Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

A Christian humanitarian organization offered a remote customer service representative position to an applicant who was openly in a same-sex marriage. After the applicant disclosed her marital status while inquiring about parental leave, the organization rescinded the job offer, citing its policy that limits employment to those who comply with its religious standards, including a prohibition on sexual conduct outside of marriage between a man and a woman. The applicant, who identifies as Christian and is active in LGBTQ advocacy, sued the organization for discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and marital status under federal and state law.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington initially granted summary judgment to the organization, finding that the church autonomy doctrine barred judicial inquiry into the religiously motivated employment decision. Upon reconsideration, the district court reversed itself, holding that the church autonomy doctrine did not apply because the organization’s hiring policy was facially discriminatory and could be evaluated using neutral legal principles. The district court also rejected the organization’s ministerial exception defense and other constitutional and statutory defenses, ultimately granting summary judgment to the applicant and entering judgment for stipulated damages.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit held that the ministerial exception applies because customer service representatives at the organization perform key religious functions central to its mission, such as communicating its ministries to donors, engaging in prayer with supporters, and inviting participation in its religious mission. The court concluded that these duties are vital to the organization’s religious purpose, and therefore, the ministerial exception bars the applicant’s employment discrimination claims. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case for entry of summary judgment in favor of the organization. View "MCMAHON V. WORLD VISION INC." on Justia Law

Michael Hurd, Jr. was sentenced in 2005 to 15 months in prison for a felony firearm charge and an additional 27 months for four misdemeanor firearm and drug possession charges. After serving his felony sentence in federal custody, Hurd was mistakenly released instead of being transferred to serve his misdemeanor sentence. He completed his supervised release and, years later, was reincarcerated by the District of Columbia Department of Corrections when the error was discovered during a subsequent, unrelated incarceration. Hurd was not given a hearing before being required to serve the remainder of his original sentence.After his reincarceration, Hurd filed a habeas petition in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, which was denied. His appeal was dismissed as moot after he completed his sentence. Hurd then brought a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his substantive and procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment to the District, finding no substantive due process violation and holding that his procedural due process claim was barred by the Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that reincarcerating a person to serve the remainder of a lawfully imposed sentence after an erroneous release does not violate substantive due process, as such action does not “shock the conscience.” The court also held that Hurd’s procedural due process claim for damages was barred by Heck v. Humphrey because a judgment in his favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his confinement, which had not been set aside. View "Hurd v. DC" on Justia Law

Nathan Nissenbaum was convicted in Illinois state court of aggravated criminal sexual assault, home invasion, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated domestic battery after an incident involving his former girlfriend, D.K. The evidence at trial included testimony from D.K., physical evidence, and Nissenbaum’s own admissions. Nissenbaum’s defense was that the encounter was consensual, based on their prior relationship and history of “rape play.” He was sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment.After his conviction, Nissenbaum filed a post-trial motion in the Illinois state court, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. He claimed his attorney failed to properly advise him about the risk of mandatory consecutive sentences and his realistic chances at trial, which he argued led him to reject a plea deal that would have resulted in a lesser sentence. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing and found that Nissenbaum had not demonstrated ineffective assistance, concluding he was adequately informed and would not have accepted a plea regardless. The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed, finding no prejudice from any alleged deficiencies, and the Illinois Supreme Court denied further review.Nissenbaum then sought federal habeas relief in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, renewing his ineffective assistance claim. The district court denied the petition, holding that the Illinois Appellate Court had not unreasonably applied federal law in finding no prejudice. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the state court’s decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent. The Seventh Circuit found that Nissenbaum failed to show a reasonable probability he would have accepted a plea offer but for counsel’s alleged errors, and thus habeas relief was barred. View "Nissenbaum v. Jennings" on Justia Law

