Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Greg Wright was recorded on video robbing a gas station convenience store at gunpoint. The cashier, who was present during the incident, testified that Wright showed no signs of intoxication—he did not smell of alcohol, slur his words, or appear confused. The robbery was carried out efficiently, with Wright taking money, a lighter, and his own dollar before leaving. Police arrested Wright the next day and found a loaded pistol in his car. At trial, Wright represented himself and argued that he was too intoxicated to form the intent to rob, but the evidence from both the cashier and the surveillance video contradicted this claim.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County presided over the trial. The jury convicted Wright of robbery, possession of a firearm by a felon, and unlawful possession of ammunition, and found true the firearm use and prior conviction allegations. The trial court sentenced Wright to 36 years and four months to life, including enhancements for firearm use and prior convictions. Wright challenged the jury instructions regarding intoxication, the prosecutor’s closing argument, and the imposition of multiple punishments for related offenses, as well as the process for determining aggravating sentencing factors.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court erred by using the term “specific intent” in the intoxication defense instruction, but found the error harmless given the overwhelming evidence that Wright was not impaired. The court also found any assumed prosecutorial error and cumulative error to be harmless. However, the appellate court agreed that sentencing errors occurred: multiple punishments for the firearm and ammunition offenses violated Penal Code section 654, and Wright was denied his right to a jury trial on aggravating sentencing factors as required by Erlinger v. United States. The convictions were affirmed, but the case was remanded for full resentencing. View "People v. Wright" on Justia Law

A group of researchers at the University of California received multi-year federal research grants from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). In April 2025, the EPA and NEH sent form letters to these researchers, terminating their grants. The letters cited changes in agency priorities and referenced the implementation of several Executive Orders issued in early 2025, which directed agencies to eliminate funding for projects related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), environmental justice, and similar initiatives. The researchers alleged that these terminations were not based on individualized assessments but were instead the result of broad policy changes.The researchers filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, challenging the mass termination of grants on constitutional and statutory grounds, including violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the First and Fifth Amendments, and separation of powers. The district court provisionally certified two classes: one for those who received form termination letters without specific explanations, and another for those whose grants were terminated due to the DEI-related Executive Orders. The district court granted a preliminary injunction, ordering the agencies to reinstate the terminated grants, finding that the terminations were likely arbitrary and capricious and, for the DEI class, likely violated the First Amendment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the government’s motion for a partial stay of the injunction. The court denied the motion, holding that the government had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits regarding jurisdiction, standing, or the substantive claims. The court found that the agencies’ actions were likely arbitrary and capricious under the APA and likely constituted viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment. The court also concluded that the balance of harms and public interest did not favor a stay. View "THAKUR V. TRUMP" on Justia Law

A prospective candidate for the 2025 New York City mayoral election, who had not been affiliated with any political party since 2006, sought to run as the nominee of an independent body named the “Independence Party.” New York election law prohibits both political parties and independent bodies from using certain words, including “Independence” and “Independent,” in their names. The candidate argued that these naming restrictions, as applied to him, violated his First Amendment rights to free speech and association.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York reviewed the candidate’s request for a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the naming restrictions. The district court found that the candidate had standing to sue but denied the injunction. The court concluded that the naming provisions did not impose a severe burden on the candidate’s First Amendment rights, as they did not prevent him from communicating his political message or engaging in petitioning activity. Applying the Anderson-Burdick balancing test, the court determined that the restrictions were reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and justified by the state’s interest in preventing voter confusion.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Second Circuit held that the naming restrictions apply to independent bodies, that the candidate had standing, and that the state officials were not entitled to sovereign immunity. The court further held that the naming provisions did not impose a severe burden on the candidate’s First Amendment rights and were reasonable and viewpoint-neutral regulations justified by the state’s interest in avoiding voter confusion. The denial of the preliminary injunction was affirmed. View "Walden v. Kosinski" on Justia Law

A woman who entered the United States illegally as a child was later granted Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status, which rendered her prior removal order unenforceable. She frequently visited a local Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office to post bond for detainees and was well known to the staff. During one such visit, ICE agents detained her without a warrant or probable cause, despite being aware of her DACA status. She was held for eight days and transferred between multiple locations before being released. While detained, she sought habeas relief, but her petition was denied as moot after her release.She subsequently filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky against the ICE agents, alleging violations of her First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. The district court initially dismissed her claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), but the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that DACA status rendered the removal order non-executable and outside the jurisdiction-stripping provision. The Sixth Circuit also dismissed her First Amendment claim based on Supreme Court precedent. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the remaining Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims, finding they constituted new Bivens contexts and that alternative remedies existed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the plaintiff’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims arose in new Bivens contexts—specifically, immigration enforcement by ICE agents outside the home and outside the federal employment context. The court further found that alternative remedies, such as administrative complaint procedures under the Immigration and Nationality Act and habeas corpus, precluded the extension of Bivens. Thus, no implied damages remedy was available. View "Enriquez-Perdomo v. Newman" on Justia Law

