Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

After completing a prison sentence for a prior conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm, the defendant began a term of supervised release. Less than two months later, he was arrested after police responded to a report that he had threatened someone with a gun. Officers found a firearm at the scene, and the defendant admitted to possessing it. He was initially charged in state court, but the state charges were dismissed after a federal indictment for being a felon in possession of a firearm was issued. The conduct also constituted a violation of the conditions of his supervised release from the earlier federal conviction.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio handled both the new substantive offense and the supervised-release violation in joint proceedings. The defendant pleaded guilty to the new firearm charge and, at a subsequent hearing, admitted to the supervised-release violation. The district court sentenced him to 96 months for the new offense and 24 months for the supervised-release violation, to be served consecutively. The defendant appealed, arguing that he did not knowingly waive his right to a revocation hearing, that the district court misapplied sentencing factors for the supervised-release violation, and that his sentence for the substantive offense was based on an improper application of the career-offender enhancement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a revocation hearing and that the district court properly applied the career-offender enhancement for the substantive offense. However, the appellate court held that the district court erred by considering retributive and punishment factors, which are not permitted under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) as clarified by the Supreme Court’s decision in Esteras v. United States, when sentencing for the supervised-release violation. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the substantive offense sentence, reversed the revocation sentence, and remanded for resentencing on the supervised-release violation. View "United States v. Hoyle" on Justia Law

The petitioner pleaded guilty in 2003 to attempted bank robbery and to carrying and using a firearm during a crime of violence. At sentencing, he was classified as a career offender under the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines, resulting in a sentence of 274 months’ imprisonment. Over the years, he filed several postconviction motions, including a first motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which was denied. After subsequent changes in Supreme Court precedent regarding the constitutionality of certain sentencing provisions, the petitioner argued that the mandatory Guidelines’ career-offender provision was unconstitutionally vague and sought habeas relief.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed his habeas petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, finding that he could not proceed under § 2241 because he did not satisfy the requirements of the “saving clause” in § 2255(e). The district court determined that the petitioner was procedurally barred from bringing a second or successive § 2255 motion and that this procedural bar did not render § 2255 “inadequate or ineffective” to test the legality of his detention.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Fourth Circuit held that, under the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. Hendrix, the inability to satisfy the procedural requirements for a second or successive § 2255 motion does not make § 2255 inadequate or ineffective, and thus does not permit recourse to § 2241 via the saving clause. The court also held that this result does not violate the Suspension Clause of the Constitution, relying on its en banc precedent in In re Vial. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Bell v. Streeval" on Justia Law

A group of individuals and organizations challenged a longstanding policy of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), codified as Rule 202.5(e), which requires defendants in civil enforcement actions to agree not to publicly deny the allegations against them as a condition of settlement. This “no-deny” provision has been in place since 1972 and is incorporated into settlement agreements, with the SEC’s remedy for a breach being the ability to ask the court to reopen the case. The petitioners argued that this rule violates the First Amendment and was improperly adopted under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).Previously, the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) petitioned the SEC to amend Rule 202.5(e) to remove the no-deny requirement, citing constitutional concerns. The SEC denied the petition, explaining that defendants can voluntarily waive constitutional rights in settlements and that the rule preserves the agency’s ability to litigate if a defendant later denies the allegations. After the denial, the petitioners sought review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, asserting both First Amendment and APA violations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the SEC’s denial. Applying the Supreme Court’s framework from Town of Newton v. Rumery, the court held that voluntary waivers of constitutional rights, including First Amendment rights, are generally permissible if knowing and voluntary. The court concluded that Rule 202.5(e) is not facially invalid under the First Amendment, as it is a limited restriction tied to the settlement context and does not preclude all speech. The court also found that the SEC had statutory authority for the rule, was not required to use notice-and-comment rulemaking, and provided a rational explanation for its decision. The petition for review was denied, but the court left open the possibility of future as-applied challenges. View "POWELL V. UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION" on Justia Law

