Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. House of Representatives adopted a rule permitting remote voting and proxy participation, allowing Members to be counted as present for quorum purposes even if not physically on the House floor. Using this procedure, the House passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, with a majority of votes cast by proxy. The Act was subsequently passed by the Senate and signed into law by the President. The State of Texas challenged the validity of certain provisions of the Act, arguing that the Constitution’s Quorum Clause required a physical majority of Members to be present in the House chamber for business to be conducted.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas held a bench trial and found that Texas had standing to challenge the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a provision of the omnibus legislation. The district court concluded that the enrolled-bill rule, which generally bars courts from questioning the validity of a law based on legislative procedure, did not apply to this constitutional challenge. On the merits, the district court determined that the Quorum Clause required physical presence and enjoined enforcement of the challenged provision against Texas.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of a permanent injunction. The Fifth Circuit held that the enrolled-bill rule did not bar judicial review of Texas’s constitutional claim because the facts were undisputed and the challenge was purely legal. The court then concluded that the Quorum Clause does not require physical presence, relying on the constitutional text, Supreme Court precedent, and historical congressional practice. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and vacated the permanent injunction, holding that the House’s proxy-voting rule did not violate the Quorum Clause. View "State of Texas v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Evan Norman visited a bar where he consumed several alcoholic drinks and fell asleep. At the request of the establishment, Deputy Ingle removed Norman and instructed him to go home, warning that he could be arrested for public intoxication. Norman repeatedly asked for the deputies’ names and badge numbers and made comments to them. As the deputies returned to the bar, Norman followed and continued to engage with them. The situation escalated when Norman reached over Deputy Sutton’s arm and pointed at Deputy Ingle, leading to physical shoving. Norman then attempted to punch Deputy Ingle and placed him in a headlock. In response, the deputies used force to subdue Norman, including multiple punches to his head. Norman was arrested and left facedown for about ten minutes while awaiting medical assistance, during which he suffered significant facial injuries.Norman filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against the deputies and others, alleging excessive force, denial of medical care, failure to intervene, wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution, and First Amendment violations. The district court dismissed claims against the county and sheriff but allowed claims against the deputies to proceed. The deputies moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity. The district court denied their motions, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding the use of force, resistance, and medical care, and ruled that the deputies were not entitled to qualified immunity.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the denial of qualified immunity de novo, considering video evidence of the incident. The court held that the video evidence resolved any material factual disputes and showed that the deputies’ actions did not violate clearly established constitutional rights. The court found the use of force reasonable under the circumstances, no denial of medical care, and no basis for failure to intervene or other claims. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment, holding the deputies were entitled to qualified immunity. View "Norman v. Ingle" on Justia Law

A police officer with the Cambridge Police Department, who had served in both patrol and special investigations roles, posted a comment on his personal Facebook page criticizing the naming of a federal police reform bill after George Floyd. In his post, he referred to Floyd as a "career criminal, a thief and druggie," and expressed pessimism about the country's future. The post was made from home, visible only to his Facebook friends, but was quickly screenshotted and shared with community members, including the local NAACP. The police commissioner was alerted, and the department initiated an internal investigation. The officer was placed on administrative leave and, after the investigation concluded that his post violated department policies on courtesy and professionalism, he was suspended without pay for four days.The officer filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging that his suspension was unconstitutional retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the department, finding that the department’s interest in maintaining public trust and effective service outweighed the officer’s and the public’s interest in his speech, particularly given the context of heightened scrutiny and protest following George Floyd’s death.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The First Circuit held that, while the officer’s speech addressed a matter of public concern, its mocking and disparaging nature diminished its First Amendment value. The court further held that the department’s prediction that the post could undermine public trust was reasonable, especially in the context of ongoing public unrest and the department’s need to maintain community confidence. The court found no evidence of impermissible viewpoint discrimination. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the department. View "Hussey v. City of Cambridge" on Justia Law

