Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

A professor at a public university alleged that several university administrators violated his First Amendment rights. The professor, known for his outspoken criticism of university policies and administrators on social media and in public forums, claimed that university officials attempted to silence him. He asserted that they threatened his job security, pay, research opportunities, and academic freedom, and that a university employee requested police surveillance of his speech. The professor stated that these actions caused him to self-censor, including making his social media account private and ceasing to post, out of concern for potential retaliation.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas reviewed the case after the professor filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging both retaliation for protected speech and the existence of an unwritten speech code that chilled his speech. The district court dismissed the retaliation claim, finding that the professor had not sufficiently alleged an adverse employment action, and granted summary judgment on the chilled-speech claim for the same reason. The court also dismissed the claim regarding the unwritten speech code, concluding that the professor had not adequately alleged a facial or as-applied First Amendment violation. Additionally, the court resolved two discovery disputes in favor of the university.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Fifth Circuit held that the professor had standing to bring his claims but could not prevail on the merits. The court determined that, under established Fifth Circuit precedent, a First Amendment retaliation claim requires an adverse employment action, which the professor did not experience. The court also found that the chilled-speech claim was not distinct from the retaliation claim and failed for the same reason. The court further held that the allegations regarding an unwritten speech code were too conclusory to state a plausible claim. The court upheld the district court’s discovery rulings, finding no abuse of discretion or prejudice. The judgment was affirmed. View "Lowery v. Mills" on Justia Law

Several individuals whose livelihoods depended on interacting with spinner dolphins challenged a federal regulation that restricted human proximity to these dolphins. The regulation, known as the Approach Rule, was issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The plaintiffs included a psychotherapist who used dolphin encounters in therapy, a boat captain who operated dolphin swim tours, and a dolphin guide and photographer. They argued that the regulation was unconstitutional because it was signed and promulgated by an official who, they claimed, was not properly appointed under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland reviewed the case after the plaintiffs filed suit seeking to invalidate the regulation and enjoin its enforcement. During the litigation, Dr. Richard Spinrad, the Senate-confirmed NOAA Administrator and a principal officer, ratified the regulation, affirming that he independently evaluated and approved it. The district court found that this ratification cured any potential Appointments Clause defect and granted summary judgment in favor of the government. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that, under established principles of agency law, a principal officer’s ratification of a regulation can cure any constitutional defect arising from its initial promulgation by a non-principal officer. The court found that Dr. Spinrad’s ratification was valid and not impermissibly retroactive, as it did not impose new liabilities for past conduct but merely confirmed the regulation’s validity from the time of its original publication. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the suit. View "Wille v. Lutnik" on Justia Law

Legacy Housing Corporation purchased several hundred vacant lots in Horseshoe Bay, Texas, intending to develop manufactured housing. The lots were subject to zoning restrictions, including a cap on speculative housing permits, contractor requirements, utility hookup fees, and setback rules. Legacy also acquired adjacent land in the city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) to build a road connecting the lots to a nearby highway, but this land was restricted to agricultural and residential use. Despite these limitations, Legacy constructed a road over the ETJ property, a greenbelt strip, and some development lots, advertising it as a shortcut and access to planned amenities. The City and other defendants opposed the road, citing violations of existing restrictions. Legacy alleged a conspiracy among the City, the property owners’ association (POA), and developers to prevent its development.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas addressed multiple claims and counterclaims. It denied Legacy’s motion to dismiss the City’s counterclaims, granted the City’s motion to dismiss most claims against it, and granted summary judgment to all defendants on the remaining claims, including regulatory takings, Section 1983 violations, civil conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and a strips and gores claim. Legacy’s own motion for partial summary judgment was denied, and final judgment was entered.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings, with one modification. The appellate court held that Legacy’s regulatory takings claim regarding the two-permit cap was not prudentially ripe and should be dismissed without prejudice. The court otherwise affirmed summary judgment for the defendants, finding no genuine dispute of material fact and concluding that Legacy did not have property rights to build the road, nor did the defendants breach any legal duties or restrictive covenants. View "Legacy Hsing v. City of Horseshoe Bay" on Justia Law

