Camp Hill Borough Republican Association v. Borough of Camp HIll

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Docket: 23-1746

Opinion Date: May 9, 2024

Judge: Bibas

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

The case revolves around a local ordinance in the Borough of Camp Hill that regulates the display of signs on private property. The ordinance categorizes signs into about twenty different types, each with its own set of restrictions. Two residents, Katherine Pearson and Caroline Machiraju, displayed political signs on their lawns in the lead-up to the 2022 midterm elections. However, they were told to remove their signs as they violated the local sign ordinance. The ordinance categorized their signs as "Temporary Signs" and further classified them as "Personal Expression Signs," which express a non-commercial message. The ordinance limited the number of such signs a resident could display and the time frame within which they could be displayed.

The residents complied with the directive but subsequently sued Camp Hill, challenging the provisions of the ordinance under the First Amendment. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted them summary judgment on their facial challenge, ruling that the provisions were content-based and failed strict scrutiny.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision. The Court of Appeals found that the ordinance was content-based as it classified signs based on their content, favoring commercial expression over noncommercial and holiday messages over non-holiday messages. The court held that such content-based restrictions could only stand if they furthered a compelling government interest and were narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The court found that Camp Hill's interests in traffic safety and aesthetics, while legitimate, were not compelling and that the ordinance was not narrowly tailored to serve those interests. The court concluded that the ordinance was unconstitutional on its face.

Billard v. Charlotte Catholic High School

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Docket: 22-1440

Opinion Date: May 8, 2024

Judge: Harris

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law

Lonnie Billard, a former teacher at Charlotte Catholic High School (CCHS), sued the school for sex discrimination under Title VII after he was fired for his plans to marry his same-sex partner. The district court granted Billard's motion for summary judgment and denied CCHS's motion, which raised several affirmative defenses, both statutory and constitutional.

The district court found that CCHS had indeed fired Billard because of his plans to marry his same-sex partner, which amounted to sex discrimination as defined by Title VII. The court rejected CCHS's affirmative defenses, including its interpretation of Title VII's religious exemption, its defense under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and its First Amendment defenses. The court also ruled on the ministerial exception, despite CCHS's waiver of that defense, and found that Billard did not satisfy the criteria for the ministerial exception.

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court concluded that because Billard played a vital role as a messenger of CCHS's faith, he falls under the ministerial exception to Title VII. Therefore, the court instructed the district court to enter judgment for CCHS.

DC Operating v. Paxton

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 22-50612

Opinion Date: May 7, 2024

Judge: Ho

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

DC Operating, a strip club in El Paso, Texas, and two of its employees, Nuvia Medina and Michelle Corral, challenged the constitutionality of S.B. 315, a Texas law that raised the minimum age of employment at sexually-oriented businesses from 18 to 21. The law was enacted to curb human trafficking. The plaintiffs argued that the law infringed on the employees' constitutional rights to expressive interest in nude dancing and occupational freedom. They also raised a claim of sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause for the first time on appeal.

The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas upheld the constitutionality of S.B. 315, following similar rulings in other cases. The plaintiffs then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court found that DC Operating lacked standing to bring the appeal because it did not assert any legal interests of its own, only those of its employees. The court noted that a plaintiff must assert its own legal rights and interests and cannot rest its claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties. The court also found that the overbreadth claim brought by DC Operating did not alter the standing analysis because the plaintiff still needed to satisfy Article III requirements.

Furthermore, the court found that the appeal was moot as to the two employees, Medina and Corral, because they had turned 21 and were no longer subject to the law they were challenging. The plaintiffs did not argue that the employees' claims remained justiciable or that an exception to mootness applied. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

United States v. Kirtdoll

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Docket: 23-1585

Opinion Date: May 8, 2024

Judge: Thapar

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The case involves Tommy Kirtdoll, who was under investigation by a multijurisdictional task force in southwest Michigan for leading a drug-trafficking organization. After several undercover drug deals, the task force obtained a search warrant for Kirtdoll's house, which was described in detail in the warrant application. Upon executing the warrant, officers found drugs and distribution equipment, leading to Kirtdoll's indictment on multiple drug offenses.

