Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Several small businesses and a coalition of states challenged a series of executive orders issued by the President that imposed new tariffs of unlimited duration on nearly all goods imported from most countries. These tariffs, referred to as the Trafficking Tariffs and Reciprocal Tariffs, were imposed in response to declared national emergencies related to drug trafficking and trade imbalances. The executive orders directed changes to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, resulting in significant increases in import duties on products from Canada, Mexico, China, and other major trading partners.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States Court of International Trade (CIT), arguing that the President exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by imposing these tariffs. The CIT granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that IEEPA did not authorize the President to impose the challenged tariffs and permanently enjoined their enforcement. The government appealed, and the Federal Circuit consolidated the cases, stayed the injunction pending appeal, and heard the matter en banc.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, holding that IEEPA’s grant of authority to “regulate” importation does not include the power to impose tariffs of the type and scope at issue. The court found that IEEPA does not mention tariffs, duties, or taxes, and contrasted it with other statutes where Congress has explicitly delegated tariff authority to the President with clear limitations. The court also concluded that the government’s interpretation would raise serious constitutional concerns under the major questions and non-delegation doctrines. The Federal Circuit affirmed the CIT’s declaratory judgment that the executive orders were invalid, but vacated the universal injunction and remanded for the CIT to reconsider the scope of injunctive relief in light of recent Supreme Court guidance. View "V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump" on Justia Law

In 1988, a man was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. Decades later, after exhausting his appeals, he was diagnosed with vascular dementia, a progressive neurocognitive disorder that impairs memory and cognitive function. When the state sought an execution warrant in early 2024, he petitioned the court, arguing that his dementia rendered him incompetent to be executed under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits executing individuals who cannot rationally understand the reason for their execution.The Third District Court in Salt Lake County held an evidentiary hearing, where multiple experts agreed he had vascular dementia and noted a decline in his cognitive abilities. However, the court found he was still competent to be executed, concluding he could rationally understand the reason for his death sentence. The defendant appealed and requested a stay, which was denied. Subsequently, he filed a new petition for reevaluation, supported by recent expert reports and observations indicating a rapid decline and new inability to understand the connection between his crime and punishment. The district court denied this petition, finding no substantial change in circumstances or significant question about his competency, and issued an execution warrant.The Supreme Court of the State of Utah reviewed the case. It held that, under Utah law, a successive petition to reopen competency proceedings must make a prima facie showing of a substantial change in circumstances and raise a significant question about competency. The court found that the district court erred by weighing rebuttal evidence at the threshold stage and by concluding the new petition did not meet the statutory requirements. The Supreme Court reversed the order denying reevaluation, vacated the execution warrant, and remanded for further proceedings. The appeal of the initial competency order and one extraordinary writ petition were deemed moot. View "State v. Menzies" on Justia Law

A woman was found dead in her apartment after her boyfriend, who had spent the night elsewhere, returned and discovered her body hidden in a closet. The apartment was in disarray, and drugs and a cell phone were missing. The defendant, who knew the victim and her boyfriend through drug transactions, was identified as having been at the apartment the night of the murder. Forensic evidence linked the defendant to the crime scene, including blood matching the victim on his clothing and blood matching the defendant at the scene. The defendant was arrested shortly after the murder, and additional evidence was gathered, including statements from jailhouse informants.The defendant was first convicted of murder in the Superior Court for the judicial district of New London, but the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed that conviction and ordered a new trial due to the improper admission of evidence obtained in a warrantless search. Before the second trial, the defendant requested a new probable cause hearing, which the trial court denied, reasoning that the reversal did not invalidate the original probable cause finding. The trial court also denied motions to exclude testimony from two jailhouse informants: one, who had suffered a stroke and claimed memory loss, and another whose reliability was challenged.On appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court held that the defendant was not entitled to a second probable cause hearing after reversal and remand for a new trial, as neither the state constitution nor the relevant statute required it absent a jurisdictional defect. The court also held that admitting the prior written statement of the former cellmate did not violate the defendant’s confrontation rights, as the witness was present, took an oath, and answered questions, even if he claimed memory loss. The court further found no abuse of discretion in admitting the statement as a prior inconsistent statement or in finding the jailhouse informant’s testimony reliable. The judgment of conviction was affirmed. View "State v. Jacques" on Justia Law

