Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

A former Massachusetts State Police trooper retired in March 2018 after a 21-year career. While assigned to overtime patrol programs funded by federal grants, he falsely reported working over 700 overtime hours in 2015 and 2016, receiving more than $50,000 in unearned pay. He attempted to conceal his conduct by submitting falsified motor vehicle citations. In July 2018, he pleaded guilty in federal court to one count of embezzlement from an agency receiving federal funds, was sentenced to three months in prison, one year of supervised release, and ordered to pay restitution.Following his conviction, the State Board of Retirement suspended his pension and held a hearing. The hearing officer recommended, and the board adopted, a finding that under G. L. c. 32, § 15 (4), the plaintiff and his beneficiaries were not entitled to any retirement benefits due to his conviction for an offense involving violation of laws applicable to his office. The board ordered the return of his accumulated contributions, less certain deductions. The plaintiff sought judicial review in the Massachusetts District Court, raising constitutional challenges under Article 26 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, arguing the forfeiture was an excessive fine and cruel or unusual punishment. The District Court judge entered judgment for the retirement board.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case on certiorari. It held that the pension forfeiture constituted a fine under Article 26 but was not excessive, adopting the United States Supreme Court’s multifactor analysis for excessive fines under the Eighth Amendment. The court also held that, even assuming Article 26’s cruel or unusual punishment provision applied to fines, the forfeiture was not cruel or unusual. The court affirmed the District Court’s judgment and the retirement board’s decision. View "Raftery v. State Board of Retirement" on Justia Law

A 34-year-old man engaged in a months-long sexual relationship with a 16-year-old girl, whom he met online. The relationship involved sexual encounters, the exchange of nude photographs, and the provision of marijuana and alcohol to the minor. The man used online messaging applications to communicate and arrange meetings. The investigation began after the girl reported the relationship to police, but she could not provide identifying information about the man beyond his online aliases. State detectives, working as part of a federal task force, requested that federal officers use federal administrative subpoenas to obtain electronic records from service providers, which ultimately identified the suspect.The Second District Court in Davis County denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the electronic records, finding that the evidence was lawfully obtained through federal subpoenas. The court also admitted evidence from the defendant’s Summit County residence, including items corroborating the girl’s account. At trial, the jury convicted the defendant on multiple counts, including human trafficking of a child, sexual exploitation of a minor, and distribution of a controlled substance. The court partially granted a post-trial motion to arrest judgment but left the most serious convictions intact. The defendant appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of Utah held that Utah’s Electronic Information or Data Privacy Act (EIDPA) does not require suppression of evidence lawfully obtained by federal officers and shared with state officers, and that the Utah Constitution was not violated by the use of such evidence. The court vacated the conviction for human trafficking of a child, holding that the statute requires proof that something of value was actually given or received in exchange for a sexual act, not merely offered. The court affirmed the convictions for sexual exploitation of a minor and distribution of a controlled substance, and found that any error in admitting certain evidence was harmless. View "State v. Andrus" on Justia Law