Kirtdoll challenged the validity of the search warrant, citing three errors: the address listed was not his, the tax identification number was incorrect, and the property owner's name was not his. He argued that these mistakes rendered the warrant unconstitutional due to lack of particularity, as required by the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied Kirtdoll's motion, ruling that the warrant's other accurate descriptors were particular enough to satisfy the Fourth Amendment. Kirtdoll pleaded guilty but reserved the right to appeal the district court's decision.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the warrant's particularity de novo. The court held that the Fourth Amendment does not require perfection in search warrants, but rather enough detail for the executing officer to identify the intended place with reasonable effort. The court found that despite the errors, the warrant contained three descriptors that indisputably applied only to Kirtdoll's house and clearly identified it as the premises to be searched. These included the house's geographic location, a detailed description of the house, and a unique identifier - a red star affixed to its west side. The court concluded that the warrant for Kirtdoll's house was specific enough to meet the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement, and thus, the district court properly denied Kirtdoll's motion to suppress. The court affirmed the district court's decision.

Denis Navratil v. City of Racine

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Docket: 23-1208

Opinion Date: May 6, 2024

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Personal Injury

The case revolves around Denis Navratil, his wife Dimple Navratil, and their business, Dimple’s LLC, who filed a lawsuit against the City of Racine and Mayor Cory Mason. The lawsuit was based on several constitutional claims and a defamation claim against Mason. The core of the claims was the city's decision not to grant an emergency grant to Dimple’s LLC because Denis had attended a rally protesting the statewide “Safer at Home Order” that limited public gatherings, travel, and business operations to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. The rally was a violation of the Safer at Home Order and a permit required for holding rallies at the State Capitol had been denied due to the pandemic.

The case was initially heard by a magistrate judge who granted summary judgment for both defendants on all claims. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that Denis's attendance at the rally was not protected First Amendment activity because the rally was prohibited by two valid time, place, and manner restrictions—the Safer at Home Order and the state permit requirement. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' equal protection claims, finding no evidence of political animus or similarly situated comparators. The court further dismissed the plaintiffs' due process claims, finding no deprivation of any constitutionally protected property or liberty interest. Lastly, the court found that Mayor Mason's statements were substantially true or pure opinion and thus not actionable under defamation law.

BRADFORD V. PARAMO

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 21-55038

Opinion Date: May 3, 2024

Judge: Rawlinson

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

A man named Douglas Bradford was convicted of first-degree murder in a "cold case" that was solved 35 years after the crime occurred. The case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence. The trial judge excluded exculpatory evidence of another viable suspect, Joseph Giarrusso, who had dinner with the victim on the evening of the murder and was the last known person to see her alive.

The California Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, ruling that the exclusion of the evidence was consistent with the rules of evidence and therefore did not violate the Constitution. The court also found that the evidence related to Giarrusso was not sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt about Bradford's guilt.

Bradford appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the exclusion of the evidence violated his constitutional right to present a defense. The Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the exclusion of the evidence was both contrary to and an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law. The court also found that the decision was based on an unreasonable determination of facts. The court remanded the case with instructions to grant a conditional writ of habeas corpus, ordering Bradford's release unless the state of California notifies the district court within thirty days of the issuance of the court’s mandate that it intends to retry Bradford without excluding the evidence pertaining to Giarrusso, and commences Bradford’s retrial within seventy days of issuance of the mandate.

JANE DOE V. BONTA

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 23-55133

Opinion Date: May 8, 2024

Judge: Schroeder

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

Five registered gun owners in California challenged a state law, Assembly Bill 173 (AB 173), which permits the California Department of Justice (DOJ) to share information from its databases about firearm and ammunition purchasers and concealed carry weapon (CCW) permit holders with accredited research institutions. The plaintiffs argued that the law violated their right to informational privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment, their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, and the federal Privacy Act.

