Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Alvin Beasley was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm after police responded to gunshots at his ex-girlfriend’s house in Danville, Illinois. Officers saw a car fleeing the scene, found Beasley inside, and recovered a discarded firearm. As Beasley was on parole for a felony conviction, he could not lawfully possess a firearm. After a jury found him guilty, a presentence investigation identified three prior felony convictions: armed robbery in 2004, aggravated battery in 2005, and second-degree murder in 2011. The probation office concluded that Beasley qualified for enhanced sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois overruled Beasley’s objection that a jury should decide whether his prior convictions occurred on “different occasions,” and sentenced him to 300 months’ imprisonment. The court relied on then-controlling Seventh Circuit precedent, which permitted judges to make this finding. Beasley appealed, arguing that recent Supreme Court decisions (Wooden v. United States and Alleyne v. United States) required that this factual question be determined by a jury.While the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Erlinger v. United States, holding that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a jury to decide whether prior offenses occurred on different occasions under ACCA. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed that the district court erred under Erlinger, but concluded the error was harmless. The appellate court found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a properly instructed jury would have reached the same result, given the substantial gaps in time and the distinct nature of the offenses. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Beasley" on Justia Law

A research scientist who had worked for over a decade at a public university in Ohio coauthored several well-regarded articles during her tenure. After she left the university for a new position, allegations of research misconduct surfaced regarding some of her publications. The university convened an investigative committee, as required by federal regulations due to its receipt of federal funding. The committee found that she had committed research misconduct and recommended barring her from future university employment, retracting or correcting certain articles, and reported its findings to relevant journals and her current employer. The scientist alleged that the committee deviated from standard investigatory procedures, failed to provide exculpatory evidence, and did not require proof of intent or recklessness.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismissed her complaint, which had sought equitable relief under federal and state law. The court held that sovereign immunity shielded the university’s Board of Trustees and the officials sued in their official capacities from most claims. It found several claims time-barred and determined that the remaining constitutional claims, including due process and equal protection, failed on the merits. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims against individuals in their personal capacities.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that sovereign immunity barred all claims against the Board of Trustees and all state-law claims against the officials in their official capacities. As to the remaining federal due process claims, the court determined that the plaintiff failed to identify a constitutionally protected liberty interest under the stigma-plus doctrine and that the alleged conduct—even if malicious or in violation of confidentiality regulations—did not amount to conscience-shocking behavior under substantive due process standards. View "Pichiorri v. Burghes" on Justia Law

A citizen advocacy group and two individuals challenged five provisions of a city ordinance in Kerrville, Texas, that regulated "canvassing" and "soliciting" activities at private residences and public streets. The ordinance defined "canvassing" as door-to-door advocacy on topics like religion, politics, or philosophy, and "soliciting" as seeking donations or advertising services, with both activities subject to restrictions on timing, signage, permitting, and location. Plaintiffs argued that these rules chilled their protected speech, including political canvassing, religious outreach, and commercial solicitation, and feared fines under the ordinance.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas considered the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. After a hearing, the district court found that the plaintiffs had standing as to most provisions except the rule applying to minors. On the merits, the district court enjoined enforcement of the permitting requirement for solicitors but declined to enjoin the hours, signage, and street restrictions, finding those likely constitutional under intermediate scrutiny.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The Fifth Circuit agreed that plaintiffs had standing except as to the minor-related provision. It held that the hours and signage restrictions—because they targeted canvassing based on content—must be reviewed under strict scrutiny rather than intermediate scrutiny, and remanded for reconsideration. The court also found the city failed to justify the streets provision even under intermediate scrutiny and remanded for further injunction analysis. It affirmed the injunction against the permitting requirement but vacated it as overbroad, directing the district court to limit relief to the plaintiffs. The Fifth Circuit denied as moot the motion for an injunction pending appeal. View "LIA Network v. City of Kerrville" on Justia Law

A prison inmate with a documented history of mobility impairments and medical accommodations, including the use of a wheelchair and a transportation code requiring wheelchair-accessible vehicles, was scheduled for transfer between two facilities. On the day of the transport, he arrived in his wheelchair but was not provided with an accessible van. Instead, prison officials attempted to move him onto a standard bus. The inmate protested, stating he could not board without proper accommodations, but officials treated his protest as a refusal. After a crisis negotiator was called and negotiations failed, prison staff physically moved him onto the bus, allegedly causing him injury.A magistrate judge in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington found that there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding the officials’ awareness of the inmate’s needs, the transportation code in effect, the extent of force used, and the resulting injuries. The magistrate recommended denying summary judgment and qualified immunity for most defendants. However, the district court rejected these recommendations, granted summary judgment for the State of Washington and the individual prison officials, and found that qualified immunity shielded the officials, reasoning that the mistaken transportation code did not amount to deliberate indifference.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because material factual disputes remained regarding whether officials had notice of the inmate’s need for accommodation and the extent of their investigation into those needs. The Ninth Circuit also found that these disputes precluded summary judgment on Eighth Amendment claims alleging deliberate indifference and excessive force, and that qualified immunity was improperly granted at this stage. The court reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "WELDEYOHANNES V. STATE OF WASHINGTON" on Justia Law

