Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

An Army veteran serving a lengthy prison sentence in Florida applied for and received disability benefits for service-related post-traumatic stress disorder. Initially, the Veterans Benefits Administration approved his claim at a 70 percent rate, later increasing it to 80 percent. However, after his felony conviction and incarceration, the Administration reduced his monthly benefits to a 10 percent rate pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5313, which limits disability payments for veterans incarcerated for more than 60 days due to a felony.The veteran filed a pro se complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, naming the United States Congress as defendant. He alleged that the statute reducing his benefits violated the Bill of Attainder Clause and the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment, seeking both prospective and retroactive relief. A magistrate judge recommended dismissal, assuming without deciding that the court had jurisdiction over facial constitutional challenges, but finding the claims frivolous. The district court adopted this recommendation, dismissing the complaint and declining to address the plaintiff’s general objections.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that sovereign immunity barred the suit against Congress, as Congress has not waived immunity for constitutional claims arising from its enactment of legislation. The court further held that any amendment to name a different defendant would be futile because the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act provides an exclusive review scheme for challenges to veterans’ benefits decisions, channeling all such claims—including constitutional challenges—through the administrative process and ultimately to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the Federal Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. View "Johnson v. United States Congress" on Justia Law

In 2024, New Mexico enacted a law requiring a mandatory seven-day waiting period for nearly all consumer firearm purchases, regardless of the buyer’s circumstances or urgency. The law applies even to individuals who have already passed background checks or possess security clearances, and it does not allow for waivers based on personal danger. Exemptions exist for certain categories, such as law enforcement, concealed carry permit holders, and immediate family transfers, but the law broadly prohibits the transfer of firearms before the waiting period ends, with violations constituting misdemeanors.After the law took effect, two individuals, both of whom promptly passed background checks when attempting to purchase firearms, were forced to wait the full seven days solely due to the new statute. They filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, seeking to enjoin enforcement of the law on Second and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. The district court denied their request for a preliminary injunction, reasoning that the right to keep and bear arms did not encompass the right to acquire arms, that waiting periods were longstanding and presumptively constitutional, and that the law fit within historical traditions of firearm regulation. The court also found that the plaintiffs did not meet the other requirements for injunctive relief.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded. The Tenth Circuit held that the waiting period burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment, as the right to keep and bear arms necessarily includes the right to acquire them. The court found that such cooling-off periods are not supported by historical tradition or longstanding regulatory exceptions and that the law imposes an unconstitutional burden. The court concluded that the plaintiffs met all requirements for a preliminary injunction and directed the district court to enter injunctive relief consistent with its opinion. View "Ortega v. Grisham" on Justia Law

Members of the Crow Tribe who own trust allotments on the Crow Reservation challenged the loss of their historic water rights following the ratification of the Crow Tribe-Montana Compact and the Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act. The Settlement Act, passed by Congress in 2010, codified a negotiated agreement among the Crow Tribe, the state of Montana, and the United States, which defined tribal water rights and provided substantial federal funding for water infrastructure. In exchange, the Tribe and allottees agreed to waive all other water rights claims. The Act required the Secretary of the Interior to publish a Statement of Findings certifying that certain conditions were met, which would trigger the waiver of prior water rights.After the Secretary published the Statement of Findings in June 2016—following a deadline extension agreed to by the Tribal Chairman and the Secretary—several allottees filed suit nearly six years later. They argued that the extension was invalid because, under the Crow Constitution, only the Tribal General Council or Legislature could authorize such an agreement. They also alleged that the Secretary’s action exceeded statutory authority, breached trust obligations, and violated their Fifth Amendment rights. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court held that the Secretary’s publication of the Statement of Findings constituted final agency action reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act, but found the Secretary reasonably relied on the Tribal Chairman’s authority to extend the deadline. The court further held that the Settlement Act created specific trust duties, but the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege any breach. The court also concluded that the plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment claims for takings, due process, and equal protection failed as a matter of law. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Hill v. DOI" on Justia Law

