Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

A tenured English professor at a public university in Ohio, who identifies as transgender, became involved in discussions about leading the university’s Center for the Study of Gender and Sexuality during a period of departmental restructuring. Although the professor expressed interest in directing the Center and was considered a strong candidate, the position was not open as the Center had gone dormant. The professor was offered a partial teaching load reallocation to help develop a new gender-studies major, but after a series of profanity-laden and disparaging social media posts targeting colleagues and administrators, the offer was rescinded. The professor also sought a tenure transfer to the main campus, which was denied by faculty committees after considering collegiality and departmental needs, with no discussion of gender identity.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted summary judgment for the university and individual defendants on all claims. The court found no genuine dispute of material fact and concluded that the university’s actions were based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons, including the professor’s unprofessional conduct and the department’s academic requirements. The professor appealed, challenging the district court’s rulings on claims of sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, First Amendment retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and perceived-disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment. The court held that there was no direct or circumstantial evidence of discrimination or retaliation, that the professor’s social media posts did not constitute protected speech on matters of public concern under the First Amendment, and that there was insufficient evidence to support a perceived-disability claim. The court clarified that adverse employment actions under Title VII need only cause some harm, but found the university’s reasons for its decisions were not pretextual. View "GPat Patterson v. Kent State University" on Justia Law

The case concerns a defendant who was indicted for murder and attempted murder following a shooting incident in Kona, Hawaii. The indictment included sentencing enhancements under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 706-660.1, which allows for mandatory minimum sentences if a firearm is possessed, used, or its use is threatened during the commission of a felony. The indictment did not specify a state of mind (mens rea) for the sentencing enhancement, though it did for the underlying offenses. At trial, the defendant was convicted on several counts, and the jury found the firearm enhancement applied. The defendant was sentenced accordingly.After the initial conviction, the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) vacated the conviction on certain counts due to evidentiary errors and remanded for a new trial. On remand, the defendant, for the first time, challenged the sufficiency of the indictment, arguing that the sentencing enhancement was an element of the offense and thus required a state of mind to be alleged. The Circuit Court agreed and struck the enhancements from the indictment, finding that the omission of a state of mind violated due process and the requirements set forth in prior case law.The State appealed, and the ICA reversed the Circuit Court’s order, holding that the sentencing enhancement under HRS § 706-660.1 is not an element of the underlying offense and does not require a state of mind to be pled in the indictment. The Hawaii Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the ICA’s decision. The Court held that sentencing enhancements under HRS § 706-660.1 are not elements of the offense and that due process is satisfied if the defendant is notified that the enhancement will be sought and the indictment contains sufficient factual allegations. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

Brandon Glen Jackson was indicted in Arizona for a state-law felony related to possessing a short-barreled rifle. While released on bail and with the felony charge still pending, Jackson lawfully acquired a handgun and traveled from Arizona to Maryland, bringing the handgun with him. In Maryland, he was arrested for carrying the gun without a permit. Upon discovering his pending Arizona felony indictment, federal prosecutors charged him under 18 U.S.C. § 922(n), which prohibits individuals under felony indictment from transporting firearms in interstate commerce.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied Jackson’s motion to dismiss the indictment on Second Amendment grounds. Jackson then entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving his right to appeal the constitutional issue. He was sentenced to time served, and subsequently appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and applied the Supreme Court’s “text-and-history” standard from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). The Fourth Circuit held that Jackson’s conduct—transporting a handgun across state lines while under felony indictment—was presumptively protected by the Second Amendment. However, the court found that the government met its burden to show that § 922(n), as applied to Jackson, was consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court relied on historical surety laws and the tradition of disarming dangerous persons, as well as its own precedent in United States v. Hunt, 123 F.4th 697 (4th Cir. 2024), to conclude that temporary disarmament of those under felony indictment is constitutionally permissible. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "US v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Two nonprofit organizations challenged the constitutionality of a North Carolina statute that made it a felony for individuals with felony convictions to vote before their rights were restored, regardless of whether those individuals mistakenly believed they were eligible. The statute, originally enacted in the late 19th century, was shown to have been motivated by racial animus and to have a disproportionate impact on Black North Carolinians. In 2023, the North Carolina General Assembly amended the statute to add a requirement that a person must “know” their rights had not been restored to be prosecuted, effective January 1, 2024.The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina considered the plaintiffs’ claims under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. After the statute was amended, a magistrate judge recommended dismissal for lack of standing, but the district court found the case was not moot because prosecutions under the old statute for pre-2024 conduct could still occur, potentially chilling voter participation and requiring the plaintiffs to divert resources. The district court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, holding the statute unconstitutional and enjoining its enforcement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the case was not moot because prosecutions under the prior version of the statute could still proceed, and the plaintiffs retained a concrete interest in the outcome. On the merits, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that the challenged statute violated the Equal Protection Clause. The court found that the statute’s original enactment and reenactment were motivated by racial discrimination, and that subsequent legislative changes did not “cleanse” the statute of its discriminatory origins, as the statute itself had not been substantively reenacted or amended in a way that would warrant a presumption of legislative good faith. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "A. Philip Randolph Institute v. North Carolina State Board of Elections" on Justia Law