A computer science teaching professor at a public university included a statement in his course syllabus that parodied the university’s recommended indigenous land acknowledgment. This statement, which challenged the university’s view regarding the ownership of campus land, drew complaints from students and staff, particularly those involved in diversity and indigenous advocacy. The professor refused to remove the statement when asked, prompting university administrators to replace his syllabus, publicly condemn his remarks, and encourage official complaints from students. The university then initiated a lengthy disciplinary investigation, withheld a merit pay increase during this period, issued a reprimand, and warned of potential future discipline if the professor continued similar conduct. The university’s actions were based on the disruption and distress reported by students and concerns about creating an unwelcome environment.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington found that the professor’s speech was protected and addressed a matter of public concern. However, applying the balancing test from Pickering v. Board of Education, it granted summary judgment to the university, finding that the institution’s interest in preventing disruption and maintaining an inclusive learning environment outweighed the professor’s First Amendment rights. The district court also dismissed the professor’s facial challenges to the university’s nondiscrimination policy, interpreting it narrowly to apply only to conduct resembling unlawful discrimination, harassment, or retaliation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the university and directed that summary judgment be entered for the professor on his First Amendment retaliation and viewpoint discrimination claims. The appellate court held that the professor’s syllabus statement was protected academic speech on a matter of public concern, and that student or community offense or discomfort could not justify university retaliation or discipline under the First Amendment. The panel also ruled that the district court improperly construed the university’s nondiscrimination policy and remanded for further proceedings on the policy’s facial constitutionality. View "REGES V. CAUCE" on Justia Law

The case involved a defendant who was charged in December 2017 with one count of lewd or lascivious conduct with a child, based on allegations that she had inappropriately touched a six-year-old girl, A.G., who was the daughter of her then-boyfriend. Before trial, the court allowed both the admission of the child’s statements from a 2017 police interview and permitted A.G. to testify. In 2019, the State requested that A.G. testify outside the defendant’s presence via video, citing potential trauma. After a hearing in 2020, the trial court granted this request, finding that testifying in front of the defendant would traumatize and impair A.G.’s ability to testify. In 2023, as A.G. had aged, the defense sought a new hearing on this issue. At the new hearing, a school counselor testified about A.G.’s general emotional state and possible trauma but did not specifically link trauma to testifying in the defendant’s presence.The Superior Court, Orleans Unit, Criminal Division, relying on the counselor’s testimony, again permitted A.G. to testify outside the defendant’s presence. A jury trial followed in October 2023, during which A.G. testified by video and the jury found the defendant guilty. The court denied the defendant’s motion for a new trial, concluding that although the prosecutor improperly commented on the defendant’s post-arrest silence, this was harmless error.On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court reviewed whether the requirements of Vermont Rule of Evidence 807 and the Confrontation Clause were met. The Court held that the trial court’s finding—that requiring A.G. to testify in the defendant’s presence would cause trauma substantially impairing her ability to testify—was clearly erroneous because the evidence did not specifically support such trauma would result from the defendant’s presence. As a result, the Court reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial, concluding that the defendant’s right to confrontation was violated. View "State v. Sylvester" on Justia Law

In the spring of 2020, three veterans residing at the Soldiers’ Home in Chelsea, Massachusetts, died after contracting COVID-19. The personal representatives of the veterans’ estates filed suit against several Massachusetts state officials responsible for the facility, alleging violations of the veterans’ substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The complaint asserted that the officials failed to protect residents from COVID-19 by not implementing adequate safety protocols and maintaining inhumane living conditions, including lack of sanitation, improper restraint of residents, and exposure to illegal drugs.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts reviewed the complaint after the defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for a substantive due process violation and that the officials were entitled to qualified immunity. The District Court granted the motion to dismiss. It held that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged individual involvement by any defendant in the purported misconduct regarding COVID-19, and failed to provide details showing how the named veterans were specifically harmed by the living conditions. The court also found no clearly established legal authority placing the officials on notice that their conduct would violate the veterans’ rights, thus concluding qualified immunity applied.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The First Circuit held that the complaint did not plausibly allege that the defendants directly caused the harm suffered by the veterans, nor did it sufficiently invoke exceptions to that requirement. The Court also found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a violation of clearly established law and thus, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Consequently, the dismissal of the complaint was affirmed. View "Terenzio v. Urena" on Justia Law

