traced the vehicle to the man’s residence using the license plate information. Upon arrival, officers observed damage to the Jeep and encountered the man, who exhibited signs of impairment such as bloodshot eyes and a dazed demeanor. The man admitted to purchasing and inhaling a can of Dust-Off, a product containing difluoroethane (DFE), and acknowledged that he had passed out while driving. Field sobriety tests indicated impairment, and a subsequent blood test confirmed the presence of DFE.The Gallatin County Justice Court denied the man’s motions to suppress evidence, which alleged a lack of particularized suspicion, unlawful search and seizure, and a Miranda violation. After a bench trial, the court found him guilty of misdemeanor DUI (third offense). The Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, affirmed the conviction and the denial of the suppression motions, concluding that law enforcement had particularized suspicion, that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the driveway or the exterior of the Jeep, and that no custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings had occurred.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case de novo. It held that law enforcement had particularized suspicion to investigate for DUI based on the totality of the circumstances, including the crash, the man’s behavior, and his admissions. The Court found no unlawful search or seizure, as there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the areas searched, and the man voluntarily provided the Dust-Off can. The Court also determined that no custodial interrogation occurred before arrest, so Miranda warnings were not required. The Court declined to address an unpreserved evidentiary claim and found sufficient evidence supported the DUI conviction. The conviction was affirmed. View "State v. Ellis" on Justia Law

The defendant pled guilty to two counts of third-degree sexual assault involving young children, with the offenses occurring in 2012. As part of a plea agreement, he was sentenced to two consecutive one-to-five-year prison terms, which were suspended in favor of placement at a correctional center and completion of a sex offender program. He was also ordered to serve a twenty-five-year term of supervised release. After being removed from the correctional center for behavioral issues, he served his prison sentence and began supervised release in 2017. Over the following years, his supervised release was revoked four times due to repeated violations, including unauthorized contact with minors, failure to report relationships, drug use, and dishonesty with probation officers. Each revocation resulted in increasing terms of imprisonment.The Circuit Court of Ohio County presided over each revocation. On the fourth revocation, the court sentenced the defendant to twenty-five years’ imprisonment and imposed an additional twenty-five-year term of supervised release to begin after his release from prison. The defendant appealed, arguing that the sentence was constitutionally disproportionate and that the additional supervised release term exceeded the statutory maximum under West Virginia Code § 62-12-26(j).The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case. It held that the twenty-five-year imprisonment sentence was not constitutionally disproportionate, given the seriousness of the underlying offenses and the defendant’s repeated breaches of trust while on supervised release. However, the court found that the circuit court erred in calculating the additional term of supervised release. The statute requires subtracting all prior revocation imprisonment terms from the maximum authorized supervised release period. The court affirmed the imprisonment sentence, vacated the supervised release term, and remanded for resentencing on that issue. View "State of West Virginia v. Brautigam" on Justia Law

An armed fugitive fleeing law enforcement entered a print shop owned by the plaintiff, forcibly removed him, and barricaded himself inside. After a thirteen-hour standoff, Los Angeles Police Department SWAT officers used dozens of tear gas canisters to subdue the fugitive, causing significant damage to the shop and its contents. The parties agreed that the officers’ actions were authorized, reasonable, and lawful. The plaintiff alleged that the damages, which exceeded $60,000, were caused exclusively by the police.The plaintiff initially sought compensation from the United States Marshals Service, which denied the claim and referred him to the City of Los Angeles. After the City did not respond to his claims or his attorney’s letter, the plaintiff filed a federal lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. The City moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the Takings Clause does not require compensation for property destroyed by police acting reasonably in an emergency. The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied the City’s initial motion but later granted summary judgment for the City, finding that the destruction was a valid exercise of police power and not a compensable taking.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the government’s destruction of private property, when necessary and reasonable for public safety, is exempt from the Takings Clause. The court relied on historical understanding and longstanding precedent, concluding that such actions fall outside the scope of the Takings Clause. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment. View "PENA V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES" on Justia Law