John Seiwert, who had a long history of daily heroin and crack cocaine use, was found in possession of firearms at his home in Illinois shortly after his father’s death. Law enforcement, investigating Seiwert’s drug dealer, observed frequent contact between the two and recovered firearms and drug paraphernalia from Seiwert’s residence. Seiwert admitted to using crack cocaine just hours before police arrived and to being a daily user for twenty years. He was charged with two counts of possessing a firearm as an unlawful user of, or addict to, a controlled substance under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3).The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied Seiwert’s pretrial motions to dismiss the indictment, which argued that § 922(g)(3) was unconstitutionally vague and violated the Second Amendment, both before and after the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen. At trial, the government presented evidence of Seiwert’s drug use and firearm possession, and the jury convicted him on both counts. The district court denied Seiwert’s post-trial motions and sentenced him to concurrent terms of imprisonment and supervised release.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed Seiwert’s arguments that § 922(g)(3) violated the Second Amendment, was unconstitutionally vague, and that the evidence was insufficient. The court held that, under the Bruen framework, § 922(g)(3) does not violate the Second Amendment as applied to Seiwert, finding it analogous to historical laws disarming the intoxicated and mentally ill. The court also found that its prior decision in United States v. Cook foreclosed Seiwert’s vagueness challenge, and that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the conviction. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "USA v Seiwert" on Justia Law

Several individuals and a firearms instruction company challenged various aspects of New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) and the way the Suffolk County Police Department (SCPD) implements the law. The individual plaintiffs, all Suffolk County residents, objected to requirements for obtaining a handgun license, including a “good moral character” standard, an in-person interview, disclosure of household members and character references, a list of social media accounts, and completion of eighteen hours of firearms training. They also alleged that the SCPD’s process for scheduling interviews and issuing licenses could take years, far exceeding statutory timelines. Additionally, the plaintiffs, including firearms instructors, challenged an alleged SCPD policy of arresting unlicensed individuals participating in live-fire training, despite a state law exemption for such training.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that the individual applicants lacked standing to challenge the CCIA’s requirements because they had not completed the application process, and that none of the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the SCPD’s arrest policy due to a lack of credible threat of enforcement. The district court did not address the challenge to the SCPD’s processing delays.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the applicants did have standing to challenge the CCIA’s requirements and the SCPD’s processing delays, but affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their facial Second Amendment challenges, except for the social media disclosure requirement, which was already preliminarily enjoined in another case, rendering that issue moot. The court also found that at least one plaintiff had standing to challenge the SCPD’s arrest policy and vacated the district court’s ruling on that issue, remanding for further proceedings. The disposition was affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "Giambalvo v. Suffolk Cnty." on Justia Law

A woman was involved in a car accident in which her passenger suffered severe injuries. She admitted to consuming alcohol and marijuana before driving, and chemical tests confirmed her blood alcohol content was above the legal limit. The passenger was hospitalized in a vegetative state and died several months after the accident. Initially, the woman was charged and convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) resulting in serious bodily injury, for which she received a sentence of incarceration, post-release supervision, and license revocation.After the passenger’s death, the State charged her with motor vehicle homicide while operating under the influence. She argued that this subsequent prosecution violated her double jeopardy rights. The District Court for Douglas County agreed and dismissed the new charge, finding the two offenses to be the same under the Blockburger v. United States test. However, the Nebraska Supreme Court, referencing Diaz v. United States, reversed that decision, holding that double jeopardy did not bar the second prosecution because the death, a necessary element of the more serious charge, had not occurred at the time of the first prosecution.On remand, the district court held a bench trial and found her guilty of motor vehicle homicide/DUI, relying on expert testimony that the collision was the proximate cause of the passenger’s death. The court sentenced her to probation, to run concurrently with any other sentence. On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court held that the expert testimony was admissible, the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and that cumulative punishment for both offenses was permitted because the legislature clearly authorized it. The court affirmed her conviction and sentence. View "State v. Lewis" on Justia Law