Law enforcement in Maine received a tip from a confidential source about suspicious rental car activity by Calvin Vandine, who was known to use drugs and associate with traffickers. Officers tracked Vandine’s movements and, based on the tip and corroborating information, stopped his car, which was also occupied by Derric McLain. During the stop, officers found drugs and arrested both men. McLain was later identified as having outstanding warrants, including for drug trafficking. The stop lasted about twenty-eight minutes, and a subsequent search revealed significant quantities of controlled substances.Prior to trial in the Penobscot County Unified Criminal Docket, McLain moved to suppress evidence from the stop and statements made during custodial interrogation, arguing lack of reasonable suspicion for the prolonged detention and that he had not waived his privilege against self-incrimination. The trial court (Anderson, J.) denied the motion to suppress, finding the stop justified and the statements admissible. After a jury trial before Justice Murray, McLain was convicted of aggravated drug trafficking and violation of condition of release, receiving a substantial sentence.On appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the denial of the suppression motion. The Court affirmed the lower court’s findings that the stop, search, and arrest were supported by reasonable suspicion and were not unconstitutionally prolonged. However, the Court held that McLain did not clearly waive his privilege against self-incrimination under article I, section 6 of the Maine Constitution, as his responses during interrogation were ambiguous and officers failed to clarify his intent. The Court vacated the conviction and the suppression order in part, remanding for further proceedings, and established that a clear and unequivocal waiver is required before custodial interrogation may proceed in Maine. View "State v. McLain" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with multiple counts, including first-degree and third-degree criminal sexual conduct, domestic assault, and threats of violence. During jury deliberations, a juror was exposed to COVID-19, raising concerns that continued deliberations might pressure the jury to reach a verdict. After discussing the situation with counsel, the district court decided to end deliberations, take any unanimous verdicts, and declare a mistrial on any deadlocked counts. The defendant’s attorney, at the defendant’s request, asked for a complete mistrial on all counts. The jury ultimately reported no unanimous verdicts, and the district court declared a mistrial on all counts.Following the mistrial, the State refiled the charges. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that a retrial would violate the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions. The Hennepin County District Court denied the motion, finding that double jeopardy did not bar retrial. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that because the defendant requested the mistrial, double jeopardy would only bar retrial if the government had intentionally provoked the request, which was not the case here.The Supreme Court of Minnesota reviewed the case and affirmed the decision of the court of appeals. The court held that when a defendant requests and receives a mistrial, double jeopardy does not bar retrial unless the government intentionally induced or provoked the request. The court found no evidence that the district court or prosecution provoked the defendant’s mistrial request. The court also rejected arguments that the defendant had withdrawn his request or preserved an objection to the mistrial. As a result, the court concluded that double jeopardy did not attach, and the defendant may be retried. View "State v. Lerma" on Justia Law

In 1998, Joel Underwood, III, pleaded guilty to third-degree assault, which is classified as a crime of violence under Minnesota law. He was convicted and placed on probation. In 2000, after completing probation, a Dakota County district court issued an order restoring his civil rights and stating that he was prohibited from possessing a firearm for 10 years, which was consistent with the law at that time. In 2003, the Minnesota Legislature amended the relevant statute to impose a lifetime ban on firearm possession for individuals convicted of a crime of violence. Underwood was not specifically notified of this change. In 2021, he was found in possession of a firearm and charged under the amended statute.After being charged, Underwood waived his right to a jury trial and pleaded guilty to being an ineligible person in possession of a firearm. During the plea, he admitted to knowingly possessing a firearm and to his prior conviction but stated he did not know he was still ineligible to possess a firearm. The Anoka County District Court accepted his plea and sentenced him to the mandatory minimum. Underwood later petitioned for postconviction relief, arguing that his conviction violated due process because he relied on the 2000 discharge order and that his plea was invalid since he did not admit knowledge of his ineligibility. The postconviction court denied relief, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that there was no due process violation and that knowledge of ineligibility was not required for conviction.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The court held that when a court order accurately reflects the law at the time but the law is later amended, the State does not violate due process by prosecuting under the amended statute. The court also held that the offense of ineligible person in possession of a firearm does not require proof that the defendant knew of their ineligibility, only that they knowingly possessed a firearm and had a prior conviction for a crime of violence. View "Underwood v. State" on Justia Law

Rowena Joyce Scott served as both the president of the board and general manager of Park Southern Neighborhood Corporation (PSNC), a nonprofit that owned a large apartment building in Washington, D.C. During her tenure, Scott exercised near-total control over PSNC’s finances and operations. She used corporate funds for personal expenses, including luxury items and services, and made significant cash withdrawals from PSNC’s accounts. After PSNC defaulted on a loan, the District of Columbia’s Department of Housing and Community Development intervened, replacing Scott and the board with a new property manager, Vesta Management Corporation, which took possession of PSNC’s records and computers. Subsequent investigation by the IRS led to Scott’s indictment for wire fraud, credit card fraud, and tax offenses.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia presided over Scott’s criminal trial. Scott filed pre-trial motions to suppress statements made to law enforcement and evidence obtained from PSNC’s computers, arguing violations of her Fifth and Fourth Amendment rights. The district court denied both motions. After trial, a jury convicted Scott on all counts, and the district court sentenced her to eighteen months’ imprisonment, supervised release, restitution, and a special assessment. Scott appealed her convictions, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the denial of her suppression motions.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Scott forfeited her statute of limitations defense by not raising it in the district court. It found the evidence sufficient to support all convictions, including wire fraud and tax offenses, and determined that Scott was not in Miranda custody during her interview with IRS agents. The court also concluded that the search warrant for PSNC’s computers was supported by probable cause, and that Vesta’s consent validated the search. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment in all respects. View "United States v. Scott" on Justia Law

