Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The defendant pleaded guilty in 2013 to possessing child pornography, after sharing videos of minors being sexually abused and attempting to arrange sex with a minor. He was sentenced to ten years in prison and 25 years of supervised release, with conditions restricting his access to internet-capable devices. After completing his prison term, he began supervised release in December 2019. His release was revoked three times for violations, including unauthorized internet access and failure to comply with monitoring requirements. The conditions at issue required him to use only devices with court-approved monitoring software and to contribute to the cost of monitoring based on his ability to pay.Following the first revocation, the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico imposed new, stricter internet monitoring conditions. After further violations, including possessing unauthorized devices and failing to report employment changes, the court again revoked his supervised release (the “Second Revocation”), sentencing him to time served and a renewed term of supervised release with the same conditions. The defendant objected, arguing that the court improperly relied on ex parte communications from his probation officer and that the internet monitoring conditions were unconstitutional and unlawfully delegated judicial authority to the Probation Office.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the appeal. The court held that, although the district court erred by relying on new, significant facts from ex parte communications regarding the defendant’s employment, the error was harmless because other uncontested violations supported the revocation and sentence. The court also held that the challenged internet monitoring conditions were not facially unconstitutional or an unlawful delegation of judicial authority. The court found the defendant’s as-applied constitutional challenges unripe, as they depended on future enforcement. The judgment and sentence from the Second Revocation were affirmed. View "United States v. Negron-Cruz" on Justia Law

After failing to pay property taxes on her home in Maricopa County, Arizona, the plaintiff’s tax liens were sold to a private entity, which later foreclosed on the property. The plaintiff did not respond to the foreclosure action, resulting in a default judgment that extinguished her rights to the property. The property was then deeded to the private purchaser, who transferred it to another private party. The plaintiff subsequently challenged the foreclosure, the retention of surplus equity from the sale, and the constitutionality of the Arizona statute that allowed private parties to enforce tax liens without providing just compensation.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed the plaintiff’s claims, finding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprived it of subject matter jurisdiction. The court reasoned that the plaintiff’s injuries stemmed from the state court’s foreclosure judgment, which had already extinguished her property rights, and thus her federal claims amounted to an impermissible appeal of a state court decision. The court also dismissed her state law claims, except for one over which it declined supplemental jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Ninth Circuit held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred the plaintiff’s claims that directly attacked the state court foreclosure judgment, such as those alleging the foreclosure was an unconstitutional taking or excessive fine. However, the court held that claims challenging the defendants’ post-judgment retention of surplus equity were not barred, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County, which recognized a property owner’s right to excess equity after a tax foreclosure. The court also found that the plaintiff’s facial challenge to the statute was not barred by Rooker-Feldman but was moot due to legislative amendments. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the surviving claims. View "SEARLE V. ALLEN" on Justia Law

Paul Schwartz, while incarcerated at a federal correctional facility in Tucson, alleged that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs over an eighteen-month period. He experienced a range of severe symptoms, including tachycardia, blood in his urine, and significant thyroid dysfunction, but claimed he received inadequate and delayed medical care despite repeated attempts to seek help. Schwartz specifically alleged that a mid-level practitioner, Ms. Tatad, refused to provide treatment or access to a physician and instructed others to deny him care. He also claimed that the warden and associate warden ignored his efforts to alert them to his condition, resulting in irreversible kidney injury and other long-term health risks.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona initially dismissed several defendants and later granted summary judgment for the remaining defendants. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed in part, allowing Schwartz’s claim against Tatad to proceed. After remand, the district court denied Schwartz’s motion to amend his complaint, then later granted Tatad’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) constituted a special factor that placed Schwartz’s claim in a new Bivens context, foreclosing a damages remedy.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment. The Ninth Circuit held that Schwartz’s claim was not meaningfully different from the Supreme Court’s decision in Carlson v. Green, which recognized a Bivens remedy for Eighth Amendment claims of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The court found that neither the PLRA, the Bureau of Prisons’ Administrative Remedy Program, nor the factual specifics of Schwartz’s case created a new Bivens context. The court also held that the district court abused its discretion in denying Schwartz leave to amend his complaint. View "SCHWARTZ V. MILLER" on Justia Law