A New York resident, known as Lucha El, was twice arrested for unlawful possession of firearms. In both instances, the firearms had been purchased in South Carolina by another individual, Keith Vereen, who acted as a straw purchaser. Lucha El paid Vereen, who then transported the firearms to New York, where Lucha El received them. Lucha El did not have the necessary permits to purchase firearms in New York and did not attempt to obtain a federal license to transport firearms across state lines.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York charged Lucha El with interstate transport of firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3) and conspiracy to transport or receive firearms from outside his state of residency in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Lucha El moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that § 922(a)(3) violated the Second Amendment, but the district court denied the motion. After a trial, a jury found him guilty on both counts, and he was sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment, three years’ supervised release, and forfeiture of the firearms. Lucha El appealed, raising only the Second Amendment challenge.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that § 922(a)(3) is a lawful regulation on the commercial sale of firearms that does not meaningfully constrain the right to keep and bear arms. The court further found that, even if the statute did impose a meaningful constraint, it is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The Second Circuit therefore affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that Lucha El’s convictions under § 922(a)(3) did not violate the Second Amendment. View "United States v. Perez" on Justia Law

A student organization at West Texas A&M University, focused on supporting LGBT+ students, planned a charity drag show to raise funds for a suicide prevention initiative. The event was to be held in a university venue that had previously hosted a wide range of student and community events, including a prior drag show. The organizers took steps to ensure the show would be appropriate for a general audience, restricting lewd content and requiring minors to be accompanied by adults. Shortly before the event, the university president canceled the show, citing concerns that drag performances were discriminatory against women and did not align with the university’s values.Following the cancellation, the student group and two of its officers filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, seeking a preliminary injunction to allow future drag shows on campus. The district court denied the injunction, holding that drag shows were not inherently expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment and that the university president was entitled to qualified immunity. The court also found that the plaintiffs had standing against certain university officials but not others, and rejected the claim of irreparable harm.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the denial of the preliminary injunction de novo. The Fifth Circuit held that the planned drag show was expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment, as it conveyed a clear message of support for the LGBT+ community in its context. The court determined that the university venue was a designated public forum, making the content-based restriction on the drag show subject to strict scrutiny, which the university did not attempt to justify. The court found the plaintiffs faced irreparable harm from the ongoing ban and that the balance of equities and public interest favored an injunction. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction against the university president and a vice president, affirmed the denial as to the chancellor for lack of standing, and remanded for entry of the injunction. View "Spectrum WT v. Wendler" on Justia Law

In August 2022, law enforcement officers in Sterling, Virginia, stopped a Ford Explorer as part of an operation to execute an arrest warrant for a suspected armed robber. Herbert Murillo-Lopez was driving the vehicle. During the stop, officers recovered a firearm from a satchel worn by Murillo-Lopez. He admitted to being an undocumented non-citizen. Subsequent investigation confirmed he was born in El Salvador, had no lawful status in the United States, and had no record of legal entry.A grand jury indicted Murillo-Lopez for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A), which prohibits possession of a firearm by an undocumented non-citizen. He moved to suppress the evidence from the stop, arguing the stop and search were unconstitutional, but the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied the motion. Shortly before trial, he moved to dismiss the indictment on Second Amendment grounds, but the district court found the motion untimely and unpersuasive. After a jury found him guilty, the district court denied his motion for judgment of acquittal and sentenced him to eight months in prison and three years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that Murillo-Lopez knew he was unlawfully present in the United States. The court also found the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion that Murillo-Lopez might be the subject of the arrest warrant, and that the search of his satchel was consensual. Finally, the court rejected his Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(5)(A), holding that existing circuit precedent remains valid after recent Supreme Court decisions. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Murillo-Lopez" on Justia Law

William Cannon was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape and dissuading a witness, after attacking a 16-year-old girl and confessing to other attempted sexual assaults. Near the end of his prison sentence, the district attorney petitioned to commit him under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), which allows for the civil commitment of certain sex offenders after their sentences if they are found to be sexually violent predators. During pretrial proceedings, Cannon’s attorney, without Cannon’s personal attendance or express waiver, waived his right to a jury trial. The trial court did not advise Cannon of his jury trial rights or seek his personal waiver, as the SVPA does not require these steps. Following a bench trial, Cannon was found to be a sexually violent predator and was committed.On appeal, Cannon argued for the first time that the SVPA’s procedures violated his state and federal equal protection rights because, unlike other civil commitment schemes for individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) or those with mental health disorders (OMHD), the SVPA does not require a judicial advisement of the right to a jury trial or a personal waiver from the defendant. The Court of Appeal considered the equal protection claim despite it not being raised below, found that rational basis review was the appropriate standard, and remanded the case to the trial court to allow the parties to develop a fuller record and litigate the equal protection issue.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case to determine the appropriate standard of scrutiny for Cannon’s equal protection challenge. The court held that rational basis review, not strict scrutiny, applies to the SVPA’s jury trial demand and waiver procedures. The court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s remand order, directing the trial court to determine whether the legislative choice of procedures is constitutionally justified under rational basis review and whether Cannon knowingly waived his right to a jury trial. The order of commitment is conditionally affirmed pending the outcome of those proceedings. View "P. v. Cannon" on Justia Law

