Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

A man was found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect for several violent offenses, including first-degree burglary, risk of injury to a child, third-degree assault, and possession of a weapon on school grounds. He was committed to the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board in 2003 for up to ten years. His commitment was extended several times by agreement, but in 2018, he was granted conditional release and began living in the community under strict conditions related to his mental health treatment. In 2019, the state petitioned to extend his commitment, arguing that his discharge would pose a danger to himself or others.The Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, denied the acquittee’s motion to dismiss the petition, which had argued that the recommitment procedure violated his federal equal protection rights. The court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that he continued to suffer from a psychiatric illness and posed a danger if released without supervision, and extended his commitment. The Appellate Court affirmed, holding that the recommitment scheme did not violate equal protection and that the trial court’s finding of dangerousness was not clearly erroneous.The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity and subject to recommitment are not similarly situated to civilly committed inmates for equal protection purposes, because the former’s commitment is based on a judicial finding that their criminal acts were caused by mental illness, while civilly committed inmates may develop mental illness unrelated to their criminal conduct. The Court also held that the trial court’s finding that the acquittee’s discharge would be dangerous was supported by clear and convincing evidence, given his history, the violent nature of his offenses, and the short duration of his stable conditional release. The judgment of the Appellate Court was affirmed. View "State v. Foster" on Justia Law

A man born in New York City in July 1950 lived for nearly seventy years in the United States, believing himself to be a U.S. citizen. His father, a Nicaraguan national, was working for Nicaragua’s permanent mission to the United Nations at the time of his birth. Over the years, the government repeatedly issued him passports and affirmed his citizenship. However, in 2018, after a review of historical records, the government determined that his father had been an attaché, not a consul, at the time of his birth. This distinction was crucial because, under federal and international law, the children of diplomats (such as attachés) are not considered “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States for purposes of birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.The United States District Court for the Central District of California reviewed the case after the government revoked the man’s passport and denied his claim to citizenship. The Secretary of State presented a recently executed certificate asserting that the man’s father had diplomatic immunity at the time of his birth. The district court declined to treat this certificate as conclusive evidence but, after considering the full record, found by clear and convincing evidence that the father was an attaché with diplomatic immunity, and thus the plaintiff was not a birthright citizen.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that while the President’s reception of a person as a diplomat is conclusive, whether that reception occurred is a factual question for the courts to decide, even when presented with a certificate from the executive branch. The court found no clear error in the district court’s determination that the plaintiff’s father held diplomatic immunity at the time of birth, and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to birthright citizenship. View "MONCADA V. RUBIO" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a former police officer in Dermott, Arkansas, alleged that he was forced to resign in retaliation for reporting a fellow officer’s excessive use of force. The incident in question involved the other officer grabbing an arrestee by the neck while the arrestee was restrained. Subsequently, the officer accused the plaintiff of taking money from a parolee, which the parolee confirmed in a statement. The police chief referred the matter to a prosecutor, who initiated a state police investigation. During this period, the plaintiff’s employment status became unclear, with conflicting statements about whether he was fired or resigned. The plaintiff ultimately resigned after a job offer from another police department was rescinded due to the ongoing investigation. He was later charged with abuse of office and witness bribery, but the charges were dismissed when the parolee could not be located.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims. The court found that the plaintiff had voluntarily resigned and had not suffered an adverse employment action, which was necessary for his First Amendment retaliation claim. The court also determined that the plaintiff was not “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment for his malicious prosecution claim, as a summons to appear in court did not constitute a seizure. The court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and found that they failed on the merits, including claims under the Arkansas Whistle Blower Act, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and defamation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Eighth Circuit held that the plaintiff’s voluntary resignation did not amount to an adverse employment action, and that he was not seized under the Fourth Amendment. The court also agreed that the state law claims failed as a matter of law. View "Brown v. City of Dermott Arkansas" on Justia Law

The plaintiff was stopped by New York State Troopers in Oneida County, New York, on September 4, 2017, after a report of erratic driving. During the stop, Trooper Colton claimed the plaintiff failed field sobriety tests and later registered a high blood alcohol content on a breathalyzer. The plaintiff disputed these findings, alleging the tests were improperly administered and that he passed them. He was arrested and charged with a felony for aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle, multiple DWI-related misdemeanors, and a traffic infraction. The felony charge was later amended to a misdemeanor before a suppression hearing, after which the city court suppressed evidence due to concerns about Trooper Colton’s credibility. The plaintiff ultimately pled guilty to the traffic infraction, and the remaining DWI-related charges were dismissed.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed the plaintiff’s federal lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which alleged false arrest, malicious prosecution, and fabrication of evidence. The district court found that the guilty plea to the traffic infraction established probable cause for the arrest, defeating the false arrest claim. It also held that the plaintiff could not show favorable termination for the malicious prosecution claim because the DWI-related charges were dismissed as part of a plea agreement. The fabrication of evidence claim was dismissed as conclusory and contradicted by Trooper Colton’s testimony.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the false arrest claim and the malicious prosecution claim as to the DWI-related charges dismissed in the plea agreement, holding that a guilty plea to one charge bars a malicious prosecution claim for other charges dismissed as part of the same plea. However, the court vacated the dismissal of the malicious prosecution claim as to the terminated felony charge, finding it plausibly terminated favorably because its dismissal was not clearly part of the plea. The court also reinstated the fabrication of evidence claim, concluding the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged intentional fabrication. The case was remanded for further proceedings on these claims. View "Carruthers v. Colton" on Justia Law

