Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The defendant owned a house on Farm Island, New Hampshire, near a summer camp with which he had a history of disputes. After hearing a group outside his house at night, he yelled at them and, when unable to reach the police, left a voicemail for the camp, using profane language and stating, “you better get them the f**k out of here or I will shoot them.” He also accused the group of damaging his property. The State charged him with harassment, alleging that his communication constituted a threat to the life or safety of another, made with the purpose to annoy or alarm.The Superior Court of Carroll County held a jury trial. During trial, the State introduced the voicemail, evidence of the contentious relationship between the defendant and the camp, and testimony from camp staff and police. Over the defendant’s objections, the court admitted testimony from a camp director about security measures the camp undertook in response to the message, including ceasing use of part of the island and enhancing security. The defendant moved to dismiss for insufficient evidence of the required mental state; the court denied the motion. The jury convicted the defendant, and he appealed.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case. It held that there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find the defendant acted with the purpose to annoy or alarm and that the communication constituted a true threat as defined by federal law. However, the court found that admitting testimony about the camp’s security response was error under New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 403, as its limited probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. This error was not harmless. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire therefore reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Owen" on Justia Law

An individual was convicted in 1997 of indecent assault and battery on a child under fourteen and served a sentence of incarceration. Before his release, the Commonwealth petitioned to have him civilly committed as a sexually dangerous person (SDP) under Massachusetts law. Two qualified examiners evaluated him but, misunderstanding the scope of evidence they could consider, both opined that he did not meet the statutory criteria for an SDP. Despite this, the case proceeded to trial, and, based on other expert testimony and additional evidence, a judge found him to be an SDP and ordered his civil commitment in 2002. The individual unsuccessfully attempted to appeal, and over the years, filed and withdrew several discharge petitions.A Superior Court judge had denied his original motion for summary judgment, finding that a fact finder could rely on other expert testimony, not just that of the qualified examiners. After his commitment, his attempt to appeal the judgment was dismissed as untimely. Years later, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that, following the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Johnstone, petitioner, 453 Mass. 544 (2009), his commitment was unlawful because neither qualified examiner had opined that he was an SDP. The Superior Court granted the writ, but the Appeals Court reversed, holding that habeas corpus was not available since alternative remedies existed.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and held that, under the statutory scheme, the individual was entitled to a required finding of not sexually dangerous where neither qualified examiner so opined. However, the court concluded that habeas corpus was not available because he had alternative remedies, specifically a motion for relief from judgment. The court vacated the grant of habeas corpus and remanded the case to the Superior Court with instructions to treat the petition as a motion for relief from judgment, which must be allowed. View "Pierce, Petitioner" on Justia Law

Several pharmaceutical manufacturers and a trade association challenged a Louisiana statute, Act 358, which restricts drug manufacturers from interfering with the delivery of federally discounted drugs through contract pharmacies. The statute was passed in response to manufacturers’ efforts to limit the distribution of discounted drugs under the federal 340B Program, particularly through arrangements with contract pharmacies serving vulnerable populations. The plaintiffs argued that the Louisiana law was preempted by federal law and violated several constitutional provisions, including the Takings Clause, the Contracts Clause, and the Due Process Clause’s prohibition on vagueness.The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana considered three related cases together. It denied the manufacturers’ motions for summary judgment and instead granted summary judgment for the State of Louisiana and the Louisiana Primary Care Association (LPCA) on all claims. The district court also allowed LPCA to intervene in each case, over the objection of one plaintiff.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that Act 358 is not preempted by federal law. It found that the federal 340B statute does not occupy the field of pharmacy regulation and does not conflict with or frustrate federal objectives, as it is silent on the use of contract pharmacies and leaves room for state regulation. The court also concluded that Act 358 does not effect a physical or regulatory taking, does not substantially impair contract rights under the Contracts Clause, and is not unconstitutionally vague. However, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s order permitting LPCA to intervene in AbbVie’s case, finding that LPCA’s interests were adequately represented by the State and it did not show it would present a distinct defense. The court affirmed summary judgment for Louisiana on all claims. View "AstraZeneca v. Murrill" on Justia Law