The district court dismissed the case, finding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for violation of the right to informational privacy. The court reasoned that the personal information in the DOJ's databases was not highly sensitive or intimate and that the plaintiffs had no reasonable expectation that such information would never be disclosed. The court also found that AB 173 did not restrict conduct protected by the Second Amendment, as it did not impede the plaintiffs' ability to purchase, keep, carry, or use firearms. The court further held that AB 173 was not unconstitutionally retroactive, as it did not attach new legal consequences to past conduct. Finally, the court rejected the plaintiffs' claim that the Privacy Act preempted two California statutes relating to CCW permit applications, as neither statute required the disclosure of social security numbers.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing with its findings and reasoning. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for violation of the right to informational privacy, the Second Amendment, or the Privacy Act.

USA V. DUARTE

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 22-50048

Opinion Date: May 9, 2024

Judge: Bea

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The case involves Steven Duarte, who was convicted for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), a law that prohibits anyone previously convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for over a year from possessing a firearm. Duarte, who had five prior non-violent state criminal convictions, was charged and convicted under this law after police saw him discard a handgun from a moving car.

Duarte appealed his conviction, arguing that § 922(g)(1) violated his Second Amendment rights. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with Duarte, finding that the law was unconstitutional as applied to him, a non-violent offender who had served his time in prison and reentered society. The court held that under the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, § 922(g)(1) violated the Second Amendment as applied to Duarte. The court concluded that Duarte's weapon, a handgun, is an "arm" within the meaning of the Second Amendment, and that the government failed to prove that § 922(g)(1)'s categorical prohibition, as applied to Duarte, is part of the historic tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the Second Amendment right. As a result, the court vacated Duarte's conviction and reversed the district court's judgment.

Doe v. Board of Regents of the University of Colorado

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Docket: 21-1414

Opinion Date: May 7, 2024

Judge: EID

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Education Law

The case involves a group of employees and students at the University of Colorado Anschutz Campus who challenged the university's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The plaintiffs, identified as Jane Does 1-11 and John Does 1, 3-7, argued that the university's policies regarding religious exemptions from the vaccine mandate violated their First Amendment rights.

The university initially allowed individuals to attest to their exemption based on religious beliefs using a simple form. However, in August 2021, the university implemented a new policy that required individuals seeking a religious exemption to provide additional information about their religious beliefs and to demonstrate that their religion opposes all immunizations. The university denied all of the plaintiffs' requests for religious exemptions under this policy and enforced the vaccine mandate against them.

The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking a preliminary injunction against the university's policies. The district court denied their motion, ruling that the plaintiffs had failed to show that they were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court found that the university's policies were not neutral or generally applicable and were likely motivated by religious animus. The court held that the policies violated the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment and were subject to strict scrutiny, which they did not survive. The court concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims and that they were entitled to a preliminary injunction against the university's policies.

United States v. Smith

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Docket: 22-2142

Opinion Date: May 7, 2024

Judge: CARSON

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Native American Law

The case involves Douglas Smith, a non-Indian, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for an act he committed on his property located within the exterior boundaries of the Pueblo of Santa Clara. Smith shot and killed Maria Gallegos, who he saw trying to break into a trailer on his property. Prior to trial, Smith moved to dismiss the case for lack of federal jurisdiction, arguing that the federal district court lacked criminal jurisdiction over crimes committed on his property and that Congress acted outside its constitutional authority when it passed the Indian Pueblo Land Act Amendments of 2005. The district court denied his motion.

Smith's case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The appellate court had to decide whether federal criminal jurisdiction extends to land owned by a non-Indian within the exterior boundaries of a Pueblo. The court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that Smith's property is Indian country under 18 U.S.C. § 1151, and therefore, his crime is subject to federal criminal jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1152.

Smith also claimed that the 2005 Amendment is unconstitutional as applied to him. The court disagreed, holding that the 2005 Amendment did not unconstitutionally extend federal criminal jurisdiction to Smith's land. The court reasoned that the 2005 Amendment only exercised preexisting federal jurisdiction over Smith's land and was thus not an unconstitutional enactment as applied to Smith.

Lastly, Smith contended that the district court erred in declining his request for a two-level sentence reduction for accepting responsibility for his crime. The appellate court found no clear error in the district court's determination, noting that Smith had challenged the factual element of intent at trial, which provided a clear basis to conclude that he did not accept responsibility. The court affirmed the district court's decision.