A city filed a criminal complaint against a property owner, alleging that his property was in violation of certain provisions of the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC), which the city had adopted by ordinance. The complaint stated that the property’s residence lacked water service, had holes in the roof, and that a break wall was collapsing into a river. It also alleged the presence of various items described as “debris,” such as barrels, lawn mowers, boats, trailers, propane tanks, and overgrown vegetation. The city claimed these conditions violated IPMC sections requiring properties to be maintained in a “clean,” “safe,” and “sanitary” condition.The property owner moved to dismiss the charges in the Huron Municipal Court, arguing that the IPMC provisions were unconstitutionally vague because the terms “clean,” “safe,” and “sanitary” were undefined. The trial court agreed, relying on a prior decision from the Seventh District Court of Appeals, State v. ACV Realty, which had found similar IPMC language void for vagueness. As a result, the trial court dismissed the relevant counts. The city appealed, and the Sixth District Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the terms in question should be given their ordinary meanings and were sufficiently clear to inform property owners of the prohibited conduct.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case to resolve a conflict between appellate districts. The court held that a defendant cannot successfully challenge a law as void for vagueness if his conduct clearly falls within the activities the law prohibits. Because the alleged conditions of the property—such as lack of water, structural decay, and accumulation of debris—clearly violated the IPMC provisions, the property owner’s vagueness challenge failed. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the appellate court’s judgment and remanded the case to the municipal court for further proceedings. View "Huron v. Kisil" on Justia Law

Three employers—SpaceX, Energy Transfer, and Findhelp—each faced unfair labor practice complaints before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Before administrative proceedings began, each employer filed suit in a different federal district court in Texas, challenging the constitutionality of the NLRB’s structure. Specifically, they argued that the dual for-cause removal protections for both NLRB Board Members and Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) unconstitutionally insulated these officials from presidential removal, violating Article II and the separation of powers.Each district court granted a preliminary injunction, halting the NLRB’s proceedings against the respective employer. The courts found that the removal protections for ALJs (and, in one case, for Board Members) were unconstitutional, that the employers would suffer irreparable harm if forced to proceed before an unconstitutionally structured agency, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored injunctive relief. The NLRB appealed, arguing that the district courts lacked jurisdiction under the Norris-LaGuardia Act and that the employers had not shown a likelihood of success or irreparable harm.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the consolidated appeals. The court held that the district courts had jurisdiction to enjoin the NLRB’s proceedings, as the employers’ constitutional challenges to the agency’s structure did not “grow out of a labor dispute” within the meaning of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. On the merits, the Fifth Circuit held that the dual for-cause removal protections for NLRB ALJs are unconstitutional, following its own precedent in Jarkesy v. Securities & Exchange Commission. The court further held that the removal protections for Board Members likely violate Article II, as the NLRB’s structure does not fit within the narrow exception recognized in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. The court also found that being subjected to proceedings before an unconstitutionally structured agency constitutes irreparable harm. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunctions granted by the district courts. View "Space Exploration v. NLRB" on Justia Law

A woman identified as E.J. was carjacked by two masked men in a Detroit store parking lot. She observed the men in the store, noting one was light-skinned and the other dark-skinned. After the incident, a store customer who knew the light-skinned man from school provided E.J. with his name and later sent both E.J. and the investigating officer photos and information from his Facebook profile. Before a police-arranged photo lineup, the customer sent E.J. a picture of the suspect, Kyrrah Radaker-Carter, despite police instructions not to do so. E.J. confirmed to the customer that the man in the photo was the carjacker. The next day, E.J. participated in a six-photo lineup and immediately identified Radaker-Carter, who was later arrested while driving the stolen car.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied Radaker-Carter’s motion to suppress E.J.’s identification, finding that due process did not require exclusion because the suggestive circumstances were not arranged by law enforcement and the photo array itself was not unduly suggestive. Radaker-Carter subsequently pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 122 months’ imprisonment, then appealed the suppression ruling.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. The appellate court held that E.J.’s identification was constitutionally admissible because the suggestive circumstances—E.J. seeing Radaker-Carter’s photo before the lineup—were not orchestrated by law enforcement. The court also found that the police-arranged photo lineup was not unduly suggestive, as the differences in the photos were minor and did not improperly single out Radaker-Carter. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress. View "United States v. Radaker-Carter" on Justia Law

