Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Ryan VanDyke was subject to a civil protection order and a no-contact order in Idaho after persistently harassing a woman, violating both probation conditions for a prior telephone-harassment conviction and earlier court-ordered protections. In October 2022, after being charged with felony stalking for continued unwanted contact and harassment, a state court issued a no-contact order that explicitly prohibited VanDyke from using, attempting to use, or threatening physical force against the victim. In May 2023, while still under these orders, VanDyke entered a courthouse carrying a loaded revolver.The United States District Court for the District of Idaho dismissed the federal indictment against VanDyke, which charged him with illegal firearm possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii). The district court found that, as applied to VanDyke, this statute did not fit within the historical tradition of firearm regulation required by the Second Amendment, and therefore held the statute unconstitutional in this context.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case following the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024). The Ninth Circuit held that § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii) is constitutional as applied to VanDyke. The court reasoned that there is a historical tradition of both individualized and categorical disarmament of persons deemed dangerous, including those subject to judicial findings of threat or facing serious criminal charges. The court found that the procedures and justifications for VanDyke’s disarmament were analogous to those recognized in Rahimi and related precedent. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the indictment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "USA V. VANDYKE" on Justia Law

The case concerns a former CEO of a brand-management company who was prosecuted for allegedly orchestrating a scheme to inflate company revenues through secret “overpayments-for-givebacks” deals with a business partner. The government alleged that the CEO arranged for the partner to pay inflated prices for joint ventures, with a secret understanding that the excess would be returned later, thereby allowing the company to report higher revenues to investors. The CEO was also accused of making false filings with the SEC and improperly influencing audits. The central factual dispute was whether the CEO actually made these undisclosed agreements.In 2021, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held a jury trial. The jury acquitted the CEO of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, make false SEC filings, and interfere with audits, but could not reach a verdict on the substantive charges, resulting in a mistrial on those counts. The government retried the CEO in 2022 on the substantive counts, and the second jury convicted him on all charges. The CEO moved to bar the retrial, arguing that the Double Jeopardy Clause precluded it because the first jury’s acquittal necessarily decided factual issues essential to the government’s case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the first jury’s acquittal on the conspiracy charge necessarily decided that the CEO did not make the alleged secret agreements, which was a factual issue essential to the substantive charges. Because the government’s case at the second trial depended on proving those same secret agreements, the Double Jeopardy Clause’s issue-preclusion doctrine barred the retrial. The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment, vacated the CEO’s convictions, and ordered dismissal of the indictment. View "United States v. Cole" on Justia Law

The City of Los Angeles implemented the recycLA program in 2017, establishing exclusive franchise agreements with private waste haulers to provide waste collection services for commercial and multi-unit residential properties. Under these agreements, haulers paid the City a percentage of their gross receipts as a franchise fee. Several property owners and tenants who paid for waste hauling services under this system filed a consolidated class action against the City, alleging that the franchise fees were actually an unlawful tax imposed without voter approval, in violation of Proposition 218 and related constitutional provisions. The plaintiffs sought refunds of the alleged illegal taxes and declaratory relief regarding the validity of the fees.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County considered the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. While the court found the proposed class sufficiently numerous and ascertainable, and agreed that the question of whether the franchise fees constituted an illegal tax was subject to common proof, it identified a fundamental problem: not all proposed class members suffered an economic loss, as some landlords and property owners may have passed the cost of the fees on to tenants. The court concluded that entitlement to refunds was not susceptible to common proof and that individual issues predominated over common ones. It also found that a class action was not the superior method for resolving the dispute, due to the risk of unjust enrichment and the complexity of determining who actually bore the cost of the fees. The court denied class certification.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the trial court’s order under the substantial evidence standard. The appellate court affirmed the denial of class certification, holding that the trial court did not err in finding that individual issues predominated and that class treatment was not superior. The order denying class certification was affirmed. View "Leeds v. City of L.A." on Justia Law

