Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Rochelle Gleason was convicted of aggravated trafficking of a scheduled drug that caused the death of a person. In October 2021, Gleason communicated with the decedent about purchasing fentanyl and heroin. On October 16, 2021, the decedent bought drugs from Gleason, consumed them, and died of acute intoxication from fentanyl and kratom. The Maine Office of the Chief Medical Examiner sent a blood sample to a lab, where several employees conducted tests. A forensic toxicologist, Chelsea Deisher, reviewed the data and documentation and developed a toxicology report indicating the presence of fentanyl and kratom in the decedent’s blood.The State charged Gleason on September 28, 2022, and she pleaded not guilty. During the trial, Deisher testified about the test results, although she did not conduct the tests herself. Gleason objected, arguing that her Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against her was violated because she could not cross-examine the actual testers. The trial court allowed Deisher’s testimony, and the jury found Gleason guilty. She was sentenced to eighteen years in prison, with all but eight years suspended, and four years of probation. Gleason appealed the conviction.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case, focusing on the Confrontation Clause issue. The court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Smith v. Arizona, issued during the appeal, rejected the rationale that allowed experts to testify based on out-of-court statements not admitted for their truth. The court found that Deisher’s testimony relied on the truth of the data and documentation generated by others, which Gleason could not cross-examine. The court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial to determine whether the statements relied upon by Deisher were testimonial. View "State of Maine v. Gleason" on Justia Law

Ammar al-Baluchi, a Pakistani national, has been detained at the U.S. naval base in Guantánamo Bay since 2006. He is accused of supporting the September 11, 2001, attacks as a senior member of al-Qaeda. In 2008, al-Baluchi filed a habeas corpus petition in federal district court. In 2022, he moved to compel the government to convene a Mixed Medical Commission to assess his eligibility for repatriation due to alleged torture and resulting serious health issues. The district court denied his request, ruling that detainees captured during non-international armed conflicts are not entitled to such examinations under the Third Geneva Convention or Army Regulation 190-8.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia initially stayed al-Baluchi’s habeas case pending the outcome of his military commission trial. After temporarily lifting the stay to consider his motion for a Mixed Medical Commission, the court denied the motion, leading al-Baluchi to appeal the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s nonfinal order. The court found that al-Baluchi did not demonstrate that the denial of his motion had the practical effect of denying injunctive relief or that it caused serious or irreparable harm requiring immediate review. The court noted that even if a Mixed Medical Commission found al-Baluchi eligible for repatriation, the government retained discretion to delay repatriation until the completion of his military commission proceedings. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. View "Al-Baluchi v. Hegseth" on Justia Law

The case involves a facial constitutional challenge to Section 3755 of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, which authorizes warrantless blood draws from individuals requiring emergency medical treatment after a motor vehicle accident if there is probable cause to suspect DUI. Larry Wardell Hunte was involved in a serious car accident, and while unconscious at the hospital, a state trooper requested a blood draw under Section 3755, which revealed the presence of alcohol and controlled substances. Hunte was charged with multiple offenses, including homicide by vehicle while DUI.The Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas found Section 3755 unconstitutional, holding that it violated the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The court reasoned that the statute authorized warrantless searches without any recognized exception to the warrant requirement, such as exigent circumstances or voluntary consent.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that Section 3755 is facially unconstitutional because it mandates warrantless blood draws based solely on probable cause, without requiring a search warrant or demonstrating any exception to the warrant requirement. The court emphasized that the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant for such searches unless a valid exception applies, and statutory "implied consent" does not constitute such an exception. The court also rejected arguments that the statute could be applied constitutionally in certain circumstances, such as when a warrant is later obtained or exigent circumstances are present, noting that these scenarios do not involve actual applications of the statute. The court concluded that Section 3755 violates both the Fourth Amendment and the Pennsylvania Constitution. View "Commonwealth v. Hunte" on Justia Law

A journalist, Charles Kratovil, learned through a records request that Anthony Caputo, the New Brunswick Police Director, had a voting address in Cape May. Kratovil, editor of New Brunswick Today, began investigating Caputo's residence, suggesting it was too far from New Brunswick for him to effectively perform his duties. After disclosing Caputo's address to local officials, Caputo informed Kratovil that he was protected under Daniel’s Law and requested that Kratovil refrain from republishing his exact home address. Kratovil then filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that Daniel’s Law violated his constitutional rights to freedom of speech and the press.The trial court dismissed Kratovil’s complaint, ruling that while Kratovil could publish that Caputo lived in Cape May, he could not publish Caputo’s precise home address. The court found that Daniel’s Law was narrowly tailored to serve a state interest of the highest order. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, agreeing that the statute did not violate constitutional guarantees and that it was narrowly tailored to protect public officials.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case, applying First Amendment principles from Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co. and Florida Star v. B.J.F. The Court held that Caputo’s home address was truthful information, lawfully obtained, and related to a matter of public concern. The Court agreed that Daniel’s Law served a state interest of the highest order and was narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s judgment as modified, concluding that Daniel’s Law did not violate constitutional protections of free speech and the press. View "Kratovil v. City of New Brunswick" on Justia Law

The case involves a constitutional challenge to a Wisconsin law that prohibits the Department of Justice (DOJ) from settling most civil cases without the approval of the Joint Finance Committee (JFC). The Attorney General, DOJ, and the Governor argue that this law is unconstitutional as applied to two specific categories of cases: civil enforcement actions and cases brought by DOJ at the request of executive branch agencies. They contend that litigation in these categories constitutes core executive power, and thus, the Legislature cannot interfere.The Dane County Circuit Court agreed with the plaintiffs and granted summary judgment in their favor. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, concluding that the power to settle these types of cases is a shared power between the executive and legislative branches, and legislative approval does not unduly burden executive powers.The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that settling these two categories of cases falls within the core powers of the executive branch. The court found that the Legislature has not identified any constitutional role for itself in these categories of cases. Therefore, the statutory requirement for JFC approval prior to settling these cases violates the Wisconsin Constitution’s separation of powers. The court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and affirmed the circuit court’s decision granting summary judgment to the DOJ. View "Kaul v. Wisconsin State Legislature" on Justia Law