Two Florida residents who use medical marijuana in compliance with state law sought to purchase firearms but were denied after disclosing their marijuana use on a federal form. A third individual, a lawful gun owner, wished to participate in Florida’s medical marijuana program but refrained due to concerns about federal prosecution. All three, along with the Florida Commissioner of Agriculture, challenged the constitutionality of federal statutes and regulations that prohibit “unlawful users” of controlled substances—including marijuana—from possessing or purchasing firearms. The complaint did not allege that the plaintiffs had been convicted of any crimes or that their marijuana use rendered them dangerous.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida assumed the plaintiffs were protected by the Second Amendment but dismissed the complaint. The court applied the historical analysis required by District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, concluding that the federal prohibitions were consistent with the nation’s tradition of disarming individuals engaged in criminal conduct or deemed dangerous, such as felons, the mentally ill, or habitual drug users.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that, at the motion to dismiss stage, the government failed to show that the plaintiffs—state-law-compliant medical marijuana users—were relevantly similar to either felons or dangerous individuals, the two historical analogues offered to justify the federal restrictions. The court emphasized that the complaint did not allege facts showing the plaintiffs were dangerous or had committed felonies. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged a violation of their Second Amendment rights as applied to them. View "Florida Commissioner of Agriculture v. Attorney General of the United States" on Justia Law

The defendant operated a dog breeding business from properties in Solano County, California. A nonprofit animal welfare organization brought suit against her, alleging violations of state and local animal welfare laws, including keeping more than the permitted number of dogs, failing to provide adequate care, and maintaining unsanitary conditions. The defendant was found to have violated several provisions of the Vallejo Municipal Code and the state’s Pet Breeder Warranty Act, including exceeding the four-dog limit, allowing dogs to run at large, and failing to provide proper nutrition, water, and veterinary care.The Superior Court of Solano County granted summary judgment for the plaintiff and issued a permanent injunction that, among other things, barred the defendant from owning any dogs and gave the plaintiff custody of all her dogs. On the defendant’s first appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, upheld the findings of violations but found the injunction overbroad, particularly the provisions dispossessing the defendant of all dogs and granting the plaintiff full custody. The case was remanded for the trial court to modify the injunction.After remand, the trial court issued a modified permanent injunction, which limited the defendant to four dogs but also authorized the plaintiff to enter the defendant’s properties and seize any excess dogs without prior notice or hearing. The defendant appealed again, arguing that these provisions were overbroad and unconstitutional.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, held that the four-dog limit was appropriate and necessary given the defendant’s history and the circumstances. However, the court found that the provision allowing the plaintiff to seize excess dogs without notice or a hearing violated due process. The court reversed that part of the injunction and remanded for further proceedings, affirming the remainder. View "Caru Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Anthony" on Justia Law

Greg Wright was recorded on video robbing a gas station convenience store at gunpoint. The cashier, who was present during the incident, testified that Wright showed no signs of intoxication—he did not smell of alcohol, slur his words, or appear confused. Surveillance footage showed Wright acting purposefully and competently throughout the robbery, from his entry and interaction with the cashier to his escape. Wright, representing himself at trial, argued that he was too intoxicated to form the intent to rob, but the evidence at trial did not support this claim.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County tried the case before a jury, which convicted Wright of robbery, possession of a firearm by a felon, and unlawful possession of ammunition. The jury also found true the firearm use allegation and 13 prior convictions. The trial court sentenced Wright to 36 years and four months to life, including an upper-term enhancement for firearm use based on the finding that his prior convictions were “numerous.” Wright appealed, arguing, among other things, that the jury was improperly instructed on the intoxication defense and that there were errors in sentencing.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court erred by using the term “specific intent” in the jury instruction on voluntary intoxication, as this term is ambiguous and not the correct mental state for robbery. However, the court found this error harmless because the evidence overwhelmingly showed Wright was not impaired. The court also found harmless error in the prosecutor’s closing argument and rejected the claim of cumulative error. On sentencing, the court agreed that Wright was improperly punished for both firearm and ammunition possession based on the same act and that he was denied his right to a jury trial on the aggravating factor for the upper-term sentence. The convictions were affirmed, but the case was remanded for resentencing. View "P. v. Wright" on Justia Law