Maryland enacted a statute imposing a tax on digital advertising revenues, targeting only large companies with at least $100 million in global annual gross revenues. In response to concerns that these companies would pass the tax cost onto customers and potentially blame the state for price increases, Maryland amended the law to include a “pass-through provision.” This provision prohibited companies from directly passing the tax cost to customers by means of a separate fee, surcharge, or line-item on invoices, though it did not prevent companies from raising prices or otherwise recouping the tax cost in a non-itemized way.A group of trade associations challenged the pass-through provision, arguing that it violated the First Amendment by restricting their ability to communicate with customers about the tax and its impact on pricing. The United States District Court for the District of Maryland initially dismissed the First Amendment claims for lack of jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit determined that the Act did not bar the claims and remanded for consideration on the merits. On remand, the district court found that the provision regulated speech but dismissed the facial challenge, reasoning that the provision had constitutional applications.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the pass-through provision is a content-based restriction on speech, as it prohibits companies from communicating certain truthful information to customers. The court found that the provision could not survive even intermediate scrutiny under the First Amendment, as it was not adequately tailored to any substantial government interest. The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for consideration of the appropriate remedy, holding that the pass-through provision is facially unconstitutional in all its applications. View "Chamber of Commerce v. Lierman" on Justia Law

Two Black celebrities brought suit after being stopped by Clayton County, Georgia police officers on the jet bridge while boarding flights at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. The officers, as part of a drug interdiction program, stopped passengers after they had cleared security and boarding checks, requested and retained their identification and boarding passes, questioned them about drugs, and asked to search their luggage. Both plaintiffs alleged they felt coerced, were not free to leave, and believed they had no choice but to comply. They further alleged that the program disproportionately targeted Black passengers and that the stops were neither random nor consensual.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed all claims. It found the encounters were voluntary and not seizures under the Fourth Amendment, that any searches were consensual, and that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege racial discrimination or a policy supporting municipal liability. The court also granted qualified immunity to the individual officers.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged they were subjected to unreasonable seizures and, in one case, an unreasonable search, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court found that the circumstances—officers blocking the plaintiffs’ paths, retaining their documents, and questioning them in a confined space—amounted to seizures, and that the search was not voluntary. However, the court affirmed qualified immunity for the individual officers, as the law was not clearly established. The court also found that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged a policy or custom by Clayton County that could support municipal liability under Monell. The court affirmed dismissal of the equal protection claims, finding insufficient allegations of discriminatory intent. The court reversed in part, allowing the Fourth Amendment claims against Clayton County to proceed. View "Andre v. Clayton County" on Justia Law

Two Albuquerque police officers stopped a vehicle driven by the defendant after hearing excessive noise, suspecting a violation of city ordinances regarding vehicle mufflers. Upon stopping the car, the officers discovered the defendant had two outstanding misdemeanor bench warrants, which allowed for release upon posting bond. The officers arrested the defendant, citing both the warrants and a concern about possible illegal items in the car after observing ammunition. The defendant requested to pay the bond or have his mother retrieve the car, but the officers proceeded to impound the vehicle, citing its improper parking across two metered spots and concerns about public safety. During an inventory search prior to towing, officers found firearms, cash, and drugs.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence found in the car. The court found that the initial stop was supported by reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation, that the impoundment was justified under community-caretaking functions despite mixed motives, and that the inventory search, though imperfectly documented, largely conformed to department policy. The defendant pleaded guilty but reserved the right to appeal the suppression ruling.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress. The appellate court held that the officers had reasonable suspicion to justify the traffic stop, that the impoundment was permissible under the community-caretaking exception even with mixed motives, and that the inventory search was reasonable despite incomplete documentation, as it was conducted pursuant to standard procedures and not solely for investigatory purposes. The court concluded that none of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated and affirmed the conviction. View "United States v. Ulibarri" on Justia Law

Wil and Deborah Hansen, acting as grandparents and legal guardians of their grandchild J.L., paid tuition for J.L. to attend full-day kindergarten in Boise School District No. 1 during the 2017–2018 school year. The Hansens paid $2,250 for the second half of the kindergarten day, which they alleged violated the Idaho Constitution’s guarantee of free public education and constituted a taking of property without due process. In 2023, they filed a proposed class action seeking reimbursement and a declaration that the School District’s tuition policy was unconstitutional. The Hansens attempted to assert claims both in their own right and on behalf of J.L., arguing that J.L. was entitled to statutory tolling for minors under Idaho law.The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Ada County, dismissed the Hansens’ federal takings and state inverse condemnation claims as time-barred under the applicable statutes of limitation. The court found that only the Hansens, not J.L., had standing to pursue the claims, and that the two-year and four-year statutes of limitation for the federal and state claims, respectively, had expired. The court denied the Hansens’ motion for reconsideration, and the Hansens appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Court held that J.L. lacked standing to assert a Fifth Amendment takings claim because he did not personally pay the tuition or suffer a deprivation of property, and there was no allegation that he was denied educational opportunities. The Court further held that the Hansens’ Fifth Amendment claim was time-barred under Idaho’s two-year statute of limitation for such claims, and the minority tolling statute did not apply. The School District was awarded costs on appeal. View "Hansen v. Boise School Dist #1" on Justia Law