Ahmed Abdalla Allam was charged with possession of a firearm within 1,000 feet of school grounds, violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A). Allam challenged the constitutionality of the statute under the Second Amendment, both facially and as applied to him. The district court rejected his challenges, and Allam subsequently pled guilty. He then appealed the denial of his as-applied challenge.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas upheld the statute as constitutional, both facially and as applied to Allam, and denied his motion to dismiss. The court applied the framework from New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, finding no historical precursor to § 922(q)(2)(A) but concluded that late 19th-century prohibitions on possessing firearms in schools and near polling places were relevantly similar historical analogues. Following the denial of his motion, Allam pled guilty and was sentenced to 60 months in prison and three years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court applied the Bruen framework, determining that the Second Amendment's plain text covered Allam's conduct. However, the court found that § 922(q)(2)(A) was consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation, particularly when considering historical laws like the Statute of Northampton and going-armed laws, which restricted carrying firearms in a manner that posed a threat to public safety. The court also considered historical firearm regulations in educational settings and buffer zones around polling places, which supported the constitutionality of disarming a visibly threatening individual near a school.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's rejection of Allam's as-applied challenge and upheld his guilty-plea conviction. View "USA v. Allam" on Justia Law

Curtis Walker, who was 17 years old when he committed murder, was sentenced to life in prison with a parole eligibility date set for 2071, effectively making it a life-without-parole sentence. After serving nearly 30 years, Walker sought postconviction relief, arguing that his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment based on a series of Supreme Court decisions regarding juvenile offenders sentenced to life without parole. Walker's request for a "meaningful opportunity" to demonstrate his rehabilitation was denied by the Wisconsin state courts, prompting him to file a federal habeas corpus petition.The Wisconsin Court of Appeals denied Walker's postconviction motion, holding that his sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment because the sentencing judge had considered his youth and its attendant circumstances. The Wisconsin Supreme Court denied review. Walker then filed a federal habeas petition, which the district court dismissed as untimely and without merit, concluding that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals did not unreasonably apply federal law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief. The court held that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals did not unreasonably apply Supreme Court precedent, particularly in light of the decisions in Miller v. Alabama, Montgomery v. Louisiana, and Jones v. Mississippi. The Seventh Circuit concluded that the state court's decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as the Supreme Court's precedents did not clearly establish a categorical prohibition against sentencing corrigible juvenile offenders to life without parole. View "Walker v Cromwell" on Justia Law

Michael Williams was convicted by a Wisconsin jury of reckless homicide and possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. He appealed his convictions to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, arguing that a jury instruction unconstitutionally lowered the government's burden of proof and that the prosecutor's closing arguments improperly shifted the burden of proof to him. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied his petition for review.Williams then filed a petition for habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The district court held that the state appellate court reasonably applied Supreme Court precedent in concluding that it was not reasonably likely the jury applied the instruction in an unconstitutional manner. The court also held that Williams had not demonstrated that the prosecutor's remarks violated clearly established Supreme Court precedent.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Williams raised the same two arguments. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals did not unreasonably apply Supreme Court precedent regarding the jury instruction on reasonable doubt. The court also found that the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments did not shift the burden of proof to the defense in a manner that violated due process, especially considering the trial court's curative instructions. The Seventh Circuit concluded that Williams had not shown that the state court's rulings were so lacking in justification as to constitute an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. View "Williams v Meisner" on Justia Law

Defendants Jerrold Chavarria and Jerry Romero were accused of kidnapping and murdering a woman in Eddy County, New Mexico. They were charged with the federal crime of kidnapping resulting in death under 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a). The indictment claimed that the defendants used a motor vehicle, a Jeep, as an instrumentality of interstate commerce in committing the crime. However, the indictment did not provide details on how the kidnapping affected interstate commerce.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico dismissed the superseding indictment, ruling that it lacked an adequate nexus to interstate commerce. The court found that the use of a motor vehicle alone, without more, was insufficient to establish federal jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that not all motor vehicles are per se instrumentalities of interstate commerce. It emphasized that for an object to be considered an instrumentality of interstate commerce, it must serve the end of commerce. The court found that the government’s indictment was insufficient because it did not allege how the use of the motor vehicle in this case affected interstate commerce. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the superseding indictment, concluding that the federal kidnapping statute did not apply in this instance due to the lack of a sufficient connection to interstate commerce. View "United States v. Chavarria" on Justia Law

Mark Hamilton, the former Chief of the Fire Department of Wilmer, Texas, was terminated after testifying at a probation revocation hearing for a former employee, Craig Lawrence, who had hidden recording devices in fire station bathrooms. Hamilton testified in uniform, drove a city car to the hearing, and did not take leave from work. He claimed his termination was in retaliation for his protected First Amendment activity.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed Hamilton's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court found that Hamilton did not state a claim for First Amendment retaliation, as his speech was not protected under the First Amendment. Hamilton appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that Hamilton did not speak as a citizen on a matter of public concern, as his testimony was given pursuant to his official duties as Fire Chief. The court also found that even if Hamilton's speech were protected, the City of Wilmer had adequate justification for treating him differently from any other member of the public due to his use of city resources and uniform during his testimony. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Hamilton's claims and denied his request for leave to amend his complaint, finding that any amendment would be futile. View "Hamilton v. City of Wilmer, Texas" on Justia Law