Whiteaker v. People

Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Citation: 2024 CO 25

Opinion Date: May 6, 2024

Judge: Hood

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The case revolves around Taunia Marie Whiteaker, who was convicted of second degree burglary, first degree criminal trespass, third degree assault, and harassment following a physical altercation at her mother-in-law's house. Whiteaker appealed her conviction, arguing that the district court erred by failing to merge her conviction for first degree criminal trespass into her conviction for second degree burglary.

The Colorado Court of Appeals rejected Whiteaker's argument, relying on a previous ruling that first degree criminal trespass is not a lesser included offense of second degree burglary. The court reasoned that even though subsequent opinions cast doubt on the previous ruling, it was the prerogative of the Supreme Court alone to overrule its cases. One judge disagreed, believing that a recent opinion had abrogated the previous ruling, but agreed that both convictions should survive because the district court's error in failing to merge the two offenses was not plain.

The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The court agreed with Whiteaker that first degree criminal trespass is a lesser included offense of second degree burglary, and that her overlapping convictions violated the double jeopardy clauses of the federal and state constitutions. The court held that double jeopardy sentencing errors require automatic reversal even when the error isn't obvious to the district court. Therefore, Whiteaker's convictions for trespass and burglary merge. The court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to instruct the district court to amend the mittimus to reflect the merger of Whiteaker's conviction for first degree criminal trespass into her conviction for second degree burglary.

COBB COUNTY v. FLOAM

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia

Docket: S24A0599

Opinion Date: May 9, 2024

Judge: Peterson

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law

David and Catherine Floam, residents of Cobb County, Georgia, sought a declaratory judgment against the Cobb County Commission, arguing that the Commission had unconstitutionally altered district boundaries that had been established by the General Assembly in 2022. The Floams argued that the Commission's amendment, which changed their voting district, exceeded the County's Home Rule powers under the Georgia Constitution. The trial court ruled in favor of the Floams, finding that the Commission's amendment did indeed exceed its Home Rule powers.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the trial court's decision. The Supreme Court found that while the Floams had constitutional standing to challenge the Commission's amendment, they did not demonstrate any uncertainty regarding their future conduct that warranted declaratory relief. The court concluded that the Floams' claim was an attempt to enforce accrued rights and guide the future conduct of the defendants, which is insufficient to state a claim for declaratory relief. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision, without reaching the merits of the constitutional arguments.

State v. J.L.J.

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Docket: 125430

Opinion Date: May 3, 2024

Judge: WALL

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Juvenile Law

The case involves a juvenile, J.L.J., who was charged with first-degree felony murder and several other offenses after he opened fire on a car, killing a 12-year-old boy. J.L.J. was certified for adult prosecution and testified that he was acting in self-defense. The jury rejected his self-defense claim and convicted him on all charges.

The case was previously heard in the Leavenworth District Court where J.L.J. was convicted. On appeal, J.L.J. raised several claims of error, including prosecutorial errors and the argument that the State unconstitutionally pitted his right to prepare for his defense against his right to testify at trial.

The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that while the prosecutor erred by asking potential jurors if they would do their "job" and convict J.L.J., this error was harmless and did not affect the jury's verdict. The court also disagreed with J.L.J.'s argument that the prosecutor misstated the law on self-defense during closing argument. Furthermore, the court found that the State's impeachment of J.L.J. did not violate the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine. Lastly, the court declined to invoke an exception to the general preservation rule to address J.L.J.'s argument that the adult certification process violates his constitutional rights.

Long Lake Township v. Maxon

Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Docket: 164948

Opinion Date: May 3, 2024

Judge: ZAHRA

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Real Estate & Property Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use

The case revolves around a dispute between Long Lake Township and Todd and Heather Maxon. The township alleged that the Maxons were storing junk cars on their property, violating a zoning ordinance, a nuisance law, and a 2008 settlement agreement. As the property was not visible from the street, the township hired a drone operator to take aerial photographs and video of the property without the Maxons' permission or a warrant. The Maxons moved to suppress the aerial photographs and all other evidence obtained by the township from the drone, asserting that the search was illegal under the Fourth Amendment.

