Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

In this case, the defendant, a lawyer, was accused of delivering sixty-one orange strips containing Suboxone, a controlled substance, to an inmate at a county house of correction. The delivery was disguised as legal paperwork following instructions from another inmate. The strips were confiscated by officers who suspected they were Suboxone. Forensic testing was performed by analyst Dunlap, who concluded the strips contained Suboxone. Dunlap documented her procedures and results in her notes, but was no longer employed at the crime lab at the time of trial. Instead, LaBelle, a supervisor who had not participated in or observed the testing, reviewed Dunlap’s work and testified as a substitute expert, relaying Dunlap’s notes and offering her own opinion based on the case file.A jury in the Massachusetts Superior Court found the defendant guilty of unlawfully delivering a class B controlled substance to a prisoner. The Appeals Court affirmed the conviction, reasoning that LaBelle’s opinion was independent. After the United States Supreme Court decided Smith v. Arizona, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the Appeals Court’s judgment, and remanded for reconsideration in light of Smith. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts then transferred the case for review.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the admission of LaBelle’s testimony violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses. The Court found that LaBelle’s opinion was not independent, as it depended on the truth of Dunlap’s testimonial hearsay statements regarding the procedures and results of the testing. The Court concluded that this error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and vacated the conviction, remanding for a new trial. The Court also held that its new rule applies prospectively to cases not yet final. View "Commonwealth v. Gordon" on Justia Law

Police officers in Kona, Hawai‘i, stopped a car for expired registration with Charles Zuffante as a passenger and his girlfriend as the driver. During the stop, officers observed a glass pipe and subsequently arrested both individuals. A search of Zuffante revealed 3.5 grams of methamphetamine, and a later search of the car uncovered an additional 130 grams of methamphetamine in various containers. The officers recorded the stop with body-worn cameras. The following day, a detective interrogated Zuffante in the Kona police station, where Zuffante signed a waiver of rights. Although the interrogation room was equipped for video recording, no recording was made due to claimed equipment failure. The detective did not take notes and later wrote a report summarizing Zuffante’s statements.Zuffante moved in limine in the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit to exclude the detective’s testimony about the unrecorded interrogation, arguing that admitting such testimony violated his constitutional rights and urging the court to adopt the recording requirement from Stephan v. State, as rejected in State v. Kekona. The circuit court denied the motion, and at trial, the detective testified that Zuffante confessed to possessing all the methamphetamine. Zuffante testified in his own defense, denying the confession. The jury convicted Zuffante of multiple drug offenses, and he was sentenced to twenty years in prison. On appeal, the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed the conviction.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i reviewed the case and held that the Hawai‘i Constitution’s due process clause requires law enforcement to record all in-station custodial interrogations and, when feasible, all outside-the-station custodial interrogations. The court overruled State v. Kekona and established that failure to record, absent a showing of infeasibility, results in exclusion of the unrecorded statement. The court vacated the ICA’s judgment and the circuit court’s conviction, remanding for further proceedings. View "State v. Zuffante" on Justia Law

The case centers on a Florida farm and its owner, who had supplied produce to a local school district for several years. In June 2020, the owner posted controversial statements on his personal Facebook page, describing the COVID-19 pandemic as a “hoax” and making disparaging remarks about the Black Lives Matter movement and George Floyd. The school district, concerned about food safety during the early, uncertain days of the pandemic, requested information about the farm’s COVID-19 protocols. The response provided protocols from a subsidiary, not the farm itself, which the district found inadequate. Shortly after, the superintendent terminated the farm’s contract, citing concerns about the farm’s approach to COVID-19 safety.The farm and its owner sued the school district and board members in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleging First Amendment retaliation and raising state law claims. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, applying the Pickering balancing test (typically used for government employees and contractors) and finding that the school district’s interests in food safety outweighed the plaintiffs’ free speech rights. The court also granted qualified immunity to individual defendants and dismissed the state law claims without prejudice.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Eleventh Circuit held that, although the owner’s speech addressed matters of public concern, the evidence showed the contract was terminated due to genuine food safety concerns, not as punishment for the owner’s views on COVID-19 or racial issues. The court found no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the school district’s motivation and concluded that the district’s interest in student safety justified its actions. The summary judgment in favor of the school district was affirmed. View "Oakes Farms Food & Distribution Services, LLC v. Adkins" on Justia Law