The defendant pled guilty to possession of a firearm and ammunition after a felony conviction. At sentencing, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York imposed a term of imprisonment followed by supervised release. During the sentencing hearing, the court orally imposed several “special” conditions of supervised release, as recommended in the presentence report, but did not specify or discuss any “standard” or additional discretionary conditions. The court also stated that the defendant would not be required to contribute to the cost of mental health services, contrary to a recommendation in the presentence report. However, the written judgment later included not only the special conditions but also thirteen additional discretionary “standard” conditions of supervised release, as well as a requirement that the defendant contribute to mental health service costs.After sentencing, the defendant appealed, arguing that his constitutional right to be present at sentencing was violated because the thirteen discretionary conditions were not pronounced in his presence, and that the written judgment’s requirement to pay for mental health services contradicted the oral sentence. Both parties agreed that the payment requirement should be eliminated due to this inconsistency.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting en banc, reviewed the case de novo. The court overruled its prior precedent in United States v. Truscello, which had allowed non-mandatory “standard” conditions to be added to the written judgment without oral pronouncement. The Second Circuit held that all non-mandatory conditions of supervised release, including those labeled as “standard” in the Sentencing Guidelines, must be pronounced in the defendant’s presence at sentencing. The court vacated the portions of the sentence imposing the thirteen discretionary conditions and the payment requirement, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "United States v. Maiorana" on Justia Law

A group of ten Black men, including the appellant, were conversing on a sidewalk in Ward Four of the District of Columbia when four officers from the Metropolitan Police Department’s Gun Recovery Unit approached them as part of a firearm interdiction operation. The officers, wearing tactical vests and displaying police equipment, approached the group without any specific suspicion of criminal activity. One officer, DelBorrell, approached the appellant from behind and asked if he was carrying a firearm. The appellant denied it and twice lifted his shirt to show his waistband. The officer then asked the appellant to “hike” his pants up, which he did. Another officer then noticed a bulge in the appellant’s groin area, believed it to be a firearm, and after a brief struggle, the officers recovered a gun from the appellant’s pants.The appellant was charged with eight firearm-related offenses. He moved to suppress the firearm and a subsequent statement, arguing they were the result of an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Superior Court of the District of Columbia denied the motion, finding that the appellant was not seized until after he raised his pants, at which point the officers had reasonable suspicion based on the observed bulge. The appellant was convicted on all counts following a trial on stipulated facts and appealed.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and held that the appellant was seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when the officer requested that he raise his pants. The court found that, considering the officers’ show of authority, the accusatory and repetitive questioning, and the appellant’s status as a Black man in a highly policed area, a reasonable person in his position would not have felt free to leave. Because the seizure was not supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause, it was unreasonable. The court vacated the convictions and remanded for further proceedings. View "Carter v. United States" on Justia Law

A law enforcement agency in the District of Columbia, responsible for supervising individuals on supervised release, imposed GPS monitoring on a supervisee without judicial or Parole Commission authorization. The agency’s internal regulations permitted its officers to unilaterally require GPS monitoring as an administrative sanction, and this practice had been applied to thousands of supervisees over two decades. In this instance, the supervisee was placed on GPS monitoring twice, first for a positive drug test and then for submitting questionable urine samples. Subsequently, police investigating an armed robbery used the agency’s GPS data to identify and locate the supervisee, leading to his arrest and the recovery of stolen property and a firearm.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia reviewed the supervisee’s motion to suppress the GPS evidence and its fruits, following the District of Columbia Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Davis v. United States, 306 A.3d 89 (D.C. 2023), which held that the agency lacked statutory authority to impose GPS monitoring absent judicial or Parole Commission approval, rendering such searches unconstitutional. The government conceded the constitutional violation but argued that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule should apply, as the agency reasonably relied on its own regulations. The trial court rejected this argument and granted the suppression motion.On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The court held that the exclusionary rule applies because the agency is a law enforcement entity, not a neutral third party like a judge or legislature, and thus should feel the deterrent effect of suppression. The good faith exception does not apply when a law enforcement agency unilaterally authorizes unconstitutional searches based on its own mistaken interpretation of its authority. The court concluded that suppression is warranted to deter systemic constitutional violations. View "United States v. Wells" on Justia Law

