Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

In this case, the appellant was convicted by a jury in Hennepin County District Court of first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree intentional murder for the shooting death of Lavelle Jackson. The conviction was based in part on testimony from a jailhouse witness, S.P., who claimed the appellant confessed to the crime. After sentencing, the appellant sought postconviction relief, arguing that newly discovered evidence—specifically, testimony from Dequarn Bell, another inmate—would have undermined S.P.’s credibility and potentially changed the outcome of the trial.Following a stay of the direct appeal, the appellant petitioned for postconviction relief in the Hennepin County District Court, presenting affidavits and testimony from Bell and his trial attorney. Bell’s testimony suggested that S.P. was motivated by self-interest and that the appellant had maintained his innocence. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the petition, finding Bell’s testimony not credible. In making this determination, the district court relied on detailed information about Bell’s criminal history, including facts not presented by either party at the hearing. These extra-record facts were obtained through the judge’s own independent investigation.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the denial of postconviction relief. The court held that the district court’s deliberate investigation and consideration of facts outside the record violated the appellant’s constitutional right to an impartial judge under the Due Process Clause of the Minnesota Constitution. This violation constituted structural error, requiring automatic reversal without a harmless error analysis. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s denial of postconviction relief in part and remanded the case for a new evidentiary hearing before an impartial judge. View "State of Minnesota vs. Duol" on Justia Law

A Florida minister and licensed clinical Christian psychologist, who had provided court-mandated batterers’ intervention program (BIP) services for decades, sought certification from the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) to continue offering these services to individuals ordered by courts to attend BIPs following domestic violence convictions. The DCF denied his application because his curriculum incorporated a faith-based approach and addressed issues such as substance abuse and anger management, which conflicted with state regulations prohibiting faith-based ideology and requiring a specific psychoeducational model. The provider had previously operated without proper certification and had been denied certification in the past for similar reasons.After the DCF’s 2022 denial, the provider filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, alleging that the regulation violated his rights under the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of DCF, holding that court-ordered BIPs constitute government speech, and thus the state could set their content without implicating the First Amendment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the District Court’s decision de novo. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the curriculum and presentation of court-ordered BIPs are government speech. The court found that the state has historically used BIPs to communicate its own message, that participants would reasonably associate the program’s content with the government, and that the state exercises substantial control over the content. Because the programs are government speech, the provider’s Free Speech and Free Exercise claims could not proceed. The court also rejected the facial challenge to the regulation and affirmed the District Court’s judgment. View "Nussbaumer v. Secretary, Florida Dept of Children and Families" on Justia Law

Several general law cities in California challenged the constitutionality of a state law, Senate Bill No. 9 (SB 9), which requires local agencies to ministerially approve two-unit housing projects and urban lot splits in single-family residential zones. The cities argued that SB 9 usurps their authority over local land use and zoning, imposes a uniform approach that disregards local needs and conditions, and is not reasonably related to its stated goal of ensuring access to affordable housing, as it does not mandate affordability for new units.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed the cities’ complaint and the state’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and demurrer. The trial court concluded that, as general law cities, the plaintiffs could not invoke the municipal affairs doctrine under article XI, section 5 of the California Constitution, which provides certain protections only to charter cities. The court also found that the cities failed to identify any constitutional provision that SB 9 violated and determined there was no reasonable likelihood that the complaint could be amended to state a viable cause of action. Judgment was entered in favor of the state, and the cities appealed.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The appellate court held that general law cities are not protected by the municipal affairs doctrine and must yield to conflicting state law. The court further found that the cities did not identify a constitutional right that SB 9 violated and failed to show that the statute was unconstitutional on its face or as applied. The court also concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint, as no viable claim could be stated. View "City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. State" on Justia Law