The Grand Traverse Circuit Court denied the Maxons’ motion, reasoning that the drone surveillance did not constitute a search. The Court of Appeals, in a split decision, reversed the lower court's ruling, holding that the drone surveillance violated the Fourth Amendment. The township appealed to the Supreme Court, which ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs regarding whether the exclusionary rule applied to the facts of this case. The Supreme Court then vacated its earlier order and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of whether the exclusionary rule applied. On remand, the Court of Appeals, in a split decision, held that the exclusionary rule did not apply and that the photographs and video could not be suppressed regardless of whether the township unreasonably searched the Maxons’ property.

The Michigan Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion, held that the exclusionary rule may not be applied to civil enforcement proceedings that effectuate local zoning and nuisance ordinances and seek only prospective, injunctive relief. The court found that the costs of excluding the drone evidence outweighed the benefits of suppressing it, and the exclusionary rule therefore did not apply. The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Midsouth Association of Independent Schools v. Parents for Public Schools

Court: Supreme Court of Mississippi

Citation: 2022-SA-01129-SCT

Opinion Date: May 2, 2024

Judge: Chamberlin

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Education Law, Government & Administrative Law

The case revolves around two Senate Bills—2780 and 3064—passed by the Mississippi Legislature in 2022. Senate Bill 2780 established the Independent Schools Infrastructure Grant Program (ISIGP), which allowed independent schools to apply for reimbursable grants for infrastructure projects funded by the Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Funds under the federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). Senate Bill 3064 allocated $10 million from the Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Fund to ISIGP. Parents for Public Schools (PPS), a nonprofit organization advocating for public schools, filed a complaint alleging that ISIGP violated the Mississippi Constitution by appropriating public funds to private schools. PPS sought injunctive and declaratory relief, asserting associational standing on behalf of its members.

The Chancery Court of Hinds County found that PPS had established associational standing. It also found that Senate Bills 2780 and 3064 violated the Mississippi Constitution by appropriating public funds to private schools. The court denied a motion to intervene by the Midsouth Association of Independent Schools (MAIS), which sought to challenge the constitutionality of the relevant section of the Mississippi Constitution under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

The Supreme Court of Mississippi, however, found that PPS lacked standing to bring the lawsuit. The court determined that PPS failed to demonstrate an adverse impact different from that of the general public. The court noted that the funds at issue were federal, not state, funds earmarked for specific infrastructure needs, and were not commingled with state funds. The court also found that PPS's challenge to general government spending was too attenuated to bestow standing. As a result, the court vacated the judgment of the Hinds County Chancery Court and rendered judgment dismissing PPS's complaint.

State of New Jersey v. Higginbotham

Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey

Docket: A-57-22

Opinion Date: May 8, 2024

Judge: Wainer Apter

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The case revolves around Andrew Higginbotham, who was charged with sixteen counts of endangering the welfare of a child under a specific subsection of New Jersey law. This law makes it a crime to depict a child in a sexually suggestive manner for the purpose of sexual stimulation or gratification, where the depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The charges arose from photographs Higginbotham had distributed of a five-year-old girl, over which he superimposed sexually explicit, obscene text. Higginbotham moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the law was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.

The trial court denied Higginbotham's motion, but the Appellate Division reversed the decision, holding that the definitions of "portray a child in a sexually suggestive manner" were unconstitutionally overbroad because they criminalized images that were neither child pornography nor obscenity. The case was then brought to the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the specific subsection of the law under which Higginbotham was charged was unconstitutionally overbroad because it criminalized a large amount of material that was neither obscenity nor child pornography. The court did not reach a decision on whether the law was also unconstitutionally vague. The court did not comment on the validity of other subsections of the law, as Higginbotham was not charged under those subsections and did not challenge them. The court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision as modified and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Usachenok v. State of New Jersey Department of the Treasury

Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey

Docket: A-40-22

Opinion Date: May 6, 2024

Judge: Rabner

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law, Legal Ethics, Professional Malpractice & Ethics

The case revolves around Viktoriya Usachenok, an employee of the Department of Treasury, who filed an internal complaint alleging sexual harassment and a hostile work environment created by her supervisor. As part of the investigation, Usachenok was directed not to discuss the investigation with others, a directive she was accused of violating when she consulted her husband, an attorney, about a document related to the investigation. Usachenok subsequently filed a complaint challenging the confidentiality directive.