After pleading guilty to felony child neglect, the defendant was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment with three years suspended, credit for 375 days already served, supervised probation, and restitution. Following his release, the State alleged that the defendant violated multiple conditions of his probation. At a probation revocation hearing, the defendant waived his right to counsel and admitted the violations, leading the district court to revoke his probation. The court orally stated the defendant would receive credit for two years plus the time he spent in custody after being arrested on the probation violation warrant, which amounted to twenty-four days.The written order issued after the revocation hearing, however, erroneously recorded the credit for time served as “3 years and 34 days” instead of the correct “2 years and 24 days.” The State moved to correct this mistake under North Dakota Rule of Criminal Procedure 36, arguing it was a clerical error that conflicted with the court’s oral pronouncement. The District Court of McHenry County granted the State’s motion, found the original written order contained a clerical error, and issued an amended order reflecting the proper credit. The defendant appealed, arguing that the correction improperly reduced his credit for time served and conflicted with the court’s oral pronouncement. He also asserted his constitutional right to counsel was violated when the court did not appoint an attorney to represent him in the Rule 36 proceedings.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court’s orders. It held that the correction was a permissible exercise of the court’s discretion under Rule 36 to remedy a clerical error in the judgment so that it accurately reflected the oral pronouncement at the revocation hearing. The court also concluded that the defendant’s constitutional right to counsel was not violated because the correction of a clerical error under Rule 36 is not a critical stage of the prosecution. View "State v. Jaeger" on Justia Law

A non-profit religious organization sought to build an outdoor grotto, including a shrine, plaza, and walking path, on land adjacent to its existing church property. The new grotto was planned for a parcel subject to a lease and eventual transfer to the organization. The property was zoned for residential use, and while the church itself predated the zoning ordinance, the construction of accessory religious structures was not directly permitted under the current ordinance unless the church was located adjacent to an arterial street. The organization’s application acknowledged this restriction but requested approval for the project and setback variances.The Park Hills Board of Adjustment held a public hearing, received input both for and against the project, and ultimately approved the conditional use permit and variances, conditioned on the property transfer. Neighbors opposed to the project, specifically the Frederics, challenged the Board’s decision in the Kenton Circuit Court, arguing that the Board exceeded its authority under local ordinances and state law. The circuit court ruled in favor of the defendants, finding that the church was “grandfathered” due to its pre-zoning existence and that the Board did not act arbitrarily. The court did not address the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) claim raised during summary judgment.On appeal, the Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed, holding the Board acted arbitrarily and exceeded its authority, as the expansion constituted an impermissible enlargement of a nonconforming use under both the zoning code and state law. The court also found no RLUIPA violation, reasoning that the ordinance did not impose a substantial burden on religious exercise.The Supreme Court of Kentucky granted discretionary review. The Court held that the RLUIPA defense was properly before it, as it had been tried by implied consent of the parties. On the merits, the Court concluded that denial of the permit did not impose a substantial burden under RLUIPA, applying the Sixth Circuit’s standard. The Court also found that the zoning ordinance did not violate RLUIPA’s equal-terms provision. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling, vacating the Board’s grant of the permit and variances. View "MISSIONARIES OF SAINT JOHN THE BAPTIST, INC. V. FREDERIC" on Justia Law

A recently enacted statute in Kentucky, Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), altered the governance structure of only the Jefferson County public school district by granting its superintendent increased authority and reducing the powers of its school board. The law also imposed unique restrictions on the Jefferson County Board of Education, such as limiting meeting frequency and permitting unilateral actions by the superintendent not available in other districts. No other public school district in Kentucky was subject to these new terms, and the law did not provide an explanation for this differential treatment or why such governance changes would be unsuitable for other districts.The Jefferson County Board of Education challenged SB 1, alleging that it violated Section 59 of the Kentucky Constitution, which prohibits special or local legislation regarding the management of public schools unless justified by a reasonable basis. The Jefferson Circuit Court reviewed the challenge and found that SB 1 was unconstitutional because it conferred disparate treatment on Jefferson County without a rational or natural distinction justifying the law’s limitation to that district. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, agreeing that the law amounted to impermissible special legislation.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the appeal and affirmed the lower courts’ rulings. The court held that SB 1 violates Section 59 of the Kentucky Constitution because it treats Jefferson County’s school district and its superintendent differently from all others without any reasonably articulable natural and distinctive reason. The court clarified that while the legislature may address specific local needs through classification, such distinctions must be reasonable and related to legislative objectives. The court’s disposition was to affirm the judgments that found SB 1 unconstitutional. View "COLEMAN V. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION" on Justia Law