The defendant was indicted on three charges related to the production and possession of child pornography. He pleaded guilty to one count—production of child pornography—and was sentenced to 256 months in prison, followed by a lifetime of supervised release. The terms of his supervised release included both mandatory and special conditions. Of particular relevance was a special condition requiring him to submit to substance abuse testing and contribute to the cost of such testing, as determined by a sliding scale approved by the Probation Office.The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina imposed these conditions at sentencing. The defendant did not object to the special condition regarding substance abuse testing during the sentencing proceedings. On appeal, he argued that this special condition unconstitutionally delegated a core judicial function—specifically, the authority to determine the number of drug tests—to the Probation Office.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case for plain error, given the lack of objection below. The court found that the plain language of the special condition did not delegate authority to determine the number of drug tests to the Probation Office; rather, it addressed only the payment for drug testing ordered by the court. The court concluded that the discretion over the number of drug tests remained with the district court, and the special condition merely facilitated payment. As a result, the Fourth Circuit held that there was no error, let alone plain error, in imposing the special condition and affirmed the defendant’s sentence. The government’s motion to dismiss the appeal based on an appeal waiver was denied as moot. View "US v. Jones" on Justia Law

A woman with a lifelong hearing impairment obtained a commercial driver’s license (CDL) in New Jersey after receiving a federal exemption from the standard hearing requirement. This exemption allowed her to drive commercial vehicles in interstate commerce but specifically prohibited her from operating passenger vehicles or school buses. Despite this, she was mistakenly issued state endorsements permitting her to drive such vehicles and worked as a campus shuttle bus driver for about eight months. When the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission (NJMVC) realized the error, it revoked her passenger and school bus endorsements without providing a pre-revocation hearing.Instead of seeking review in New Jersey Superior Court, the woman filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. She alleged violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination, as well as a procedural due process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The District Court dismissed some claims and ultimately granted summary judgment to the defendants on all remaining claims, finding she was not “qualified” for the endorsements and had no property interest in them.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The court held that the plaintiff was not a “qualified individual with a disability” under the relevant statutes because she could not meet the essential eligibility requirement of passing the hearing test for the endorsements. The court also held that, even assuming a property interest in the endorsements, due process did not require a pre-revocation hearing given the state’s strong safety interests and the availability of post-deprivation remedies. The court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants on all claims. View "Parker v. New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission" on Justia Law

In 2024, Minnesota enacted a law that revised the criteria for classifying independent contractors in the construction industry, expanding a previous nine-part test to a fourteen-part test. Several construction industry organizations and a general contractor challenged the law, arguing that certain provisions were unconstitutionally vague and that the civil penalties authorized by the statute violated the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. The plaintiffs specifically objected to requirements regarding written contracts, invoicing, expense responsibility, and profit or loss realization, as well as the potential for significant civil penalties for noncompliance.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the law. The court found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claims. The plaintiffs then appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the law, as they alleged specific conduct targeted by the statute and faced a credible threat of enforcement. However, the court concluded that the challenged statutory terms were sufficiently clear for people of ordinary intelligence and did not encourage arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. The court also determined that the plaintiffs’ excessive fines claim was premature, as no penalties had yet been imposed and Minnesota law requires a proportionality analysis before penalties are assessed. Because the plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits, the court found no basis for a preliminary injunction and affirmed the lower court’s judgment. View "MN Chapter of Assoc. Builders v. Blissenbach" on Justia Law

The case involved a defendant who was charged with attempted first-degree murder and related offenses in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland. Before trial, both the defense and prosecution jointly requested a postponement of the trial date due to the resignation of the defendant’s public defender and the need for additional preparation time. During a status hearing, the defendant’s newly assigned counsel informed the court that the defendant wanted to represent himself and keep the original trial date. The matter was referred to the administrative judge, who questioned the defendant about his wishes. The defendant responded that he wanted an attorney but did not want the trial postponed, emphasizing his desire for a speedy trial and expressing frustration about his continued incarceration.After this exchange, the administrative judge postponed the trial date, and the defendant did not further request to discharge counsel or to represent himself. At trial, the defendant was represented by counsel and was convicted by a jury of attempted second-degree murder, armed robbery, and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony or crime of violence. The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the conviction, finding that the defendant had not expressed a present intent to discharge counsel or to represent himself, and that the trial court had provided an adequate opportunity for the defendant to clarify his wishes.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed whether the trial court violated the defendant’s constitutional and procedural rights by not conducting further inquiry into his alleged request for self-representation. The Supreme Court held that when a court is informed that a defendant may wish to represent himself, it must conduct a reasonable inquiry to determine if the defendant clearly and unequivocally asserts that right and must allow the defendant to explain his reasons for discharging counsel under Maryland Rule 4-215(e). However, if the defendant does not express a clear desire for self-representation or to discharge counsel, the court is not required to question him further. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment. View "Goodrich v. State" on Justia Law