Sprint Corporation and T-Mobile USA, Inc., both wireless carriers, operated programs that sold customer location information (CLI) to third-party aggregators, who then resold the data to other service providers. Although the carriers’ contracts required these third parties to obtain customer consent before accessing CLI, in practice, the carriers did not verify compliance, and several third parties accessed the data without proper consent. After public reports revealed abuses—including unauthorized access by law enforcement and bounty hunters—the carriers terminated some third-party access but continued their programs for months without implementing effective new safeguards.The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) investigated and issued Notices of Apparent Liability (NALs) to both carriers, alleging violations of the Communications Act’s duty to protect the confidentiality of customer proprietary network information (CPNI), which includes CLI. The FCC found that the carriers’ reliance on contractual promises, without independent verification or effective monitoring, was unreasonable. The FCC also concluded that the carriers failed to promptly address their inadequate safeguards after learning of the breaches. The FCC assessed penalties totaling $92 million, calculating separate violations for each third-party relationship that allowed unauthorized access after the carriers were on notice of the problems.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the carriers’ petitions challenging the FCC’s orders. The court held that CLI is CPNI under the Communications Act, that the carriers’ safeguards were inadequate, and that the FCC’s interpretation of the statute was the most natural reading, providing fair notice. The court also found the penalty calculations reasonable and rejected the carriers’ constitutional arguments, including their Seventh Amendment claim, because they had the statutory right to a jury trial but waived it by paying the penalties and seeking direct appellate review. The court denied the petitions for review. View "Sprint Corporation v. FCC" on Justia Law

A law enforcement officer observed a black sedan at a busy intersection in Campbell County, Wyoming. The sedan, driven by Andrew Boyer, was in the right lane behind an SUV. When the light turned green, the SUV did not move, and Boyer overtook it on the right to turn east, remaining on the paved surface. The officer, concerned about the safety of this maneuver and suspecting a traffic violation, followed Boyer. While following, dispatch informed the officer that the vehicle’s registered owner, Boyer, did not have a valid driver’s license. After stopping Boyer, the officer confirmed his identity and learned he possessed a physical license, though the officer knew this did not guarantee valid driving privileges. During the stop, a K-9 unit alerted to drugs in the vehicle, leading to a search that uncovered methamphetamine, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia.Boyer was charged with several drug-related offenses and moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion and that the scope of the stop was improperly expanded. The District Court of Campbell County denied the motion, finding the officer had reasonable suspicion both from observing the overtaking maneuver and from dispatch’s information about Boyer’s license status. The court also found the stop was not unnecessarily prolonged.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed whether the district court erred in denying the motion to suppress. The court held that the officer had reasonable suspicion to justify the initial stop based on both the observed traffic violation and the information from dispatch regarding Boyer’s license. The court concluded that the stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment, as the officer’s actions were reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress. View "Boyer v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

Police officers responded to a report that a man in a yellow and black coat was pointing a handgun at people at a Minneapolis light rail station. They found the suspect inside a nearby pizza restaurant, where several other people, including 16-year-old C.T.B., were standing nearby. An officer, based on his experience that weapons can be passed among individuals in a group, conducted a pat-frisk of C.T.B. and found a handgun in his possession. C.T.B. was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm by a minor and moved to suppress the handgun, arguing that the officers lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion to frisk him.The Hennepin County District Court denied the motion to suppress, finding that C.T.B.’s proximity to the original suspect and the officer’s experience justified the frisk. After a stipulated facts trial, the court found C.T.B. guilty and stayed adjudication. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that the totality of the circumstances—including the possibility that the original suspect had handed off the firearm—made the frisk of C.T.B. objectively reasonable.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the officers did not have reasonable, articulable suspicion that C.T.B. was armed and dangerous when they conducted the pat-frisk. The court clarified that mere proximity to a suspect in an alleged crime, even when combined with general knowledge that weapons can be passed among group members, is not sufficient to justify a warrantless pat-frisk under Terry v. Ohio. The court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "In the Matter of the Welfare of: C.T.B" on Justia Law