An Oregon nonprofit organization, whose board members are guided by sincerely held religious beliefs, challenged a state law requiring most employers to provide insurance coverage for abortion and contraceptive services. The organization’s governing documents and public statements reflect a commitment to traditional Judeo-Christian ethics, including opposition to abortion based on religious grounds. Although the law contains exemptions for certain religious employers, the organization does not qualify for any of these exceptions, a point not disputed by the state. The organization sought relief, arguing that being compelled to provide such coverage violates its rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.The United States District Court for the District of Oregon denied the organization’s request for a preliminary injunction and dismissed its complaint. The district court found there was doubt as to whether the organization’s opposition to abortion was genuinely religious in nature. It further concluded that the law was neutral and generally applicable, subject only to rational basis review, which it satisfied.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and vacated the denial of a preliminary injunction. The Ninth Circuit held that the organization’s beliefs are religious and sincerely held, and that the district court erred by not accepting these allegations as true at the motion to dismiss stage. The appellate court remanded the case for the district court to reconsider, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission, whether the selective denial of a religious exemption to the organization violates the First Amendment. The Ninth Circuit expressed no opinion on the ultimate constitutional question, leaving it for the district court to address in the first instance. View "OREGON RIGHT TO LIFE V. STOLFI" on Justia Law

A candidate for Congress, who holds both a medical degree and a law degree but is not licensed to practice medicine, referred to himself as “Dr. Gonzalez” and a “physician” during his campaign. The Texas Medical Board (TMB) received a complaint alleging that these statements constituted the unlicensed practice of medicine and improper use of professional titles. After an investigation and hearing, TMB determined that the candidate had violated the Medical Practice Act and the Healing Art Identification Act, issuing a cease-and-desist order prohibiting him from using the titles “doctor,” “physician,” or “Dr.” without clarifying his lack of a medical license. The candidate challenged the order, arguing both statutory and constitutional grounds, including that the statutes violated his free speech rights.The Travis County District Court dismissed all of the candidate’s claims for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas affirmed the dismissal of most claims, holding that the redundant-remedies doctrine barred his ultra vires and as-applied constitutional claims because he could have sought relief through the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). However, the appellate court remanded his facial constitutional challenge to the district court for further proceedings.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that the redundant-remedies doctrine did not bar the candidate’s ultra vires and as-applied constitutional claims, because the relief he sought—declaratory and injunctive relief against future enforcement—went beyond what the APA could provide. The court affirmed the dismissal of his substantial-evidence claim for lack of jurisdiction, as there was no statutory basis for judicial review outside the APA. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings on the facial constitutional, as-applied constitutional, and ultra vires claims. View "GONZALEZ v. TEXAS MEDICAL BOARD" on Justia Law

Benjamin Tariri was charged with multiple counts of embezzlement and larceny, allegedly misappropriating nearly $2 million from clients while working as an attorney. He was arrested at Logan International Airport attempting to board a one-way flight to Iran, where he had recently spent six months. Tariri had longstanding ties to the United States but also significant connections to Iran. After his arraignment in the Boston Municipal Court, he was released on cash bail and required to submit to GPS monitoring with an inclusion zone restricting his movements to certain areas, primarily to mitigate his risk of flight.Following indictment and arraignment in the Superior Court, the bail and GPS conditions were maintained, with the inclusion zone expanded to cover additional areas. Tariri moved to modify or vacate the GPS condition, arguing that it hindered his ability to work and prevented him from visiting his wife and child in East Boston. The motion judge expanded the inclusion zone to address employment concerns but otherwise denied further relief. Tariri then filed a petition under G. L. c. 211, § 3, in the county court, which a single justice denied, finding no abuse of discretion or error of law in the trial court’s order.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the single justice’s denial for clear error of law or abuse of discretion. The court held that GPS monitoring with an inclusion zone, imposed as a condition of pretrial release, was a reasonable and constitutional search under art. 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, given the particularized risk of flight and the legitimate governmental interest in ensuring Tariri’s appearance in court. The judgment of the single justice was affirmed. View "Tariri v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

During the COVID-19 pandemic, an employee in Nevada worked for a large retailer that required workers to undergo COVID-19 testing before each shift, following state emergency orders and workplace safety recommendations. The company did not pay employees for the time spent on these pre-shift tests. The employee filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging violations of Nevada’s wage-hour statutes and the state constitution, including failure to pay for all hours worked, minimum wage, overtime, and timely payment upon termination.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied the employer’s motion to dismiss, which had argued that the time spent on COVID-19 testing was not compensable “work” under the federal Portal-to-Portal Act (PPA). The district court held that Nevada law had not incorporated the PPA, and thus the pre-shift screenings were compensable. The court then certified a question to the Supreme Court of Nevada, asking whether Nevada law incorporates the PPA’s exceptions to compensable work.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the certified question and determined that Nevada’s wage-hour statutes do not incorporate the PPA’s broad exceptions to compensable work. The court found that Nevada law provides only narrow, specific exceptions to work compensation, unlike the PPA’s general exclusions for preliminary and postliminary activities. The court concluded that the Nevada Legislature did not intend to adopt the PPA’s exceptions, as reflected in the statutory language and legislative history. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Nevada answered the certified question in the negative, holding that Nevada’s wage-hour laws do not incorporate the PPA’s exceptions to compensable work. View "AMAZON.COM SERVS., LLC VS. MALLOY" on Justia Law