Israel Isbell pleaded guilty in 2010 to receipt of child pornography and was sentenced to 180 months in prison followed by a lifetime of supervised release. As his prison term ended, Isbell violated several conditions of his supervised release, including unauthorized internet use and unsuccessful participation in sex offender and substance abuse treatment programs. These violations led to the revocation of his supervised release, an additional prison term, and a new term of supervised release with specific conditions.After a prior appeal resulted in a remand for resentencing on an unrelated issue, the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois resentenced Isbell to 16 months’ imprisonment and 8 years of supervised release. Isbell objected to three conditions: a requirement to participate in a computer and internet monitoring program, a provision regarding medical marijuana use during treatment, and a mandate for substance abuse treatment. The district court overruled his objections and imposed the conditions as proposed.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed Isbell’s challenges de novo. The court held that the computer monitoring condition was neither unconstitutionally vague nor overbroad, as its language and purpose provided sufficient notice and guidance. The court also found that the medical marijuana provision did not improperly delegate judicial authority to treatment providers, as it required Isbell to follow generally applicable program rules rather than allowing providers to determine the existence of the condition. Finally, the court determined that the written judgment requiring substance abuse treatment was consistent with the oral pronouncement and did not violate the non-delegation rule. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "USA v Isbell" on Justia Law

A sheriff’s deputy in Lake County, Montana, stopped the defendant after observing erratic driving and signs of intoxication. The defendant admitted to drinking, partially completed field sobriety tests, refused further testing, and ultimately provided a blood sample showing a high blood alcohol concentration. He was cited for felony DUI. At his initial appearance, the Justice Court set a preliminary hearing and released him on his own recognizance, but he remained incarcerated due to a probation violation from a prior offense. Lake County policy, based on state statutes, allowed up to thirty days for probable cause determinations for defendants not detained specifically on the new charge. The State filed an information twenty-one days after the initial appearance.The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing the delay in determining probable cause was unreasonable. The Twentieth Judicial District Court denied the motion, finding the delay reasonable. After a jury convicted the defendant of felony DUI, the District Court sentenced him to five years with the Department of Corrections, imposed a $5,000 mandatory minimum fine, and required continuous alcohol monitoring (SCRAM) as a parole condition. The defendant appealed, challenging the delay, the SCRAM condition, and the fine.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in finding the twenty-one-day delay reasonable, given the local policy and lack of prejudice to the defendant. The Supreme Court reversed the imposition of SCRAM as a parole condition, holding that no statute authorized such a condition, and remanded for the condition to be modified as a recommendation to the Board of Pardons and Parole. The Supreme Court also reversed the mandatory minimum fine, holding that under State v. Gibbons, such fines are unconstitutional without individualized assessment of ability to pay, and remanded for resentencing consistent with that requirement. View "State v. Vaska" on Justia Law

While serving a ten-year sentence in Rhode Island Department of Corrections (RIDOC) custody, Jerry Cintron, who suffers from opioid use disorder, relapsed and overdosed on a fentanyl-laced pill. After the incident, RIDOC officials sanctioned him with a total of 450 days in solitary confinement for various infractions related to the overdose and alleged trafficking. During this period, Cintron experienced severe mental and physical deterioration, including significant weight loss, self-injurious behavior, and psychiatric symptoms. He repeatedly informed RIDOC officials of his worsening condition and requested relief, but his pleas were denied or ignored, and his conditions remained unchanged.Cintron filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment rights due to deliberate indifference by RIDOC officials. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Cintron’s claims failed on the merits and that they were entitled to qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion as to the Eighth Amendment claim, allowing it to proceed against all defendants, and the defendants appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and held that Cintron’s complaint plausibly alleged an Eighth Amendment violation by three RIDOC officials—Aceto, Corry, and Kettle—who were aware of his deterioration and had authority to intervene but failed to do so. The court found that, as of 2019, it was clearly established that prolonged social, sensory, and sleep deprivation in solitary confinement could constitute cruel and unusual punishment, and that officials could not respond with deliberate indifference. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity for these three officials, reversed as to the other defendants, and remanded for further proceedings on declaratory and injunctive relief. View "Cintron v. Bibeault" on Justia Law

Indiana enacted a statute making it a misdemeanor for a person to knowingly or intentionally approach within 25 feet of a law enforcement officer who is lawfully engaged in official duties, after being ordered by the officer to stop approaching. Several media organizations and news outlets challenged this law, arguing that it is unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment because it allows police officers too much discretion in deciding when to issue a do-not-approach order, potentially leading to arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. The plaintiffs asserted that the law chills their newsgathering activities, as journalists often need to approach police officers in public spaces to report on events.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana denied the State’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing, finding that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged injury in fact. The district court then granted a preliminary injunction, concluding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their Fourteenth Amendment vagueness claim, would suffer irreparable harm without relief, and that the balance of harms and public interest favored an injunction. The court did not address the plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims. The State appealed the preliminary injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, arguing that the law was not unconstitutionally vague and that the plaintiffs lacked standing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs had standing and that the case was not moot, even though a second, narrower buffer law had been enacted. The court found that the original buffer law was unconstitutionally vague because it gave law enforcement officers unfettered discretion to decide when to issue a do-not-approach order, thus encouraging arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. The court remanded the case for the district court to reconsider the appropriate scope of the injunction in light of recent Supreme Court precedent limiting universal injunctions. View "Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press v. Rokita" on Justia Law