The case concerns a defendant who, while driving in Memphis, Tennessee, nearly collided with a police vehicle. When officers attempted to stop him, he fired several shots at them, with one bullet striking the police car and narrowly missing an officer. After a pursuit that ended in a crash, the defendant was arrested. A search of his vehicle revealed a loaded Glock 23 handgun equipped with a device that converted it into a machinegun, as defined by federal law. The defendant did not have a valid registration for the machinegun and did not dispute that the weapon met the statutory definition.A grand jury indicted the defendant for possessing a machinegun in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). He moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the statute was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, both facially and as applied to him, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen. The United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee denied the motion, holding that § 922(o) was constitutional. The defendant then pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 108 months in prison, after which he appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that its prior decision in Hamblen v. United States, which upheld the constitutionality of § 922(o) under District of Columbia v. Heller, remained binding after Bruen because Bruen did not alter the relevant aspects of Heller. The court further conducted an independent analysis under the text-and-history methodology set forth in Heller and Bruen, concluding that § 922(o) is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of prohibiting private possession of dangerous and unusual weapons. The court therefore affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that § 922(o) is constitutional both on its face and as applied to the defendant. View "United States v. Bridges" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted after a bench trial of several offenses, including attempted murder, domestic violence aggravated assault, domestic violence criminal threatening, assault on an officer, and violating a condition of release. The convictions arose from an incident in which the defendant, following a period of repeated contact with his former partner, attacked her in a hotel parking lot. The attack involved strangulation, threats to kill, and physical violence, resulting in significant injuries to the victim. Bystanders, including a hotel clerk and a van driver, intervened, and police officers ultimately subdued and arrested the defendant after a struggle in which an officer was bitten and his firearm was nearly taken.The Kennebec County Unified Criminal Docket (Murphy, J.) found the defendant guilty of the charged offenses. At sentencing, the court imposed a thirty-year sentence for attempted murder, with all but eighteen years suspended and four years of probation, and additional sentences for the other convictions. In determining the sentence for attempted murder, the court considered the brutality and persistence of the attack as aggravating factors, as well as the defendant’s lack of criminal history and acceptance of responsibility as mitigating factors. The court declined to treat the defendant’s “blind jealous rage” as a mitigating factor, finding it was not a biologically based mental illness.On appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed two arguments: that the trial court violated the Eighth Amendment by not considering the defendant’s “blind rage” as a mitigating factor, and that the court erred in finding as an aggravating factor that the defendant assaulted the hotel clerk. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the Eighth Amendment does not require a sentencing court in a noncapital case to consider unprovoked “blind rage” as a mitigating factor. However, the Court found plain error in the trial court’s reliance on an unsupported finding that the defendant assaulted the hotel clerk as an aggravating factor. The judgment of sentence for attempted murder was vacated and the case remanded for resentencing. View "State of Maine v. Goncalves" on Justia Law

Edward Flynn was killed when a fleeing suspect, James Shirley, crashed into his car during a high-speed police pursuit. The incident began when Indianapolis police officers attempted to investigate a potentially stolen truck. Shirley, the suspect, backed into a patrol car and nearly struck two officers before fleeing. Multiple officers engaged in a pursuit that lasted about five and a half minutes, during which Shirley drove recklessly, including turning off his lights, running stop signs and red lights, and reaching high speeds. The chase ended when Shirley ran a red light and collided with Edward Flynn’s vehicle, resulting in Flynn’s death.Gayl Flynn, representing Edward’s estate, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against the City and five officers. She alleged violations of Edward’s Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights and claimed the City failed to properly train its officers, invoking Monell v. Department of Social Service of New York. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, applying the “intent to harm” standard for Fourteenth Amendment liability in emergency situations and finding no such intent by the officers.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed that the facts presented an emergency situation, making the “intent to harm” standard appropriate. The court found that the officers did not act with intent to harm and that the circumstances did not support a claim under a deliberate indifference standard. Because there was no underlying constitutional violation, the Monell claim against the City also failed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to all defendants. View "Flynn v Consolidated City of Indianapolis and Marion County" on Justia Law

A pharmaceutical company challenged the federal government’s implementation of a new program created by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which authorizes the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to negotiate prices for certain high-expenditure prescription drugs under Medicare. The company’s drug was selected for the program, and it signed an agreement to participate “under protest” while filing suit. The company alleged that the program violated its constitutional rights under the First, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments, and that CMS failed to follow required notice-and-comment procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when issuing the standard agreement for participation.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted summary judgment to the government on all claims. The district court found that participation in the program was voluntary, so there was no unlawful deprivation of rights. It also held that the program did not impose unconstitutional conditions on participation in Medicare and Medicaid, and that the Inflation Reduction Act expressly allowed CMS to implement the program for its first three years without notice-and-comment rulemaking.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Second Circuit held that, under its precedent in Garelick v. Sullivan, participation in the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program is voluntary, and thus the program does not effect a taking, deprive the company of property without due process, or compel speech in violation of the First Amendment. The court further held that the program does not impose unconstitutional conditions because it is designed to control Medicare spending and does not regulate the company’s private market conduct. Finally, the court concluded that the Inflation Reduction Act expressly exempted CMS from the APA’s notice-and-comment requirement for the program’s initial years. View "Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc. v. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs." on Justia Law