The Appellate Division rejected Usachenok’s constitutional challenge to the regulation, focusing on the change from a directive to a permissive “request” through an amendment. The court found that the plain language of the regulation did not restrict speech and did not constitute an improper prior restraint of speech.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey, however, disagreed with the Appellate Division. The court held that the regulation, which requires state investigators to request that anyone interviewed not discuss any aspect of the investigation with others, is overbroad under the State Constitution. The court found that the regulation chills constitutionally protected speech, as it encompasses a significant amount of protected speech and its consequences are real. The court therefore struck the relevant part of the regulation, reversing the judgment of the Appellate Division and remanding the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

State ex rel. Boyd v. Tone

Court: Supreme Court of Ohio

Citation: 2024-Ohio-1703

Opinion Date: May 7, 2024

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The case revolves around Deonta Boyd, an inmate at the Richland Correctional Institution, who pleaded guilty in 2006 to aggravated murder with a firearm specification, felonious assault, and aggravated burglary. The trial court accepted Boyd's pleas and sentenced him to life imprisonment with parole eligibility after 41 years. Boyd did not appeal his convictions or sentence but has attempted unsuccessfully to withdraw his guilty pleas multiple times. In March 2023, Boyd filed a complaint for a writ of prohibition, claiming that the trial court violated his rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and their counterparts in the Ohio Constitution. He alleged that the trial court failed to inform him that he was waiving his constitutional right to compulsory process at the 2006 plea hearing.

The Sixth District Court of Appeals dismissed Boyd's prohibition complaint, holding that Boyd could have challenged any defect in the plea colloquy on direct appeal and that any issue concerning the trial court’s alleged failure to advise him of his right to compulsory process is therefore barred by res judicata. Boyd appealed the dismissal of his complaint.

The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the Sixth District Court of Appeals' judgment. The court found that Boyd had adequate remedies in the ordinary course of the law to raise his claim, including a direct appeal, a petition for postconviction relief, and a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. The court also found that the trial court did not patently and unambiguously lack subject-matter jurisdiction to convict him. Therefore, Boyd was not entitled to a writ of prohibition, and the Sixth District correctly dismissed the prohibition action.

State v. Taylor

Court: Supreme Court of Ohio

Citation: 2024-Ohio-1752

Opinion Date: May 9, 2024

Judge: STEWART

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Juvenile Law

The case involves Damon L. Taylor, who was charged with felony murder in the adult court after the juvenile court found probable cause to believe that Taylor was complicit in a murder. The adult court convicted Taylor of felony murder, but the Tenth District Court of Appeals vacated the conviction, arguing that the adult court lacked jurisdiction to convict Taylor of felony murder as the juvenile court had not found probable cause for that specific offense. The appellate court also ruled that Taylor's statements to the police should have been suppressed as his Sixth Amendment right to counsel had been violated.

The Supreme Court of Ohio disagreed with the appellate court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the adult court did have jurisdiction over the felony-murder charge against Taylor. The court reasoned that the felony-murder charge was rooted in the same acts and events as the complicity-to-commit-murder charge, which was the subject of the juvenile complaint. Therefore, under former R.C. 2151.23(H), the adult court had jurisdiction over the felony-murder charge.

Regarding Taylor's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, the Supreme Court held that this right did not attach until a criminal prosecution had commenced, which occurred after the police interrogated Taylor. Therefore, the state did not violate Taylor's Sixth Amendment right to counsel when it interviewed him in the absence of his attorney. Even if the Sixth Amendment right to counsel had attached, Taylor validly waived it when he relinquished his Fifth Amendment right to counsel after he received the Miranda warnings.

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Tenth District Court of Appeals and remanded the matter to that court for further proceedings.