A woman was convicted of first-degree murder in Maryland state court after being tried jointly with her husband. The prosecution’s case was largely circumstantial, focusing on motive and opportunity, and initially argued that she was the shooter. After her conviction, she moved for a new trial, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. In support of her motion, she disclosed attorney-client privileged materials and testified about her defense strategy and communications with counsel. The trial court granted her a new trial but ordered her to turn over privileged materials to the State and allowed the same prosecution team, now privy to her defense strategy, to retry her case. The court also left open the possibility that her prior testimony could be used to impeach her if she testified at the new trial.On appeal, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals assumed, without deciding, that the trial court erred by allowing the same prosecution team to retry the case and by permitting the State to use information obtained from privileged materials. However, the appellate court found no prejudice, reasoning that the new evidence (including the existence of a second wig) did not harm her defense and that her decision not to testify was not prejudicial absent a proffer of her intended testimony. The Maryland Court of Appeals denied certiorari, and the United States Supreme Court also declined review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case on habeas corpus. The Fourth Circuit held that the Maryland Court of Special Appeals’ finding of no prejudice was based on an objectively unreasonable determination of the facts, given the record showing the State’s use of privileged evidence and the impact on the defendant’s ability to testify. However, because the state appellate court had not actually decided whether a constitutional violation occurred, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s denial of habeas relief and remanded for the district court to determine that question de novo. View "Kaur v. Warden" on Justia Law

Philadelphia police officers stopped a car driven by Raphael Ross for having illegally tinted windows in a high-crime area. During the stop, Ross appeared extremely nervous, displaying shaking hands, a stammering voice, and erratic movements with his jacket inside the car. After Ross produced expired insurance and registration and claimed to have left his license elsewhere, Officer Smart complimented Ross’s Rolex watch and asked where he worked. Ross replied that he owned a home health aide business. Officer Smart then returned to his patrol car to check Ross’s information, discovering a recent firearm arrest. Meanwhile, Officer Foreman observed continued nervous behavior and noncompliance with her instructions. After backup arrived, officers frisked Ross and searched his car, finding a gun and drugs.Ross was charged in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania with firearm and drug offenses. He moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the officer’s questions about his watch and employment unlawfully extended the stop under the Fourth Amendment, as interpreted by Rodriguez v. United States. The District Court denied the motion, finding the brief exchange to be permissible small talk aimed at calming Ross and not an unconstitutional extension of the stop. Ross pleaded guilty but reserved his right to appeal the suppression ruling.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that brief, safety-related small talk—such as complimenting a watch and asking about employment—does not violate the Fourth Amendment if it is intended to deescalate tension and does not measurably prolong the stop. The court found that the officers’ actions were reasonable given Ross’s nervous behavior and affirmed the District Court’s denial of the suppression motion and Ross’s conviction. View "USA v. Ross" on Justia Law

In March 2022, police officers in Providence responded to concerns about Sherbert Maddox, who had not been heard from in several days. Her uncle, Marvin Maddox, reported to officers that he had been told Sherbert was killed and her body was in a refrigerator in her boyfriend’s apartment. Officers went to the apartment complex, spoke with residents, and focused on Apartment 6, where Sherbert’s boyfriend, later identified as the defendant, lived. After repeated knocking and observing someone inside who did not answer the door, officers forcibly entered the apartment without a warrant. Inside, they found the defendant, two firearms, and Sherbert Maddox’s body in a refrigerator.A grand jury indicted the defendant on nine counts, including murder and firearm offenses. Before trial in the Providence County Superior Court, the defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the warrantless entry, arguing it violated his constitutional rights. After a hearing, the trial justice denied the motion, finding exigent circumstances justified the entry. At trial, several counts were dismissed, and the jury convicted the defendant of second-degree murder and related firearm charges. The defendant’s motion for a new trial was denied, and he was sentenced to consecutive life terms and additional concurrent sentences. The defendant appealed, challenging the denial of his suppression motion.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed the case, applying a clearly erroneous standard to factual findings and conducting an independent review of the constitutional issues. The Court held that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry and search, given the urgent need to check on Sherbert Maddox’s well-being and the information available to police at the time. The Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment, upholding the convictions and the denial of the suppression motion. View "State v. Cooper" on Justia Law