An individual pleaded guilty to multiple sexual offenses committed against two girls, aged thirteen and fourteen, when he was eighteen years old. The offenses included several instances of rape and indecent assault. The individual had a history of psychological diagnoses, including autism spectrum disorder. After his conviction, the Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB) initially classified him as a level three sex offender, which would require the highest level of public notification. The individual challenged this classification, leading to a de novo hearing before a SORB hearing examiner.At the hearing, the examiner found by clear and convincing evidence that the individual posed a moderate risk of reoffense and a moderate degree of danger, resulting in a reclassification to level two. The examiner considered several statutory and regulatory factors, including the number of victims, the nature and location of the offenses, and the individual’s psychological profile. The examiner also considered the fact that the individual committed multiple offenses, including repeated offenses against one victim, as relevant to the degree of dangerousness. The examiner determined that Internet publication of the individual’s registration information would serve a public safety interest. The individual sought judicial review in the Massachusetts Superior Court, which affirmed the SORB’s decision.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case after transferring it from the Appeals Court. The court held that the SORB hearing examiner did not err in considering the individual’s multiple offenses as relevant to dangerousness under regulatory factor thirty-seven, even though such consideration is limited under factor two, which addresses risk of reoffense. The court also declined to find the application of factor thirty-seven unconstitutional due to a lack of empirical evidence, given the statutory mandate to consider the number of offenses. The court affirmed the classification as a level two offender and the requirement for Internet dissemination of registration information. View "Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Board" on Justia Law

A school resource officer employed by the Lee County School District was fatally injured while directing traffic on a state highway when a speeding motorist struck his parked vehicle, causing it to hit him. At the time, a warning sign intended to alert drivers to the school zone was allegedly inoperable. The officer’s wife received workers’ compensation benefits from his employer, but his two adult sons did not. The sons filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT), alleging negligence in maintaining the warning sign and failing to warn of a dangerous condition.The case was heard in the Lee County Circuit Court. MDOT moved for summary judgment, arguing it was immune from suit under Mississippi Code Section 11-46-9(1)(l) because the decedent was a governmental employee whose injury was covered by workers’ compensation. The sons opposed, contending the statute did not bar their claims as wrongful death beneficiaries and, if it did, that the statute was unconstitutional. The trial court granted summary judgment to MDOT, finding the statute applied and provided immunity, and also upheld the statute’s constitutionality.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the statutory interpretation and constitutional challenge de novo. The court held that wrongful death beneficiaries stand in the position of the decedent, and because the decedent could not have sued MDOT due to statutory immunity, neither could his sons. The court further held that Section 11-46-9(1)(l) does not violate the Mississippi Constitution’s remedy clause or the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as the statute is rationally related to the legitimate purpose of protecting public funds. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the trial court’s orders granting summary judgment and upholding the statute’s constitutionality. View "Patterson v. State of Mississippi, ex rel. Attorney General Fitch" on Justia Law

A group of plaintiffs from Kauaʻi, Oʻahu, and Maui challenged a series of emergency proclamations issued by the Governor of Hawaiʻi, beginning in July 2023, which declared affordable housing a state emergency. These proclamations suspended various state laws and established expedited processes for approving and constructing housing projects, including the creation of a State Lead Housing Officer and a Build Beyond Barriers Working Group. The initial proclamations allowed all housing projects, not just affordable housing, to benefit from the suspended laws and expedited certification. Over time, the proclamations were revised, narrowing their scope and transferring certification authority to the Hawaiʻi Housing Finance and Development Corporation (HHFDC).The plaintiffs first filed a writ of quo warranto against the State Lead Housing Officer and the Working Group, arguing that the proclamations exceeded the governor’s statutory authority and violated constitutional provisions. The Circuit Court of the Second Circuit dismissed the petition without prejudice, finding the mechanism inapplicable and the claims moot, but allowed amendment. Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint for declaratory relief against the governor and HHFDC, which was also dismissed for lack of standing and procedural defects. Plaintiffs appealed, and after briefing in the Intermediate Court of Appeals, the case was transferred to the Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi.The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi held that the case was justiciable, plaintiffs had standing based on their constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment, and procedural missteps did not bar their claims. The court articulated a standard for reviewing emergency proclamations: they must be rationally related to public health, safety, and welfare, and the executive actions must be reasonably necessary to address the emergency. Applying this, the court found the Sixth through Fifteenth proclamations valid, but held the first five exceeded the governor’s emergency powers. The court vacated the circuit court’s dismissal of the declaratory judgment claims. View "Nakoa v. Governor of the State of Hawai'i" on Justia Law