After the Washington Medical Commission adopted a policy to discipline physicians for spreading COVID-19 “misinformation,” several plaintiffs—including physicians who had been charged with unprofessional conduct, physicians who had not been charged, and advocacy organizations—filed suit. The Commission’s actions included investigating and charging doctors for public statements and writings about COVID-19 treatments and vaccines. Some plaintiffs, such as Dr. Eggleston and Dr. Siler, were actively facing disciplinary proceedings, while others, like Dr. Moynihan, had not been charged but claimed their speech was chilled. Additional plaintiffs included a non-profit organization and a public figure who alleged their right to receive information was affected.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington dismissed the plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. The court found that the claims were constitutionally and prudentially unripe, and that the doctrine of Younger abstention required federal courts to refrain from interfering with ongoing state disciplinary proceedings. The district court also addressed the merits, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to state a plausible First Amendment or due process claim, but the primary basis for dismissal was abstention and ripeness.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that Younger abstention barred claims challenging ongoing state disciplinary proceedings (including as-applied and facial constitutional challenges, and due process claims) for all plaintiffs subject to such proceedings. The court also held that Younger abstention did not apply to claims for prospective relief by plaintiffs not currently subject to proceedings, but those claims were constitutionally and prudentially unripe because no concrete injury had occurred and further factual development was needed. The Ninth Circuit thus affirmed the dismissal of all claims. View "STOCKTON V. BROWN" on Justia Law

During an oil pipeline protest in Hubbard County, Minnesota, Matthew Locke and another protestor locked themselves to construction equipment using a device known as a “sleeping dragon,” which made removal difficult. Law enforcement officers, including Sheriff Cory Aukes and Chief Deputy Scott Parks, responded to the scene. In their efforts to remove Locke, the officers used several pain compliance techniques, applying pressure to various nerves on Locke’s head and neck. Locke alleges that as a result, he suffered facial paralysis, tinnitus, and emotional distress. After being removed from the device by extraction teams, Locke was evaluated by EMTs, taken to the hospital, and then jailed.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed Locke’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Minnesota law. The court held that Sheriff Aukes and Deputy Parks were entitled to qualified and official immunity, and that Locke’s complaint did not state a claim for municipal liability against Hubbard County. The district court also dismissed Locke’s state law claims for assault and battery.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The Eighth Circuit held that, accepting the complaint’s allegations as true, Locke plausibly alleged a violation of his clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force, as the officers’ use of pain compliance techniques on a nonviolent, passively resisting misdemeanant was not objectively reasonable. The court also found that the district court erred in dismissing the official capacity claim without considering whether the sheriff was a final policymaker for the county. Additionally, the Eighth Circuit reversed the grant of official immunity on the state law claims, finding that the complaint sufficiently alleged willful violation of a known right. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Locke v. County of Hubbard" on Justia Law

Following the 2020 census, South Carolina was required to redraw its congressional districts to ensure population equality among the seven districts. The most significant changes involved Districts 1 and 6, with District 1 being overpopulated and District 6 underpopulated. The redistricting process, led by Senator Chip Campsen, resulted in a plan that increased the Republican advantage in District 1 by unifying certain counties and shifting precincts with high Democratic vote shares into District 6. The plan was enacted in 2022 and used in subsequent elections.Previously, the United States Supreme Court reviewed the plan in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, 602 U.S. 1 (2024), focusing on claims of racial gerrymandering. The Supreme Court found that the legislature’s primary intent was partisan advantage, not racial discrimination, and held that claims of partisan gerrymandering are nonjusticiable under the U.S. Constitution. After the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their remaining federal claims, the League of Women Voters of South Carolina filed a petition in the Supreme Court of South Carolina, arguing that the plan constituted an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander under several provisions of the South Carolina Constitution.The Supreme Court of South Carolina, exercising its original jurisdiction, held that claims of partisan gerrymandering present a nonjusticiable political question under the state constitution. The court found that South Carolina’s constitution and statutes do not contain provisions that prohibit or limit partisan gerrymandering, nor do they provide judicially manageable standards for adjudicating such claims. The court concluded that the authority to draw congressional districts is textually committed to the legislature and denied the League’s request for relief, dismissing the claims with prejudice. View "League of Women Voters of South Carolina v. Alexander" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of murder with special circumstances, home invasion, arson in the second degree, and robbery in the first degree, following a violent home invasion in Griswold, Connecticut. The crimes involved the planned theft of a gun safe and guns from the Lindquist family home, orchestrated with the help of the victims’ son, Matthew, who was later killed by the defendant and his sister, Ruth. After killing Matthew in a nearby wooded area, the defendant and Ruth entered the Lindquist home, killed Kenneth and Janet Lindquist, stole various items, and set the house on fire. The defendant’s cell phone was seized by police without a warrant after an interview, and a subsequent warrant authorized the search and seizure of “all data” from the phone, without any temporal limitations.In the Superior Court for the judicial district of New London, the defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained from his cell phone, arguing the seizure was illegal and the warrant was unconstitutional due to its broad scope. The trial court found the seizure proper and, applying the severance doctrine, limited admissible evidence to data created or received within a two-week period surrounding the crimes, suppressing data outside that window. The jury convicted the defendant on most counts, and the court vacated certain convictions before sentencing him to life imprisonment without parole.On appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court, the defendant challenged the constitutionality of the cell phone search warrant. The Supreme Court assumed, without deciding, that the warrantless seizure was constitutional, but held that the warrant violated the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement because it authorized a search of all data without content or time limits. The Court further found the trial court erred in applying the severance doctrine to cure the warrant’s deficiencies. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court concluded that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, as the cell phone evidence was cumulative and the state’s case was strong without it. The judgment of conviction was affirmed. View "State v. Correa" on Justia Law