Bartlesville, Oklahoma police officers responded to a domestic disturbance call at the home of Willis Gay Jr., who reported his son Thomas Gay was behaving erratically and possibly under the influence of drugs. Willis informed the officers that Thomas was unarmed but had made furtive movements toward his back pocket. Upon entering the home, the officers observed Thomas holding an innocuous object and appearing disoriented. Officer Lewis immediately pointed his Taser at Thomas and, after a single command, tased him. Officer Pitts drew her firearm. Thomas retreated into a bedroom, where Officer Lewis tased him again, but the Taser failed to incapacitate him. A brief struggle ensued, and as Thomas moved toward the bedroom door, making a motion toward his back pocket, Officer Pitts shot him twice, resulting in his death within minutes of the officers’ arrival.The Estate of Thomas Gay sued the officers in their individual capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The officers moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma denied the motion, finding that disputed facts could allow a reasonable jury to conclude the officers violated Thomas’s clearly established constitutional rights. The court determined that a reasonable jury could find Thomas was unarmed and not holding any object when shot, and that the officers’ actions were not objectively reasonable.On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. The appellate court held it lacked jurisdiction to revisit the district court’s factual determinations, as the record did not blatantly contradict those findings and no legal error was committed. The court further held that, under clearly established law, the officers’ use of force was objectively unreasonable, precluding qualified immunity. View "Burke v. Pitts" on Justia Law

The appellant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm after police found him with a loaded, illegally modified semiautomatic handgun while he was on supervised release for prior violent felony convictions. During jury selection, the juror in question did not disclose any mental health issues. After the guilty verdict, Juror 8 emailed the court, stating she suffered from chronic anxiety and depression, felt pressured during deliberations, and questioned the fairness of the verdict due to her mental state.Following the verdict, the appellant asked the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to hold an evidentiary hearing to investigate Juror 8’s mental health and her competence to serve. The District Court denied the request, citing Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b), which generally prohibits inquiry into jury deliberations except for specific exceptions not applicable here. The court also found no evidence during voir dire, trial, or deliberations to suggest Juror 8 was incompetent.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed whether the District Court erred in denying the evidentiary hearing and whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional, either facially or as applied. The appellate court held that Rule 606(b) barred consideration of Juror 8’s email because it concerned internal jury deliberations and mental processes. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying the hearing, given the lack of evidence of incompetence. Regarding the constitutional challenges to § 922(g)(1), the court found the arguments untimely and, even under plain error review, rejected them based on binding precedent. The judgment of the District Court was affirmed. View "USA v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Late one night in Santa Fe, New Mexico, Jason Roybal led police officers on a low-speed chase in a stolen car. After stopping, Roybal leaned out of his vehicle and fired a BB gun at the officers. The officers responded by firing their guns. Roybal then exited his car, dropped the BB gun, and fled on foot toward a civilian-occupied vehicle. The officers shot and killed Roybal as he was running away. The personal representative of Roybal’s estate filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the officers used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, specifically claiming that Roybal was unarmed and fleeing when he was shot.The case was initially filed in New Mexico state court, then removed to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. The officers moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), asserting qualified immunity and arguing that the complaint omitted key facts, such as Roybal firing a BB gun and running toward an occupied car. They also asked the district court to consider dash- and body-camera footage. The district court denied the motion to dismiss, ruling that it could not consider the videos at this stage and that the complaint plausibly alleged a Fourth Amendment violation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss. The Tenth Circuit held that the district court properly refused to consider the video evidence at the motion-to-dismiss stage and that the complaint plausibly alleged a violation of Roybal’s clearly established right to be free from excessive force under the Fourth Amendment. The court found that, accepting the complaint’s allegations as true, the officers’ conduct was not justified by the circumstances described, and the right at issue was clearly established by precedent. View "Fuqua v. Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office" on Justia Law

Richard Merritt, an attorney, was convicted of malice murder and possession of a knife during the commission of a crime after the death of his mother, Shirley Merritt, in February 2019. Prior to the murder, Merritt had pled guilty to multiple theft-related felonies and was sentenced to prison, but was released on GPS monitoring pending his surrender. On the day he was to report to prison, Merritt met his ex-wife and daughter at a doctor’s appointment, returned to his mother’s house, and later left in her car with both their cell phones. He cut off his GPS monitor and disappeared. Shirley was found dead the next day, having suffered stab wounds and blunt-force trauma. Merritt was apprehended months later living under a false identity in Tennessee. At trial, Merritt claimed two unknown men killed his mother, but the jury rejected this account.The Superior Court of DeKalb County held a jury trial in May 2023, resulting in Merritt’s conviction on all counts. He was sentenced to life without parole for malice murder and a consecutive five years for possession of a knife. Other counts were vacated or merged. Merritt filed a motion for new trial, which was denied after an evidentiary hearing in January 2025.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed Merritt’s appeal. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and that Merritt failed to show ineffective assistance of counsel regarding cross-examination, closing argument, or other trial strategies. Claims regarding shackling and an alleged Brady violation were deemed waived. The court found no cumulative error and affirmed the convictions. The Supreme Court of Georgia’s judgment was to affirm Merritt’s convictions. View "MERRITT v. THE STATE" on Justia Law