Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Keith Moore was stopped by Richmond, Virginia police officers after they observed his vehicle displaying a temporary license tag number that matched two other vehicles they had stopped earlier that day. Moore fled from the police, leading to a chase that ended with him crashing his car. Upon his arrest, officers found a gun in his vehicle and discovered that Moore had a prior felony conviction. He was subsequently indicted for illegal possession of a firearm.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed Moore’s indictment, finding that the traffic stop was racially motivated and thus violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court based its decision on statistical evidence showing that Black drivers were disproportionately stopped by Richmond police and historical evidence of racial discrimination in Richmond. The court concluded that Moore’s stop was part of a pattern of selective enforcement against Black drivers.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s decision. The appellate court found that the evidence was insufficient to prove that Moore’s stop and arrest were motivated by racial discrimination. The court noted that the officers had probable cause to stop Moore due to the fake license tag and his subsequent flight. The statistical evidence presented did not adequately demonstrate a discriminatory purpose, and the historical evidence was not contemporaneous with the events in question. The Fourth Circuit remanded the case with instructions to reinstate the indictment against Moore. View "US v. Moore" on Justia Law

During a protest in Seattle on June 7-8, 2020, Taylor Cheairs was filming the event when Officer Anderson of the Seattle Police Department (SPD) threw a blast ball grenade that exploded and struck Cheairs in the groin, causing serious injury. Cheairs sued the City of Seattle, the SPD, and unnamed officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court concluded that there was no Fourth Amendment violation because Cheairs was not seized, and no First Amendment violation because there was no evidence of retaliation. The court also ruled that without a constitutional violation, there could be no municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment. The Ninth Circuit held that although a reasonable fact finder could conclude that Cheairs was seized when Officer Anderson struck him with the blast ball, the use of force was reasonable under the circumstances. The court noted that the protesters near Cheairs posed an immediate threat to the safety of officers, citizens, and property. The court also held that Cheairs failed to establish a viable First Amendment retaliation claim because he did not provide evidence that his filming was a substantial or motivating factor in the use of force against him. Consequently, without a viable constitutional claim, Cheairs could not establish a claim for municipal liability. View "CHEAIRS V. CITY OF SEATTLE" on Justia Law

Fletcher Properties, Inc. and other appellants own multi-tenant residential properties in Minneapolis. The City of Minneapolis enacted an ordinance prohibiting property owners from refusing to rent to individuals based on requirements of public assistance programs, including Section 8 housing vouchers. Fletcher challenged the ordinance, claiming it violated the Minnesota Constitution’s Takings Clause and was preempted by the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA).The district court initially ruled in favor of Fletcher, finding the ordinance violated due process and equal protection clauses. The court of appeals reversed this decision, and the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed, remanding the case to address the remaining claims. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment for the City, rejecting Fletcher’s takings and preemption claims. The court of appeals affirmed this decision, leading to the current appeal.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the ordinance does not constitute a physical or regulatory taking under the Minnesota Constitution. The court applied the Penn Central factors, concluding that the economic impact of the ordinance, interference with investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action did not support a finding of a regulatory taking. The court also determined that the ordinance does not effect a physical taking as landlords voluntarily rent their properties and are not compelled to continue doing so.Additionally, the court held that the ordinance is not preempted by the MHRA. The court found no conflict between the ordinance and the MHRA, as the MHRA does not grant landlords an affirmative right to reject voucher holders. The court also concluded that the MHRA does not occupy the field of housing discrimination based on public assistance, allowing for local regulation.The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals, upholding the ordinance. View "Fletcher Properties, Inc. vs. City of Minneapolis" on Justia Law

A dispute arose between the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding a rule requiring broadcasters to disclose if any programming was paid for by a foreign governmental entity. The FCC's 2021 Rule mandated such disclosures and included specific diligence steps for broadcasters to follow. NAB challenged the rule, leading to a court decision that vacated part of the rule requiring broadcasters to search federal databases.The FCC then issued a revised rule in 2024, which retained the core disclosure requirements but modified the diligence steps. The new rule exempted commercial ads and political candidate ads from the disclosure requirement but included paid public service announcements (PSAs) and issue advertisements. NAB challenged the 2024 Rule, arguing it violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the First Amendment, and exceeded the FCC's statutory authority.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the 2024 Rule complied with the APA's notice-and-comment requirements and was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The court also held that the rule did not violate the First Amendment, as it was narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest in preventing foreign influence in U.S. broadcasting. The court further determined that the FCC did not exceed its statutory authority with the reasonable diligence requirements, as the rule did not directly regulate lessees but required broadcasters to seek information from them.Ultimately, the court denied NAB's petition for review, upholding the FCC's 2024 Rule. View "National Association of Broadcasters v. FCC" on Justia Law