A defendant, Jerome Rogan, was convicted of sexual assault, but his conviction was reversed by the Supreme Court of Hawai'i due to prosecutorial misconduct, preventing retrial. Alan Ahn, a former police officer, had his charges dismissed after a deferred acceptance of a no contest plea. Both Rogan and Ahn received expungement orders from the Department of the Attorney General and requested the court to seal their records.The Circuit Court of the First Circuit initially handled Ahn's case, where a grand jury indicted him on drug-related charges. After procedural complexities, including a motion to unseal records by Nick Grube, Ahn's charges were eventually dismissed. Rogan's case was straightforward, with his conviction being reversed by the Supreme Court of Hawai'i.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i reviewed the consolidated cases of Rogan and Ahn. The court held that under Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 831-3.2(f), judicial records must be removed from the judiciary’s publicly accessible electronic databases (eCourt Kōkua) but remain accessible for in-person review at the courthouse. The court emphasized that the public has a constitutional right to access court records under article I, section 4 of the Hawai'i Constitution, which cannot be overridden by automatic sealing. The court also noted that the judiciary has exclusive control over its records under article VI, section 7 of the Hawai'i Constitution. The court denied the motions to seal the records but granted the removal of the records from eCourt Kōkua. View "State v. Rogan." on Justia Law

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress enacted legislation to provide financial assistance to small businesses, including relief payments on certain small business loans. PACEM Solutions International, LLC applied for a $5 million loan under the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 7(a) loan program. Due to repeated missed payments, PACEM and its lender, Atlantic Union Bank, modified the loan multiple times. When the CARES Act was passed, PACEM's loan was not in "regular servicing status," a requirement for receiving relief payments under the Act. The SBA determined that PACEM's loan was ineligible for relief payments and requested the return of previously disbursed funds.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment in favor of the SBA. The court found that the SBA did not violate the CARES Act, as PACEM's loan was not performing appropriately and was in default. The court also concluded that the SBA did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in its decision to withhold payments and that any notification defects were harmless.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Fourth Circuit held that the SBA acted reasonably in determining that PACEM's loan was ineligible for relief payments under the CARES Act. The court found that the SBA provided a satisfactory explanation for its actions and did not violate the terms of the CARES Act. The court also declined to address PACEM's constitutional claim regarding the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, as PACEM sought only a declaratory judgment without requesting a hearing before the SBA. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the SBA. View "PACEM Solutions International, LLC v. U. S. Small Business Administration" on Justia Law

In 2021, Ralph Marcus Hardy, an inmate at Adams County Detention Facility (ACDF) in Colorado, fell from his wheelchair and suffered serious injuries. Despite his repeated requests for medical attention, jail officials allegedly ignored his pleas. Hardy claims that Detention Specialist Daniel DeHerrera ignored emergency distress signals from his cell, and Deputy Dennis Rabie, who later found Hardy in pain, also failed to provide medical assistance.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado reviewed the case. Deputy Rabie and Detention Specialist DeHerrera moved to dismiss Hardy’s claims, asserting qualified immunity. The district court denied their motion, finding that Hardy plausibly alleged violations of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court held that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity, leading to this appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that Hardy sufficiently alleged that both Deputy Rabie and Detention Specialist DeHerrera acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs. The court found that Hardy’s constitutional rights were violated and that these rights were clearly established at the time of the incident. The court concluded that both defendants were aware of Hardy’s serious medical needs and failed to take reasonable measures to address them, thus denying them qualified immunity. View "Hardy v. Rabie" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between the owners of the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Las Vegas Sun regarding a 2005 joint operating arrangement (JOA). The 2005 JOA amended a 1989 JOA, which had been approved by the U.S. Attorney General under the Newspaper Preservation Act (NPA). The NPA allows failing newspapers to combine operations with another newspaper while maintaining editorial independence, provided they receive prior written consent from the Attorney General. The 2005 JOA was not approved by the Attorney General.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied the defendants' motion to dissolve a stipulated injunction that required them to continue performing under the 2005 JOA. The district court concluded that the Attorney General's approval was not necessary for the 2005 JOA to be enforceable, interpreting the NPA as only denying antitrust exemption without invalidating the JOA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Ninth Circuit held that the 2005 JOA is unlawful and unenforceable under the NPA because it did not receive the required prior written consent from the Attorney General. The court clarified that the language of the NPA is clear and unequivocal, declaring unapproved JOAs to be unlawful to enter into, perform, or enforce. The court also rejected the district court's interpretation that the lack of approval merely meant the parties lacked antitrust exemption. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "LAS VEGAS SUN, INC. V. ADELSON" on Justia Law