A man who was previously convicted of a felony in Virginia sought to have his voting rights restored after his release from prison. Under Virginia’s Constitution, individuals convicted of felonies lose the right to vote, but the Governor has the sole discretion to restore those rights. The restoration process requires applicants to submit a form, after which the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth reviews the application and makes a recommendation to the Governor, who then decides whether to grant restoration. The applicant in this case, who had never voted due to his conviction as a minor, submitted at least one application for restoration, but the Governor declined to restore his rights.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia reviewed the applicant’s claims, which were brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The applicant argued that the Governor’s unfettered discretion in restoring voting rights, and the lack of a definite time limit for the process, violated the First Amendment’s unfettered-discretion doctrine. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Governor and Secretary, finding that the doctrine did not apply because the restoration process determines eligibility to reenter the franchise, rather than regulating the exercise of an existing right.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Fourth Circuit held that Virginia’s discretionary system for restoring voting rights, which is rooted in the executive clemency power, does not facially violate the First Amendment’s unfettered-discretion doctrine. The court reasoned that the clemency power is fundamentally different from a licensing scheme subject to First Amendment prior restraint analysis, and that judicial review of such executive discretion is limited to narrow circumstances not present here. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Hawkins v. Youngkin" on Justia Law

A tenured English professor at a public university objected to the administration’s decision to resume in-person instruction during the Covid-19 pandemic. The professor, who had health concerns and was partially vaccinated, communicated his opposition by emailing students about his forced return to the classroom, attaching correspondence with his department chair, and using an unconventional email signature. The university responded by reassigning his courses, placing him on paid leave, and proposing a five-day suspension without pay, along with requirements for improved email professionalism. The professor then filed a lawsuit alleging violations of his First Amendment and procedural due process rights.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida dismissed the complaint. The court found that the professor’s email did not constitute protected speech under the First Amendment, as it was gratuitous information in a logistical message sent in his professional capacity. The court also rejected the procedural due process claim for failure to exhaust state-law remedies. The court’s dismissal order allowed the professor until July 3 to amend his complaint, instructing the clerk to enter judgment if no amendment was filed. The professor did not amend, and the clerk did not immediately enter judgment. On July 14, the court issued another order directing entry of judgment, which the clerk entered that day. The professor filed his notice of appeal on August 10.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether the appeal was timely. Applying its precedent from Schuurman v. Motor Vessel Betty K V, the court held that the thirty-day appeal period began on the last day set for amending the complaint, not the later date when judgment was entered. Because the notice of appeal was filed more than thirty days after the amendment deadline, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Burt v. President of University of Florida" on Justia Law

In 1997, an individual diagnosed with schizophrenia and alcohol use disorder attacked his father, resulting in serious injuries. He was charged with several offenses, including attempted murder and first-degree assault. At trial, he was found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect and was committed to the custody of the Psychiatric Security Review Board for up to twenty years. Over the years, his commitment was extended multiple times, sometimes by agreement and sometimes after evidentiary hearings, based on findings that he remained a danger to himself or others. His condition improved over time, leading to less restrictive placements and eventual conditional release into the community, though he experienced a setback in 2020 that led to brief rehospitalization.After the expiration of his initial commitment, the state repeatedly sought and obtained extensions of his commitment. In 2022, the state filed another petition to extend his commitment. The acquittee moved to dismiss, arguing that the statutory commitment procedure violated his constitutional right to equal protection. The Superior Court, Judicial District of Middlesex, denied the motion and, after a hearing, found clear and convincing evidence that he remained dangerous, extending his commitment for two more years, until March 2025. The acquittee appealed, and the Connecticut Supreme Court granted transfer of the appeal.While the appeal was pending, the state filed a new petition to extend the commitment beyond 2025. The Board, however, found the acquittee was no longer dangerous and recommended denial of the petition. The state withdrew its petition, resulting in the acquittee’s discharge in March 2025. The Connecticut Supreme Court held that the appeal was moot because the acquittee had been released and no practical relief could be granted. The Court found neither the collateral consequences doctrine nor the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception applied. However, to avoid any lingering effects, the Court vacated the 2023 commitment order. View "State v. Guild" on Justia Law