Three plaintiffs alleged they suffered injuries after receiving the Gardasil vaccine, which is designed to prevent certain strains of human papillomavirus. Each plaintiff experienced adverse symptoms following their Gardasil injections, but the onset of these symptoms occurred more than three years before they filed petitions for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The plaintiffs acknowledged to the special master that their petitions were untimely and sought equitable tolling of the Vaccine Act’s limitations period.The special master in the United States Court of Federal Claims found the petitions untimely and denied equitable tolling, resulting in dismissal of the claims. The plaintiffs then filed suit against Merck & Co. and Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, which was handling multi-district litigation related to Gardasil. Merck moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs had failed to timely pursue their remedies under the Vaccine Act. The district court dismissed the complaints, holding that the proper forum for challenging the special master’s timeliness rulings was the Court of Federal Claims and the Federal Circuit, not the district court. The court also rejected a constitutional challenge to the process by which Gardasil was added to the Vaccine Injury Table.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The Fourth Circuit held that the addition of Gardasil to the Vaccine Injury Table did not violate the Constitution. It further held that timely participation in the Vaccine Act compensation program is a prerequisite to bringing a tort suit, and that courts hearing vaccine-related tort suits may not reconsider the timeliness of a Vaccine Act petition once the special master has made a finding. The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaints. View "Needham v. Merck & Company Inc." on Justia Law

The case involved a defendant who was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and two counts of attempted murder, all arising from a gang-related shooting in Visalia, California. The prosecution presented evidence that the defendant was a member of the North Side Visalia gang and that he shot individuals he believed to be rival gang members, resulting in one death and serious injury to another. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on expert testimony to establish the defendant’s gang membership and the gang-related nature of the crimes, as well as evidence of prior offenses by the defendant and other gang members. The defense argued that the shooting was not premeditated or gang-motivated, but rather stemmed from a personal dispute, and presented evidence that the defendant had renounced gang affiliation.The Tulare County Superior Court denied the defendant’s pretrial motion to recuse the entire District Attorney’s Office after his former defense attorney joined that office, finding that an effective ethical wall had been established. At trial, the jury found the defendant guilty on all counts, found true the gang enhancements and the gang-murder special circumstance, and returned a death verdict. The trial court entered judgment accordingly.On automatic appeal, the Supreme Court of California reviewed the case. The court held that, due to subsequent legal developments—specifically, its decision in People v. Sanchez and legislative amendments to Penal Code section 186.22 by Assembly Bill 333—the evidence was insufficient to support the gang enhancements and the gang-murder special circumstance. As a result, the court reversed the gang-related findings and the death judgment. The court also ordered a limited remand to allow the defendant to further develop his claim that his trial counsel violated his Sixth Amendment right of autonomy over the defense, as articulated in McCoy v. Louisiana. The convictions and death judgment were reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "P. v. Cardenas" on Justia Law

Two pharmaceutical companies challenged a federal program created by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which directs the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to negotiate prices for certain high-expenditure prescription drugs lacking generic competition. Under this program, manufacturers of selected drugs must either negotiate a price with CMS or face steep excise taxes on all sales of those drugs, unless they withdraw all their products from specific Medicare and Medicaid programs. Both companies had drugs selected for negotiation and, while litigation was pending, agreed to participate and reached negotiated prices.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey resolved the cases on cross-motions for summary judgment, as the parties agreed there were no material factual disputes. The District Court ruled in favor of the government, holding that the program did not violate the Takings Clause, the First Amendment, or the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. The companies appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit consolidated the appeals.The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s orders. It held that participation in Medicare and the negotiation program is voluntary, so there is no physical taking under the Fifth Amendment. The court found that economic incentives to participate do not amount to legal compulsion. It also held that the program’s requirements do not compel speech in violation of the First Amendment, as any speech involved is incidental to the regulation of conduct and participation is voluntary. Finally, the court concluded that the program does not impose unconstitutional conditions, as any compelled speech is limited to the contracts necessary to effectuate the program and does not restrict speech outside those contracts. The court affirmed summary judgment for the government. View "Bristol Myers Squibb Co v. Secretary United States Department of HHS" on Justia Law

A woman who had a long history of calling her local sheriff’s office—often to complain about gunfire she believed was coming from private property near her home—called both the non-emergency number and 911 on Thanksgiving Day 2018 to report gunshots. Dispatchers informed her that deputies had previously investigated and determined the gunfire was lawful and that no further response would be made. Despite these explanations, she persisted, escalating her complaint to a 911 call. She declined offers to speak with deputies and refused contact when a deputy came to her home. Based on her repeated calls and refusal to accept the dispatchers’ explanations, two sheriff’s office employees initiated an investigation and swore out an affidavit for her arrest under a Georgia statute prohibiting disruptive or harassing conduct during 911 calls. The local district attorney later dismissed the charge.The woman then filed a civil suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, alleging violations of her First and Fourth Amendment rights, including claims of retaliatory arrest and malicious prosecution. The district court denied qualified immunity to the two officers on the First Amendment retaliation and malicious prosecution claims, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding probable cause and the officers’ conduct in seeking the arrest warrant.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit considered whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The court held that the officers were entitled to rely on the collective knowledge of the sheriff’s office dispatchers, who were aware of the plaintiff’s history of similar calls and the lawful nature of the gunfire. The court concluded that, given this collective knowledge, the officers had at least arguable probable cause to seek the plaintiff’s arrest under the relevant Georgia statute. As a result, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. View "Prospero v. Sullivan" on Justia Law