The case involves the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) implementing a cap-and-trade program to reduce hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) as mandated by the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act of 2020. The AIM Act requires an 85% reduction in HFC production and consumption by 2036. The EPA issued a rule in 2021 to allocate allowances for 2022 and 2023 based on historical market share data from 2011 to 2019. In 2023, the EPA issued a new rule for 2024-2028, again using the same historical data.The petitioners, RMS of Georgia, LLC (Choice) and IGas Holdings, Inc. (IGas), challenged the 2024 Rule. Choice argued that the AIM Act violated the nondelegation doctrine by giving the EPA too much discretion in allocating allowances. IGas contended that the EPA's exclusion of 2020 data from its market-share calculations was arbitrary and capricious.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court first addressed Choice's argument, holding that the AIM Act did not unconstitutionally delegate legislative power because it provided sufficient guidance to the EPA, modeled on previous cap-and-trade programs under the Clean Air Act. The court found that Congress intended for the EPA to allocate allowances based on historical market share, providing an intelligible principle to guide the agency's discretion.Regarding IGas's challenge, the court found that the EPA's decision to exclude 2020 data was reasonable. The EPA determined that 2020 data was unrepresentative due to the COVID-19 pandemic and supply chain disruptions and that including it could disrupt the market. The court held that the EPA's methodology was not arbitrary and capricious, as the agency provided a rational explanation for its decision.The court denied both petitions for review, upholding the EPA's 2024 Rule. View "IGas Holdings, Inc. v. EPA" on Justia Law

In November 2016, D.J., then 15 years old, was involved in a marijuana transaction that resulted in the shooting death of J.S. The State charged D.J. with felony murder, aggravated robbery, and possession of marijuana. D.J. agreed to plead no contest in exchange for the case being designated as an extended jurisdiction juvenile prosecution (EJJP) rather than being tried as an adult. The court sentenced D.J. to a juvenile correctional facility until he was 22 years, 6 months old, with an adult sentence of life without parole for 25 years for the felony murder count, among other penalties, stayed as long as D.J. complied with his juvenile sentence.In October 2021, D.J. was released on conditional release but was later found in a vehicle with firearms and marijuana, and in July 2022, he was caught driving without a license and possessing marijuana. The State moved to revoke D.J.'s juvenile sentence, and the district court found that D.J. had violated the conditions of his juvenile sentence by possessing firearms and marijuana and eluding law enforcement.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that substantial competent evidence supported the revocation of D.J.'s juvenile sentence. The court also held that under K.S.A. 38-2364, the district court was required to revoke the juvenile sentence and impose the adult sentence upon finding a violation of the juvenile sentence. The court rejected D.J.'s arguments that the district court had discretion to continue the stay of the adult sentence and that the district court could modify the adult sentence under K.S.A. 22-3716.The court also dismissed D.J.'s constitutional proportionality claims, stating that case-specific challenges could not be raised for the first time on appeal and that D.J. failed to comply with Supreme Court Rule 6.02(a)(5) for his categorical challenge. Finally, the court declined to review D.J.'s ineffective assistance of counsel claim due to the lack of a Van Cleave hearing and insufficient factual development in the record. View "In re D.J. " on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, including Eugene Volokh and two social media companies, challenged New York's Hateful Conduct Law, which mandates social media networks to provide mechanisms for reporting hateful conduct and to disclose policies on how they address such reports. The law defines hateful conduct as speech that vilifies, humiliates, or incites violence against groups based on protected characteristics. Plaintiffs argued that these requirements compel speech and chill protected speech, violating the First Amendment.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a preliminary injunction, halting the law's enforcement. The court found that the law likely violates the First Amendment by compelling social media networks to engage in speech and by being overly broad and vague, thus chilling users' speech.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that the constitutionality of the Hateful Conduct Law hinges on its interpretation. If the law requires social media networks to adopt the state's definition of hateful conduct, it would be subject to strict scrutiny and likely fail. However, if the law merely requires disclosure of any content moderation policy without specific reference to the state's definition, it might survive under the more relaxed Zauderer standard.The Second Circuit deferred its decision and certified three questions to the New York Court of Appeals: whether the law requires explicit reference to the state's definition of hateful conduct in social media policies, whether the reporting mechanism must specifically address hateful conduct, and whether social media networks must respond to reports of hateful conduct. The answers to these questions will determine the law's constitutionality. View "Volokh v. James" on Justia Law