The defendant was apprehended after two separate incidents in which he was found in possession of firearms and drugs. In the first incident, after a car accident, he attempted to dissuade the other driver from calling the police due to the presence of contraband in his vehicle, then fled but was quickly caught. In the second incident, a traffic stop led to the discovery of additional firearms, ammunition, and drugs. He was charged with two counts of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon and pleaded guilty.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky calculated his base offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines as twenty-two, based in part on a prior Kentucky conviction for second-degree manslaughter, which the court classified as a “crime of violence.” The defendant did not object to this calculation at sentencing and was sentenced to 145 months in prison.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed whether Kentucky’s second-degree manslaughter qualifies as a “crime of violence” under the Sentencing Guidelines, applying plain error review because the issue was not raised below. The court held that the Kentucky statute’s “wantonness” mens rea is functionally equivalent to “recklessness” as defined in Borden v. United States, 593 U.S. 420 (2021), and does not meet the standard for a “crime of violence,” which requires purposeful or knowing conduct. The court found that the district court’s reliance on this conviction to enhance the sentence was plain error, affected the defendant’s substantial rights, and undermined the fairness of the proceedings. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Tooley" on Justia Law

Iowa enacted a law making it a state crime for certain noncitizens who had previously been denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed from the United States to enter or be found in Iowa. The law also required state judges to order such individuals to return to the country from which they entered and prohibited state courts from pausing prosecutions based on pending or possible federal immigration status determinations. Two noncitizens residing in Iowa, both of whom had previously been subject to federal removal orders but later lawfully reentered the United States, along with a membership-based immigrant advocacy organization, challenged the law, arguing it was preempted by federal immigration law.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa found that the plaintiffs had standing and granted a preliminary injunction, concluding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Iowa law was preempted by federal law under both conflict and field preemption doctrines. The district court also found that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm if the law went into effect and that the balance of equities and public interest favored an injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion, reviewing legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction, holding that the plaintiffs had standing and were likely to succeed on the merits because every application of the Iowa law would conflict with federal immigration law by interfering with the discretion Congress grants to federal officials. The court also found that the other factors for a preliminary injunction were met. The Eighth Circuit remanded for the district court to determine the appropriate scope of the injunction in light of recent Supreme Court guidance. View "IA Migrant Movement for Justice v. Bird" on Justia Law

A police officer applied for a search warrant for a residence based on information from a confidential reliable informant (CRI). The CRI reported that, within the previous 72 hours, they had visited the residence and observed people smoking methamphetamine and meth pipes inside. The CRI was not directed by law enforcement to visit the house and had a history of providing reliable information to the police. Based on this information, a district court judge issued a search warrant. When the warrant was executed, officers found drug paraphernalia and items testing positive for methamphetamine. The resident was charged with two drug-related offenses.The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the warrant was not supported by probable cause. The Swift County District Court denied the motion, finding the warrant application sufficient. After a jury found the defendant guilty, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in a divided opinion. The majority held that the totality of the circumstances, including the CRI’s reliability and basis of knowledge, established probable cause, and rejected the argument that corroboration of the CRI’s tip was always required. The dissent argued that corroboration was necessary and that the lack of it meant probable cause was lacking.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case to clarify whether corroboration of a confidential reliable informant’s tip is an independent requirement for probable cause. The court held that corroboration is not an independent requirement but is always a relevant factor in the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis. Applying this standard, the court concluded that the limited, uncorroborated observations in the warrant application did not establish a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found in the house at the time of the search. The court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "State of Minnesota vs. Nagle" on Justia Law