A reporter who regularly covered sideshows—events involving drivers performing stunts in public intersections—sought to continue his on-site reporting, which included observing and recording these events within 200 feet of their occurrence. After the County of Alameda enacted an ordinance making it a misdemeanor to knowingly spectate a sideshow from within 200 feet, the reporter canceled his plans out of fear of prosecution, alleging that the ordinance impeded his ability to gather news and inform the public.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied the reporter’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The district court found that, while the reporter had standing, the First Amendment did not protect his newsgathering and reporting activities in this context. The court reasoned that the ordinance did not specifically prohibit recording and that being present to observe a sideshow was not inherently expressive conduct. Alternatively, the district court concluded that the ordinance was content neutral and survived intermediate scrutiny.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction. The Ninth Circuit held that the reporter’s newsgathering and reporting activities, including observation and recording, are protected by the First Amendment. The court determined that the ordinance is content based because it targets only spectating sideshows and thus must satisfy strict scrutiny. The court found that the ordinance fails strict scrutiny, as less restrictive alternatives exist to address public safety concerns, and the ordinance is underinclusive. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the reporter demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored an injunction. The court remanded with instructions to enter a preliminary injunction in favor of the reporter. View "GARCIA V. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA" on Justia Law

A man was convicted by a jury of several offenses related to a shooting outside a nightclub in Washington, D.C. in July 2021. The evidence showed that the defendant, who was twenty years old at the time, shot another individual and then hid the firearm. He was identified by a witness, and DNA evidence linked him to the recovered handgun. The defendant initially told police he was not the shooter, but at trial, he admitted to firing the gun, claiming self-defense.Prior to trial in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, the defendant moved to dismiss charges related to carrying a pistol without a license, possession of an unregistered firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition. He argued that the District’s laws, which require individuals to be at least twenty-one years old to obtain a firearm registration or license, violated the Second Amendment, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. The trial court denied the motion, finding the age-based restrictions consistent with the Second Amendment and historical firearm regulation. At trial, the government impeached the defendant’s credibility by highlighting inconsistencies between his initial statements and his trial testimony. The jury convicted him on all counts.On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the constitutionality of the District’s age-based firearm registration and licensing statutes and the propriety of the government’s arguments regarding the defendant’s credibility. The court held that the age-based statutes are constitutional because they are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court also found that the government’s arguments about the defendant’s change in defense theory were not improper. The court affirmed the convictions but remanded for the limited purpose of merging certain convictions and resentencing as necessary. View "Picon v. United States" on Justia Law

In this case, the appellant was convicted of simple assault with a bias enhancement after an incident at a Metro station. The government’s evidence showed that the appellant approached a group, made derogatory remarks about their sexual orientation, and physically assaulted one of them multiple times. The assailant was later apprehended at a different Metro station and identified as the appellant. The charges were eventually narrowed to simple assault with a bias enhancement, and the appellant was found guilty by a jury.Prior to trial in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, the appellant objected to the composition of the jury venire, arguing that it did not reflect a fair cross-section of the community, as only three of fifty-four potential jurors appeared to be African American. The trial judge denied the motion to strike the panel, finding that the appellant had not shown systematic exclusion of a group from the jury selection process. The judge also denied a subsequent, untimely request for access to jury selection records, reasoning that the request came only after the motion to strike had been denied and that no prior efforts had been made to obtain such records.On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence and the fair cross-section claim. The court held that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to find the appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the testimony of the arresting officer and the circumstances of the arrest. The court also held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to strike the jury panel or the belated request for jury selection records, finding that the denial was based on the untimeliness of the request rather than an improper threshold requirement. The judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed. View "Brown v. United States" on Justia Law