In 2021, a plaintiff filed a complaint against a public school district, alleging that she was repeatedly sexually assaulted by a teacher while attending middle and high school. The complaint asserted that the teacher’s abusive conduct was widely known within the school and that the district either knew or should have known about the abuse but failed to act, allowing the teacher to remain employed. The plaintiff brought claims for negligence and negligent hiring, retention, and supervision, relying on statutory provisions that exempt certain childhood sexual assault claims from the usual requirement to present a claim to the public entity before filing suit.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed the case after the school district moved for judgment on the pleadings. The district argued that the plaintiff’s claims were only possible due to Assembly Bill 218 (AB 218), which retroactively eliminated the claims presentation requirement for childhood sexual assault claims against public entities. The district contended that AB 218 violated the gift clause of the California Constitution by imposing liability for past acts where no enforceable claim previously existed. The trial court agreed, finding that AB 218 retroactively created liability and constituted an unconstitutional gift of public funds, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the trial court’s decision de novo. The appellate court held that AB 218 does not violate the gift clause because it did not create new substantive liability; rather, it removed a procedural barrier to enforcing pre-existing liability for negligence and negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. The court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded with directions to deny the school district’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. View "O.B. v. L.A. Unified School Dist." on Justia Law

Three individuals who are lawful gun owners challenged a Fairfax County, Virginia ordinance that prohibits the possession, carrying, or transportation of firearms in certain locations. The two main restrictions at issue are a ban on firearms in county parks and a ban in public spaces where, or near where, a county-permitted event is taking place. The plaintiffs argued that both restrictions violate the Second Amendment, and that the events restriction is unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia reviewed the case. It denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and later granted summary judgment to Fairfax County and its Chief of Police. The district court found that both restrictions were consistent with the Second Amendment’s sensitive places doctrine and that the events restriction was not unconstitutionally vague.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment ruling de novo. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision regarding the parks restriction, holding that the ordinance is constitutional in at least some applications, specifically as applied to preschools located within county parks. The court relied on Supreme Court dicta indicating that bans on firearms in schools are presumptively constitutional. However, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment regarding the events restriction, concluding that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to challenge it because they did not demonstrate a credible threat of prosecution or a concrete intention to violate the restriction. The case was remanded with instructions to dismiss the claims related to the events restriction without prejudice. View "Lafave v. County of Fairfax" on Justia Law

A 17-year-old defendant was charged with ten serious offenses, including murder and assault, after a violent confrontation at the home of his rivals. The incident stemmed from a feud with a classmate and escalated when the defendant, accompanied by his family, armed himself and attacked the victims’ home. The attack resulted in the death of one individual and severe injuries to others. The defendant, an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation, was charged under federal law for crimes committed within the Cherokee Nation Indian Reservation.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma first reviewed the case. The government moved to transfer the defendant from juvenile to adult criminal proceedings under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. After an evidentiary hearing, the magistrate judge recommended granting the transfer, and the district court adopted this recommendation after conducting a de novo review. The district court weighed the statutory factors, including the defendant’s age, social background, psychological maturity, prior delinquency record, past treatment efforts, and the availability of rehabilitative programs, and found that most factors favored transfer to adult status.On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion. The appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the statutory transfer factors and found no clear error in its factual findings. The court also rejected the defendant’s Eighth Amendment argument that transfer was unconstitutional due to the potential punishments, holding that the challenge was unripe under circuit precedent. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order transferring the defendant to adult criminal proceedings. View "United States v. J.D.V., Jr." on Justia Law

A 16-year-old committed a violent home invasion, during which he raped, sodomized, and assaulted his former neighbor at knifepoint, then stole property from her home. He was convicted by a jury in 2002 of multiple counts, including forcible rape, oral copulation, sodomy, sexual battery, robbery, burglary, and related enhancements. His sentence was ultimately modified to a determinate term of 19 years, followed by a consecutive indeterminate term of 25 years to life, resulting in an effective sentence of 44 years to life.After serving more than 15 years, the defendant petitioned the Superior Court of Tulare County for recall and resentencing under California Penal Code section 1170(d)(1)(A), arguing that his sentence was the functional equivalent of life without parole (LWOP) and that, under equal protection principles as articulated in People v. Heard, he should be eligible for relief. The trial court denied the petition, finding that a 44-years-to-life sentence was not functionally equivalent to LWOP and thus did not qualify for resentencing under the statute.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, considered whether the functional equivalency analysis from People v. Contreras, which was developed in the Eighth Amendment context, should apply to equal protection challenges under section 1170(d). The court declined to import the Eighth Amendment standard, instead applying a rational basis review as required for equal protection claims. The court held that the Legislature could rationally distinguish between juveniles sentenced to explicit LWOP and those with lengthy term-of-years sentences that do not guarantee death in prison. The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the petition, holding that section 1170(d)’s limitation to those sentenced to LWOP does not violate equal protection as applied to a juvenile nonhomicide offender sentenced to 44 years to life. View "People v. Baldwin" on Justia Law