The case involves an executive order issued by President Trump, which excluded over 40 federal agencies and subdivisions from collective bargaining requirements, citing national security concerns. The plaintiffs, six unions representing federal employees, argued that the executive order constituted First Amendment retaliation, was ultra vires, violated Fifth Amendment procedural due process, abrogated contractual property rights, and violated the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment.The Northern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against the executive order, focusing on the First Amendment retaliation claim. The district court found that the plaintiffs had raised serious questions about whether the order was retaliatory, citing statements from a White House Fact Sheet that criticized federal unions. The court concluded that the balance of hardships and public interest favored the plaintiffs, as the order threatened union operations and collective bargaining rights.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the government's request for an emergency stay of the district court's preliminary injunction. The Ninth Circuit granted the stay, finding that the government was likely to succeed on the merits of the retaliation claim. The court concluded that the executive order and the accompanying Fact Sheet demonstrated a focus on national security, and that the President would have issued the order regardless of the plaintiffs' protected conduct. The court also found that the government would suffer irreparable harm without a stay, as the injunction impeded the government's ability to manage national security-related functions. The court determined that the public interest favored granting the stay to preserve the President's authority in national security matters. View "American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump" on Justia Law

Madeline Krasno sued the University of Wisconsin–Madison after her comments on the University's social media posts were hidden and her Instagram account was restricted. Krasno alleged that these actions violated her First Amendment rights, as she was advocating against animal abuse in the University's primate testing facilities. The University defended its actions by claiming that it was hiding "off-topic" comments.The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment in favor of the University, finding that the University's social media comment threads were nonpublic forums and that the University's moderation decisions were reasonable and viewpoint neutral. The district court also held that Krasno lacked standing to seek an injunction against the University's use of keyword filters.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit disagreed with the district court's findings. The appellate court determined that Krasno had standing to bring her as-applied challenge and concluded that the University's social media comment threads were limited public forums. The court held that the University's off-topic comment rule was neither reasonable nor viewpoint neutral, making it unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The court reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the University and remanded the case with instructions to enter judgment for Krasno. View "Krasno v. Mnookin" on Justia Law

Mitchell Green was charged with trafficking a child and related offenses in Milwaukee County Circuit Court. During his trial, Green called his cousin, Jonathan Cousin, as a witness, who testified that he, not Green, had driven the minor to a hotel. The state did not initially object to Cousin's testimony but later argued that Green failed to provide pretrial notice as required for a "Denny witness," leading the judge to declare a mistrial. Green, out on bond, argued that a retrial would violate his constitutional right against double jeopardy.The trial court denied Green's motion to dismiss, and the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin held that the mistrial was erroneous. However, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin sided with the trial judge, finding that he exercised sound discretion in declaring a mistrial. Green then filed a collateral attack, and the district court denied relief, leading to this appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the trial judge's decision to declare a mistrial was based on a mistaken belief that pretrial notice for Denny evidence was required. The court noted that no such requirement existed in Wisconsin law. The trial judge failed to exercise sound discretion by not considering alternatives to a mistrial, such as a continuance. The Seventh Circuit held that there was no manifest necessity for the mistrial, and thus, a retrial would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. The judgment of the district court was reversed, and the case was remanded with instructions to issue an unconditional writ. View "Green v. Milwaukee County Circuit Court" on Justia Law