A citizen of Cleburne County submitted a petition for a local ballot initiative, titled the “Hand Marked, Hand Counted Paper Ballot Ordinance of 2024,” to the county clerk for inclusion in the 2024 general election. The county clerk rejected the petition, determining that there were insufficient valid signatures because some paid canvassers were not Arkansas residents as required by law. The canvassers later submitted supplemental affidavits listing Arkansas addresses, but the clerk still refused to count those signatures.The petitioner then filed suit in the Cleburne County Circuit Court, seeking a writ of mandamus and an injunction to compel the clerk to count the disputed signatures and certify the petition if it met the signature requirements. After an expedited hearing, the circuit court granted both the writ and the injunction, ordering the clerk to count all signatures, including those “cured” by the supplemental affidavits, and to certify the petition if it was sufficient.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed whether the circuit court could require the county clerk to certify a local ballot initiative that was not timely filed under the Arkansas Constitution. The Supreme Court held that Article 5, section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution sets the exclusive timeline for filing local initiative petitions—no sooner than ninety days and no later than sixty days before the election. The petition in question was filed too early for the 2024 election and, by operation of statute, would have been certified for the 2026 election, but it was also untimely for that election under the constitutional timeline. The Supreme Court held that the relevant statutory provisions were unconstitutional to the extent they conflicted with the constitutional timeline. The court reversed the circuit court’s order and dismissed the case, holding that a circuit court cannot require certification of an untimely initiative. View "EVANS v. HARRISON" on Justia Law

A man committed several felonies in New York and Virginia between 2000 and 2001. After serving his prison sentences, he was subject to both state and federal post-release supervision. He repeatedly violated the terms of his supervision, resulting in multiple periods of reincarceration. In 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in Earley v. Murray that New York’s practice of administratively imposing post-release supervision without a judicial pronouncement was unconstitutional. The state legislature responded in 2008 by authorizing corrections officials to initiate resentencing proceedings. The plaintiff was incarcerated in New York from June 2007 to February 2008 for violating post-release supervision, and again in 2010, before being resentenced without post-release supervision.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed the plaintiff’s claims for damages related to his 2010 incarceration, finding the defendants acted reasonably at that time, but allowed claims related to the 2007-08 incarceration to proceed to trial. At trial, the defendants were barred from introducing evidence that legal and administrative obstacles prevented them from initiating resentencing for the plaintiff during 2007-08. The jury awarded the plaintiff $100,000 in compensatory and $750,000 in punitive damages. The district court denied the defendants’ motion for a new trial and rejected their qualified immunity defense for the 2007-08 period.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion by excluding evidence of impediments to resentencing and erred in denying a new trial for the 2007-08 period. The court reversed the denial of a new trial for that period, vacated the dismissal of the 2010 claims on qualified immunity grounds, and remanded for further proceedings. The court also held that qualified immunity was properly denied for both periods under existing precedent. View "Santiago v. Fischer" on Justia Law

A high school senior in New York posted a photo on social media after school hours and off school grounds, depicting a friend kneeling on his neck with the caption “Cops got another.” The image resembled the murder of George Floyd, and although the student claimed he did not intend this resemblance, he removed the post within minutes after receiving negative reactions. However, another student took a screenshot and shared it more widely, leading to public outcry, in-school discussions, a student demonstration, and a school investigation. The school superintendent suspended the student and barred him from extracurricular activities for the rest of the school year.The student initially filed suit in New York State Supreme Court, alleging that the school’s disciplinary actions violated his First Amendment rights. After the state court granted limited injunctive relief allowing him to attend graduation, the defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Following discovery, the district court granted summary judgment for the school district, finding that the student’s off-campus speech caused substantial disruption in school and thus was not protected by the First Amendment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. Applying the standards from Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District and Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., the Second Circuit held that the school’s disciplinary actions violated the student’s First Amendment rights. The court found that the off-campus nature of the speech, its lack of threatening content, and the school’s interests did not justify the punishment imposed. The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Leroy v. Livingston Manor Central School District" on Justia Law