A man incarcerated in Texas state prison was classified as a member of a security threat group and placed in administrative segregation, a form of solitary confinement, for sixteen years. The only way for him to return to the general prison population was to complete a gang renunciation program, which required him to renounce his gang affiliation and participate in an interview. During the interview, he was questioned by prison and law enforcement officials about criminal activities that occurred during his incarceration. He refused to answer questions that could incriminate him, after which his application to the renunciation program was terminated for failure to cooperate. He filed grievances challenging the process, but they were denied or dismissed.He then filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas against several prison officials, alleging violations of his Fifth, First, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court initially dismissed his claims, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded for further proceedings. After further litigation, including the appointment of counsel and discovery, the district court again granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding no constitutional violations and holding that the officials were entitled to qualified immunity.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment. The court held that the officials were entitled to qualified immunity on the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination and First Amendment compelled speech claims because there was no clearly established law making their conduct unlawful in this context. Regarding the Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim, the court assumed a liberty interest but found that the periodic classification reviews provided by the prison satisfied due process requirements. The court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Ballentine v. Broxton" on Justia Law

A group of drug manufacturers that participate in the federal Section 340B program challenged a Mississippi law, H.B. 728, which prohibits manufacturers from interfering with healthcare providers’ use of contract pharmacies to distribute discounted drugs to low-income and uninsured patients. The manufacturers argued that the law compels them to transfer drugs at a discount to private, for-profit pharmacies and expands their obligations under federal law, potentially enabling improper resale of discounted drugs. They sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the law from taking effect, claiming it constituted an unconstitutional taking and was preempted by federal law.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi denied the manufacturers’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that the manufacturers had not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their takings or preemption claims, and thus were not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. The manufacturers appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion, applying clear error review to factual findings and de novo review to legal conclusions. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the manufacturers had not shown a substantial likelihood of success on their claims. The court concluded that H.B. 728 did not effectuate a physical or regulatory taking, nor was it preempted by federal law under either field or conflict preemption theories. The court emphasized that, on the record presented, the manufacturers had not met their burden to justify the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction. The district court’s denial of injunctive relief was therefore affirmed. View "AbbVie v. Fitch" on Justia Law

Brandon Velez was stopped by Manchester, New Hampshire police officers for vehicle equipment violations. After parking near his residence, Velez did not immediately comply with officers’ orders to exit his car. When he verbally refused and reached for his phone, officers attempted to physically remove him, leading to a struggle. During the altercation, one officer struck Velez multiple times and tased him twice. Velez was arrested and charged with misdemeanors and a traffic violation, ultimately pleading guilty only to the traffic violation. He later sued the officers and the City of Manchester, alleging wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, excessive force, assault and battery, and failure to train.The case was removed from state court to the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted, finding that the officers had probable cause for the arrest and that the force used was not excessive. Velez appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment order de novo. The appellate court held that the officers had probable cause to arrest Velez for resisting detention under New Hampshire law, defeating his wrongful arrest and false imprisonment claims. The court also found that, although one officer’s use of force was excessive under the Fourth Amendment, qualified immunity shielded the officer from liability because the law was not clearly established in the specific context. The court further held that Velez’s state-law assault and battery claim failed under the same immunity standard, and that his claims against the City for failure to train were unsupported by evidence of a municipal policy or deliberate indifference. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the defendants on all counts. View "Velez v. Eutzy" on Justia Law