Two individuals, a political commentator and a state legislator, brought suit against Minnesota officials to challenge a state statute that criminalizes the dissemination of “deep fake” content intended to influence elections. The law applies to realistic depictions that could mislead a reasonable person into believing a public figure engaged in speech or conduct they did not. The commentator created an AI-generated video of Vice President Harris, which he labeled as parody with a clear disclaimer. The legislator shared the same video without any disclaimer. Both plaintiffs argued that the statute infringed their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.After the complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, the district court found that the commentator lacked standing because the only videos he posted were labeled as parody and thus not covered by the statute. The court concluded that the legislator did have standing, since she shared content that could plausibly be seen as a deep fake under the law. However, the court denied her motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding she had unreasonably delayed in seeking relief—waiting over sixteen months after the statute’s enactment without sufficient explanation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions. The appellate court held that the commentator did not demonstrate a credible threat of prosecution or show any evidence of injury, including from third parties. The court also determined that the legislator’s delay in seeking a preliminary injunction undermined her claim of irreparable harm, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying extraordinary relief. The Eighth Circuit left open the possibility of further proceedings on the merits, including a permanent injunction, but affirmed the denial of preliminary relief. View "Kohls v. Ellison" on Justia Law

After President Donald J. Trump began his second term, he issued two executive orders requiring federal agencies to end “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) programs in their grant and contracting processes. These directives included provisions for agencies to terminate DEI-related offices, positions, and funding (“Termination Provision”); to require federal grantees and contractors to certify compliance with anti-discrimination laws and the absence of DEI programs that violate those laws (“Certification Provision”); and to prepare a report on steps to deter illegal DEI programs (“Enforcement Threat Provision”). The plaintiffs—a city government and two organizations involved in higher education and academic advocacy—alleged that these provisions violated their constitutional rights and sought a preliminary injunction to halt their enforcement.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on their constitutional claims and issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against most of the challenged provisions, except for the preparation of the enforcement report. The defendants appealed and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted a stay of the injunction pending appeal. The plaintiffs later sought to have the injunction vacated so they could amend their complaint, but the district court denied this request.Reviewing the case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the Enforcement Threat Provision because their alleged injuries were too speculative and intertwined with intra-governmental processes. However, the court found the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the Termination and Certification Provisions because these provisions resulted in concrete and imminent injuries, such as loss of funding or compelled changes in organizational activities.On the merits, the Fourth Circuit concluded the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on their facial constitutional challenges. The court ruled that the Termination Provision was not unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment, and that the Certification Provision did not violate the First Amendment on its face. The court vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Natl. Assoc. of Diversity Officers in Higher Edu. v. Trump" on Justia Law

Several organizations and individuals petitioned to prevent the Idaho State Tax Commission from implementing a newly enacted parental choice tax credit. This tax credit, established in 2025, provides refundable credits to parents, guardians, and foster parents for certain private educational expenses, including private school tuition and related services, for dependent students not enrolled in public schools. The law caps total annual credits and includes prioritization based on income and previous participation. The petitioners, including advocacy groups, a school district, and parents, argued that the statute creates a separate, non-public education system funded by public resources, allegedly violating the Idaho Constitution’s mandate for a single, general, uniform, and thorough system of public schools. They also claimed the statute failed the “public purpose doctrine,” asserting it primarily benefits private rather than public interests.Before the Idaho Supreme Court, the petitioners sought a writ of prohibition, which would prevent the Tax Commission from carrying out the law. The respondents, including the State and the Idaho Legislature, contested the petitioners’ standing and the merits of the constitutional claims. The Supreme Court determined that the petitioners lacked traditional standing but, given the urgency and importance of the constitutional question and the absence of another suitable challenger, relaxed standing requirements to address the merits.The Supreme Court of Idaho denied the petition. It held that Article IX, section 1 of the Idaho Constitution does not restrict the legislature from enacting educational measures beyond the required public school system, so long as the public system remains intact and constitutionally sufficient. The Court also found that the tax credit serves a legitimate public purpose—supporting parental choice in education—even if private entities benefit. The petition was dismissed, and the Tax Commission was awarded attorney fees and costs. View "Committee to Protect and Preserve v. State" on Justia Law

The case centers on a defendant who was indicted on two counts: unlawful possession of a firearm by a drug user and making a false statement during the purchase of a firearm. The indictment alleged that, on specific dates in 2022, the defendant, as an unlawful user of marijuana and cocaine, possessed multiple firearms and falsely represented on a federal form that he was not an unlawful user or addict of a controlled substance. The evidence included the defendant’s admissions of regular drug use, his possession of firearms during the same period, and his acknowledgment that he was not prescribed any controlled substances. Additional evidence established that, at the time of a firearm purchase, he smelled of marijuana, and a subsequent search uncovered both a loaded pistol and marijuana in his vehicle. Drug tests confirmed recent use of marijuana and cocaine.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss, rejected his claims that the statutes were unconstitutionally vague, and found him guilty on both counts in a bench trial based on stipulated facts. The court concluded that the statutory terms were not vague as applied to the defendant, given his admissions and the explicit warning on the federal form. The court also held that the statute prohibiting firearm possession by drug users was consistent with historical tradition and deferred ruling on the as-applied Second Amendment challenge until trial evidence was complete. The defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated the conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a drug user under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) and remanded for the district court to reassess the defendant’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge in light of intervening circuit precedent. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision on all other issues, including the conviction for making a false statement under 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A). View "United States v. Ledvina" on Justia Law