A nonprofit Christian ministry that provides youth programs in Oregon applied for state grant funding from the Oregon Department of Education’s Youth Development Division. The Division had recently added a rule requiring all grant applicants to certify that they do not discriminate based on religion in employment, vendor selection, subcontracting, or service delivery. The ministry, whose mission is to share Christian teachings, requires all employees and volunteers to affirm a Christian Statement of Faith and be involved in a local church. After initially awarding the ministry a conditional grant, the Division withdrew the award upon discovering the ministry’s religious hiring requirements.The United States District Court for the District of Oregon denied the ministry’s request for a preliminary injunction to reinstate the grant and enjoin enforcement of the rule, finding the ministry unlikely to succeed on the merits of its First Amendment claims. The court also dismissed all claims, including those for damages, based on qualified immunity, even though the defendants had only moved to dismiss the damages claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Ninth Circuit held that the rule, as applied to grant-funded initiatives, is likely neutral and generally applicable, thus not violating the Free Exercise Clause, and is a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral condition for participation in the grant program. The court also found that the ministry’s religious autonomy claims were unlikely to succeed, as the relevant doctrines are affirmative defenses, not standalone claims. However, the court held that applying the rule to the ministry’s non-grant-funded initiatives likely imposes an unconstitutional condition on expressive association. The Ninth Circuit directed the district court to enjoin enforcement of the rule as to non-grant-funded initiatives, affirmed the dismissal of damages claims due to qualified immunity, and reversed the dismissal of claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. View "YOUTH 71FIVE MINISTRIES V. WILLIAMS" on Justia Law

Two New York residents applied for concealed carry firearm licenses under the state’s licensing laws. Their applications were reviewed by a county court judge acting as a statutory licensing officer, who denied both applications. The judge found that one applicant’s criminal arrest history and failure to disclose it demonstrated a lack of maturity and responsibility, while the other applicant’s criminal history, including a youthful-offender adjudication for robbery, similarly indicated he was not qualified for a license.After their applications were denied, the applicants filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. They sued the judge in both his individual and official capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court dismissed the claims against the judge in his individual capacity, holding that absolute judicial immunity applied because the judge was acting in a judicial role. The court also dismissed the official-capacity claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, finding that Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement and § 1983’s limitations barred such claims against a judge acting in this capacity.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Second Circuit held that judges deciding firearms license applications under New York law act in a judicial capacity and are therefore entitled to absolute immunity from individual-capacity suits for damages. The court further held that Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement bars claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against state court judges in their official capacity when they act as neutral adjudicators without a personal or institutional stake in the challenged law. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Kellogg v. Nichols" on Justia Law

Brandon Prawl was convicted after a jury trial of several offenses arising from heroin distribution activities in Schenectady, New York. The evidence at trial showed that Prawl sold heroin to an undercover investigator on four occasions in September 2019, often retrieving the drugs from an apartment at 1526 Devine Street. On October 4, 2019, police raided the apartment and found Prawl in a bedroom with his identification card listing the apartment as his address. In the same room, officers discovered heroin, drug paraphernalia, and an unloaded handgun with a loaded magazine nearby. Prawl did not have a license for the firearm.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Judge Suddaby) presided over the trial. Prawl was indicted for four counts of heroin distribution, one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and one count of possession with intent to distribute heroin. At trial, the government’s arguments and the district court’s jury instructions linked the firearm possession charge to Prawl’s possession with intent to distribute heroin on October 4, rather than to the September sales as specified in the indictment. Prawl did not object to this at trial. The jury convicted him on all counts, and he was sentenced to a total of 84 months’ imprisonment.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Prawl challenged only his conviction for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. He argued that the evidence was insufficient and that the indictment was constructively amended in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The Second Circuit held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, that Prawl had abandoned his constructive amendment claim on appeal, and that, even if not abandoned, any error was not plain. The court affirmed the judgment of conviction. View "United States v. Prawl" on Justia Law