The defendant, who had a prior Louisiana felony conviction for illegal use of a weapon stemming from a drive-by shooting in 2021, was released on parole in March 2023. One month later, he was found as a passenger in a vehicle stopped for a traffic violation, where police discovered four loaded firearms, including one reported stolen. He was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and with possessing unregistered firearms under 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d).In the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, the defendant moved to dismiss both counts, arguing that the statutes were unconstitutional both facially and as applied to him. The district court denied the motion, holding that convicted felons are not protected by the Second Amendment and that the statutes align with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The defendant then pleaded guilty to the felon-in-possession charge in exchange for dismissal of the other count, preserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the preserved as-applied constitutional challenge de novo. The court held that, under current precedent, the statute’s facial constitutionality was foreclosed. Addressing the as-applied challenge, the court found that the defendant’s prior conviction qualified as a predicate felony and that the government had identified relevant historical analogues—specifically, founding-era “going armed” laws that imposed similar burdens and justifications. The court concluded that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), as applied to the defendant, is consistent with the Second Amendment and the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "USA v. Morgan" on Justia Law

Several minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria, their parents, and a physician challenged an Oklahoma law (SB 613) that prohibits healthcare providers from administering gender transition procedures—including puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones—to individuals under eighteen. The law defines these procedures as medical or surgical interventions intended to affirm a minor’s gender identity when it differs from their biological sex. The statute does not ban mental health counseling or certain other medical treatments. The plaintiffs, all affected by the law’s restrictions, argued that SB 613 violated their constitutional rights.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, finding they had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims. The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. While the appeal was pending, the Tenth Circuit paused proceedings to await the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Skrmetti, which addressed a similar Tennessee law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction. The court held that SB 613 does not violate the Equal Protection Clause because it classifies based on age and medical use, not sex or transgender status, and is subject to rational basis review. The court found Oklahoma’s interest in the health and welfare of minors provided a rational basis for the law. The court also rejected the substantive due process claim, concluding that there is no fundamental right for parents to access gender transition procedures for their children, and that the law is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. The court found no evidence of invidious discriminatory intent by the legislature. View "Poe v. Drummond" on Justia Law

A federal prisoner diagnosed with a painful uterine fibroid sought medical treatment, including surgery, while incarcerated. Despite recommendations from two outside physicians for surgical intervention, prison medical staff repeatedly denied her requests for surgery. The prisoner followed the Bureau of Prisons’ four-step administrative grievance process: she attempted informal resolution, filed a formal written request, appealed to the regional director, and then submitted a final appeal (BP-11 form) to the Bureau’s General Counsel. Although she properly completed and mailed the BP-11 form, prison officials claimed they never received or logged it, and the tracking system showed no record of its receipt.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama initially dismissed her Federal Tort Claims Act claims but allowed her to amend her complaint to pursue Eighth Amendment claims against individual medical staff. After further proceedings, the district court dismissed her amended complaint, concluding that she failed to exhaust administrative remedies because her BP-11 form was never logged as received and because she filed her lawsuit before the General Counsel’s response period had expired.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the prisoner satisfied her obligation to exhaust administrative remedies by properly completing and mailing the BP-11 form, even though prison officials failed to log or process it. The court further held that the administrative remedy process was unavailable to her due to the lack of guidance on how to proceed when officials fail to file a properly submitted grievance, making the process “prohibitively opaque.” The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "McGuire-Mollica v. Griffin" on Justia Law

Several chambers of commerce, including regional and national organizations, brought a lawsuit on behalf of their pharmaceutical-manufacturer members challenging the constitutionality of the Drug Price Negotiation Program established by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. This federal program authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate prices for certain high-expenditure drugs sold to Medicare and Medicaid. Among the plaintiffs’ members were AbbVie Inc. and its subsidiary Pharmacyclics LLC, manufacturers of a drug selected for the first round of negotiations. Notably, Pharmacyclics joined the Dayton and Ohio Chambers only after the litigation began, while AbbVie had longstanding membership in several chambers.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio reviewed the case after the government moved to dismiss, arguing that the Dayton Chamber lacked associational standing and that venue was therefore improper. The district court allowed limited discovery and permitted the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. Ultimately, the district court dismissed the case, holding that the regional chambers’ purposes were not sufficiently related to the interests at stake in the lawsuit, and thus they lacked associational standing. The court also found that, without standing for the Dayton and Ohio Chambers, venue in the Southern District of Ohio was improper and declined to transfer the case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Sixth Circuit held that the interests asserted in the lawsuit were not germane to the purposes of the Dayton, Ohio, or Michigan Chambers, as their regional missions were too remote from the national pharmaceutical issues at stake. The court further concluded that, with no plaintiff residing in the district, venue was improper. The judgment of dismissal for improper venue was therefore affirmed. View "Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce v. Kennedy" on Justia Law