A Michigan landlord who owns several rental properties in Oak Park challenged the city’s housing code, specifically its requirement that landlords consent to property inspections as a condition for obtaining a rental license. The city’s code mandates that landlords apply for a license and certificate of compliance, which involves an initial inspection and periodic re-inspections. The landlord refused to sign the consent form for inspections, resulting in the city withholding his license and issuing fines for renting without one. Despite these penalties, he continued to rent out his properties.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in favor of the city. The district court found that the landlord lacked standing to bring a Fourth Amendment claim because there had been no warrantless, nonconsensual inspection. It also ruled that the city’s licensing and inspection regime did not violate the Fourth Amendment or impose unconstitutional conditions, and that the landlord’s Equal Protection claim was without merit.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the landlord did have standing to challenge the licensing scheme under the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine, as the denial of a license for refusing to consent to inspections constituted a cognizable injury. However, the court concluded that the city’s requirement of consent to an initial inspection as a condition of licensing was reasonable and did not violate the Fourth Amendment, drawing on Supreme Court precedent distinguishing between reasonable conditions for public benefits and coercive mandates. The court also found that the city’s inspection requirements for one- and two-family rentals did not violate the Equal Protection Clause, as the classification was rationally related to legitimate public health and safety goals. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Herschfus v. City of Oak Park" on Justia Law

Law enforcement officers suspected that the defendant was involved in a drug trafficking operation based out of his apartment in a large, multi-unit building. To investigate further, officers, with the building management’s permission, conducted a warrantless dog sniff in the common hallway immediately outside the defendant’s apartment door. The trained dog alerted to the presence of drugs, and this information was used to obtain a search warrant. The subsequent search uncovered drugs, firearms, and other evidence. The defendant was indicted on drug and firearm charges.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence, rejecting his arguments that the dog sniff constituted an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment. The court found that the dog sniff did not violate a reasonable expectation of privacy because it only revealed the presence of contraband, and that the area outside the apartment door was not protected “curtilage” since it was a common hallway accessible to other residents and building staff. The defendant was convicted by a jury on all counts and sentenced to 150 months in prison.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error. The Fourth Circuit held that a dog sniff at an apartment door in a common hallway does not violate a reasonable expectation of privacy, as established by United States v. Place and Illinois v. Caballes, because it only reveals the presence of contraband. The court also held that the common hallway outside the apartment door is not curtilage protected by the Fourth Amendment, as the defendant had no right to exclude others from that area. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "US v. Johnson" on Justia Law

In 2010, an inmate killed his cellmate in an Arizona state prison, inflicting fatal blunt and sharp force injuries. The defendant was convicted by a jury of premeditated first degree murder. The jury found three statutory aggravating factors: a prior conviction for a serious offense, the especially heinous or depraved manner of the crime, and that the offense was committed while in the custody of the state department of corrections. The jury determined that death was the appropriate sentence.The Arizona Supreme Court previously reviewed the case in 2017, affirming the conviction and the findings in the aggravation phase, but vacating the death sentence and remanding for a new penalty phase to comply with United States Supreme Court precedent regarding jury instructions on parole ineligibility. On remand, the defendant waived his right to counsel and to present mitigating evidence, a waiver the trial court found to be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The penalty phase was conducted with the defendant representing himself, assisted by advisory counsel, but he did not present any mitigating evidence or argument. The jury again returned a death verdict, and the superior court imposed the sentence.The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona reviewed the case on automatic appeal. The court held that the trial court erred by permitting the defendant to be visibly restrained before the jury without making case-specific findings as required by Deck v. Missouri, but found that this error was not fundamental and did not prejudice the outcome, given the overwhelming aggravating evidence and the defendant’s own choices. The court also held that the defendant’s waiver of mitigation was valid and that the trial court was not required to present mitigating evidence over his objection. The court found no abuse of discretion in the jury instructions, no fundamental error in declining to define “moral culpability,” and no prosecutorial error. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence. View "STATE OF ARIZONA v RUSHING" on Justia Law