Nathaniel Deckard, an inmate at the Nebraska State Penitentiary, filed a mandamus action against the Nebraska Board of Parole, alleging that the Board had a clear ministerial duty under the 1971 statutes to provide him with a parole discharge date. Deckard was convicted in 1974 of second-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, with an additional 10-year sentence for escape, to be served concurrently. He was initially released on parole after 12½ years but had his parole revoked in 1995 and again in 2022. Deckard argued that under the statutes and Board practices in effect at the time of his conviction, he should have been discharged from parole after 2 to 3 years of good behavior.The district court for Lancaster County denied Deckard’s petition, finding that the Board had no clear ministerial duty to determine a parole discharge date for an inmate serving a life sentence. The court noted that the 1971 statutes provided the Board with discretion regarding parole discharge and that the 2018 statutory amendments, which introduced a mathematical formula for determining parole discharge, did not apply to life sentences as they are indefinite and cannot be quantified in numerical terms.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that neither the 1971 nor the 2018 statutes created an absolute ministerial duty for the Board to set a mandatory parole discharge date for Deckard. The court also rejected Deckard’s ex post facto argument, concluding that the 2018 amendments did not increase his punishment or affect his parole eligibility. The court emphasized that there is no constitutional or inherent right to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence and that Deckard’s life sentence precludes a mandatory parole discharge date. View "Deckard v. Cotton" on Justia Law

Michael G. Carson was convicted by a jury in the Emmet Circuit Court of multiple charges, including safebreaking, larceny, and conspiracy, after being accused of stealing money and personal property from his neighbor, Don Billings. Billings had allowed Carson and his girlfriend, Brandie DeGroff, access to his house to help sell items online, but later discovered that valuable items and cash were missing. Carson was arrested, and his cell phone was seized and searched, revealing incriminating text messages. Carson's defense counsel moved to suppress these messages, arguing the seizure of the phone without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment, but the motion was denied.Carson was sentenced to various prison terms for each conviction. He appealed, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for not challenging the search warrant's adequacy. The Court of Appeals reversed his convictions, ruling the search warrant was too broad and the good-faith exception did not apply. They also found trial counsel ineffective for not seeking exclusion of the phone's contents based on the warrant's broadness. The prosecution appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.The Michigan Supreme Court held that the search warrant was insufficiently particular under the Fourth Amendment, as it allowed a general search of the phone's contents without meaningful limitations. However, the Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, concluding that Carson's counsel's performance was not constitutionally deficient given the evolving nature of Fourth Amendment law regarding digital data. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment on this point and remanded the case for consideration of Carson's remaining issues. View "People Of Michigan v. Carson" on Justia Law

Richard Schneiter, a long-time employee of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, was terminated after the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that he had posted offensive memes on his private Facebook page. These posts were derogatory towards Muslims, blacks, liberals, and the LGBTQ community. The Department of Corrections initiated an investigation and concluded that Schneiter's posts created security concerns, diminished public trust, and questioned his ability to perform his duties without bias.The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court applied the balancing test from Pickering v. Board of Education and determined that the Department's interests as a public employer outweighed Schneiter's free speech interests. The court also found that Schneiter had received adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard, thus dismissing his due process claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that the Department's interests in maintaining security, discipline, and public trust in its correctional facilities outweighed Schneiter's interest in posting the memes. The court emphasized the deference given to law enforcement and correctional agencies in assessing the disruptive nature of an employee's speech. Additionally, the court rejected Schneiter's due process claim, stating that public employers are not required to have specific social media policies before disciplining employees for social media activities that interfere with their job duties. Schneiter's argument of bias in the disciplinary process was also dismissed due to lack of evidence. View "Schneiter v. Carr" on Justia Law