After the Nebraska Legislature enacted L.B. 77, which allowed concealed carry without a permit and limited local regulation of weapons, the mayor of Lincoln issued an executive order prohibiting weapons in city-owned properties. This order was quickly amended but maintained similar restrictions, including criminal and civil penalties for violations. Several longstanding city ordinances also regulated firearms and other weapons, such as prohibiting weapons in parks, requiring reporting of firearm sales, and banning certain devices and knives. The Nebraska Firearms Owners Association (NFOA) and four individual plaintiffs, all regular concealed carriers, alleged that these local measures conflicted with state law and deterred them from activities they would otherwise pursue, such as carrying firearms in parks or purchasing certain items.The plaintiffs filed suit in the District Court for Lancaster County, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The City moved to dismiss, arguing lack of standing. The district court dismissed the case entirely, finding that neither the NFOA nor the individuals had standing because none had been prosecuted or directly affected by enforcement of the challenged laws. The court relied on federal precedent, including Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, but concluded that the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were too speculative or abstract.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court held that the NFOA lacked associational standing because it failed to allege its authority to represent its members. However, the individual plaintiffs had standing to challenge the executive order and most ordinances, as they alleged a credible and imminent threat of prosecution sufficient for a preenforcement challenge. The court affirmed the dismissal as to the NFOA and the challenge to the vehicle storage ordinance, but reversed and remanded as to the individual plaintiffs’ challenges to the executive order and other ordinances. View "Nebraska Firearms Owners Assn. v. City of Lincoln" on Justia Law

Cordell Sanders, an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center, suffered from serious mental health issues and spent over eight years in segregation housing due to multiple disciplinary infractions. He received mental health services from various providers employed by Wexford Health Sources, the prison’s contracted healthcare provider. Sanders alleged that these providers were deliberately indifferent to his mental health needs, offering inadequate treatment and failing to advocate for him during disciplinary proceedings. He also claimed that Wexford maintained a widespread practice of denying mental health care until inmates were in crisis and failed to implement policies guiding provider participation in disciplinary hearings.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants. The court found that Sanders had not presented sufficient evidence to support his claims of deliberate indifference or to establish a Monell claim against Wexford. Sanders appealed this decision, arguing that the providers’ treatment was ineffective and that Wexford’s practices and lack of policy amounted to constitutional violations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment order de novo. The appellate court held that Sanders failed to provide evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the providers’ conduct constituted deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment. The court emphasized the lack of expert testimony regarding the effectiveness of Sanders’s treatment and found no substantial departure from professional standards. Regarding Wexford, the court concluded that Sanders did not demonstrate a widespread practice of denying care or that the absence of a more detailed policy caused constitutional harm. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for all defendants. View "Sanders v. Moss" on Justia Law

Lauren Richwine, through her business Death Done Differently, provides services as a “death doula,” assisting clients and their families with end-of-life planning, emotional support, and guidance on funeral arrangements. Richwine is not a licensed funeral director, and her website notes that her services are performed under the supervision of a licensed funeral director. In 2021, a complaint was filed with the Indiana Public Licensing Agency alleging that Richwine was practicing funeral services without a license. Following an investigation, the Indiana Attorney General sought a cease-and-desist order from the State Board of Funeral and Cemetery Service, which was approved. The order prohibited Richwine and her company from advertising or providing certain services related to funeral planning, community death care, and support with funeral homes.After the cease-and-desist order was issued, Richwine and Death Done Differently filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, arguing that enforcement of the Indiana statute against them would violate their First Amendment rights. The district court granted a preliminary injunction, enjoining enforcement of the statute against the plaintiffs. The defendants appealed, arguing that the plaintiffs had waived their rights by signing the cease-and-desist agreement and that federal abstention doctrine barred the suit. The district court rejected these arguments, finding no clear and unmistakable waiver of federal rights and no ongoing state proceeding that would justify abstention.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. The Seventh Circuit held that the Indiana statute, as applied to Richwine and Death Done Differently, burdens substantially more speech than necessary to further the state’s interests in public health, safety, and consumer protection. The court found that the statute’s restrictions on the plaintiffs’ speech and advertising likely violate the First Amendment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings. View "Richwine v. Matuszak" on Justia Law