Brown v. Kotek

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Docket: S071034

Opinion Date: May 8, 2024

Judge: GARRETT

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law

The plaintiff, Terri Lee Brown, was incarcerated due to an order from Governor Tina Kotek that revoked a previous conditional commutation of one of Brown's sentences. Brown had received the commutation in December 2020 from then-Governor Kate Brown and completed all her sentences by February 2023. Governor Kotek's revocation order was issued in December 2023. Brown petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the Governor lacked authority to revoke the commutation after she had finished serving all her sentences.

The state argued that the Governor had the authority to revoke Brown's commutation after her sentence had expired. The state also contended that Brown, in accepting the previous Governor's conditional commutation, had waived her right to seek habeas relief or otherwise challenge the revocation. Brown countered that the purported waiver in the acceptance agreement she signed was invalid or unenforceable.

The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon concluded that when the Governor revoked Brown's conditional commutation, she lacked the authority to do so under the terms of the commutation. The court also rejected the state's argument that Brown waived her right to challenge her present imprisonment. The court found that Brown's imprisonment was unlawful and ordered her immediate release from custody. The court further waived otherwise applicable appellate rules relating to reconsideration and the issuance of the appellate judgment, directing the State Court Administrator to issue the appellate judgment immediately.

State v. Jones

Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

Docket: 28203

Opinion Date: May 8, 2024

Judge: Few

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In July 2018, Thomas Jones was observing a traffic stop conducted by two deputies outside his home. Jones interacted with the deputies, asking questions about the stop. The deputies responded by arresting Jones, using a taser in the process. Jones was convicted under a Greenville County ordinance for interfering with a county law enforcement officer. He was sentenced to thirty days in jail and a $1,000 fine, which was suspended upon ten days in jail over weekends and a $500 fine. Jones appealed his conviction, arguing that the ordinance was unconstitutionally applied to him and that the ordinance itself was unconstitutional under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.

Jones's case was transferred to the Supreme Court of South Carolina due to the constitutional challenges he raised. The State conceded that the ordinance was improperly applied to Jones under the specific facts of the case and asked the court to reverse his conviction and sentence. The State also requested that the court not address Jones's broader challenges to the ordinance.

The Supreme Court of South Carolina agreed with the State's position. The court noted that it generally declines to rule on constitutional issues unless necessary and that facial challenges to statutes are disfavored. The court found that Jones's actions of observing and asking questions were constitutionally protected conduct and could not support a conviction under the ordinance. The court was deeply disturbed by the deputies' behavior in this case but declined to go further than necessary in its ruling. The court reversed Jones's conviction on the narrow grounds that the ordinance was unconstitutionally applied to him and reserved judgment on the broader challenges to the ordinance for another case.

State v. Lanpher

Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

Citation: JR., 2024 S.D. 26

Opinion Date: May 8, 2024

Judge: Kern

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The case involves James Joseph Lanpher, Jr., who pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated assault against a law enforcement officer and admitted to being a habitual offender. The charges stemmed from a dangerous high-speed chase during which Lanpher repeatedly fired weapons at pursuing officers. The circuit court sentenced Lanpher to serve two concurrent life sentences to run consecutively to sentences he was already serving for other offenses. Lanpher appealed, claiming his sentence was cruel and unusual in violation of the Eighth Amendment and was an abuse of the circuit court’s discretion.

The case was previously reviewed by the circuit court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Lake County, South Dakota. The court found Lanpher guilty and sentenced him to two concurrent life sentences, to be served consecutively to sentences he was already serving for other offenses.

The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case and affirmed the decision of the lower court. The court found that Lanpher's sentence did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court also found that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in the imposition of Lanpher’s sentence. The court noted that Lanpher's violent criminal history and demonstrated disregard for human life justified the severity of his sentence.

Justia CLE & Webinars: How AI Impacts Small & Solo Firms

Justia Team

Artificial Intelligence (AI): the two words that just a few years ago seemed like a distant future, but are now slowly becoming a part of everyday life. However, even as people and businesses increasingly use AI for everyday use, there are still a lot of questions to be had. Stay ahead of the curve and get your questions answered in our upcoming webinar about AI and its effect on your firm!

Read More