The case involves a defendant who was convicted by a jury of aiding and abetting kidnapping after an incident in Detroit. The events began when the defendant was shot during a confrontation involving rival gang members, after which the victim was taken by the defendant’s associates for interrogation. The victim was confined, threatened, and beaten at the defendant’s home, with parts of the incident recorded and later shared in an Instagram group chat. After these events, the victim was driven around, further assaulted, and eventually released.Prior to this appeal, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan oversaw the trial. The court denied the defendant’s motions to suppress evidence obtained from social media accounts, motions to exclude alleged co-conspirator statements, and ruled partially in favor of the government’s effort to limit cross-examination of the victim. After a weeklong trial, the jury acquitted the defendant of conspiracy but found him guilty of aiding and abetting kidnapping. The district court sentenced him to 198 months in prison and imposed several special conditions of supervised release, some of which were only included in the written judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court on four grounds: the denial of suppression motions, the admission of co-conspirator statements, the limitation on cross-examination, and the sufficiency of the evidence for conviction. The appellate court held that the defendant’s constitutional and evidentiary challenges failed. However, it found a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of sentence and the written judgment regarding two special conditions of supervised release. The court remanded the case to the district court to resolve this discrepancy and, if needed, to consider the constitutional challenges to those conditions. View "United States v. Blake" on Justia Law

An individual was indicted in Oregon for unauthorized use and possession of a stolen vehicle, alleged to have occurred in August 2021. After the charges were initially dismissed without prejudice in October 2022 due to the state's inability to appoint counsel, the same charges were refiled in April 2024. Upon arraignment, the defendant requested appointed counsel and was found eligible, but no attorney was available. Despite multiple hearings over several months to appoint counsel, the defendant remained unrepresented and subject to pretrial release conditions, including mandatory court appearances and restrictions on travel.In December 2024, a volunteer attorney entered a limited appearance to file a motion to dismiss based on the lack of counsel, arguing violations of Oregon's constitutional right to counsel. The Multnomah County Circuit Court denied the motion, noting the case was in "suspended animation" due to the absence of counsel. The defendant then petitioned the Supreme Court of Oregon for mandamus relief. While briefing was ongoing, the trial court ultimately dismissed the criminal case without prejudice in April 2025, citing lack of available attorneys.The Supreme Court of Oregon reviewed the mandamus petition and found the case was moot since the underlying criminal charges had already been dismissed. However, the court exercised its discretion under ORS 14.175 to address the recurring legal issue. On the merits, the court held that the state violated the defendant's right to counsel under Article I, section 11 of the Oregon Constitution by failing to appoint counsel post-arraignment for an extended period. The court determined that dismissal without prejudice is an appropriate remedy for such violations and established a general rule: if an eligible defendant is unrepresented for more than 60 consecutive days in a misdemeanor case or 90 consecutive days in a felony case post-arraignment, dismissal without prejudice is required. The alternative writ of mandamus was dismissed as moot. View "State v. Roberts" on Justia Law

A seventeen-year-old defendant was charged with murder after stabbing another individual during an altercation in a Grand Forks, North Dakota apartment parking lot. The victim died from the stab wound. With the assistance of counsel, the defendant entered into a plea agreement, pleading guilty to murder. The agreement stipulated a sixty-year sentence with twenty years suspended, and permitted the defendant to request a downward departure to as low as fifteen years. During the plea hearing, the court confirmed the defendant’s understanding of the plea and its consequences, and accepted the plea as voluntary.The District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, presided over the case. At sentencing, the court reviewed investigative reports, victim impact statements, and arguments from both sides. The court considered the defendant’s age and behavior, including social media posts related to the incident. Ultimately, the court imposed a sixty-year sentence with twenty years suspended, consistent with the plea agreement, without granting a downward departure. The defendant did not object to the adequacy of the plea colloquy or move to withdraw the guilty plea before sentencing.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the appeal. The defendant argued that the plea was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent due to an insufficient Rule 11 colloquy, and that the forty-year sentence was cruel and unusual punishment. The court applied the obvious error standard, finding that the District Court erred by not adequately establishing a factual basis for the plea, but concluded the error did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights. The court further held that the forty-year sentence was not grossly disproportionate to the offense and did not violate the Eighth Amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed the amended criminal judgment. View "State v. Haskins" on Justia Law