Henry v. Essex County

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Docket: 23-1987

Opinion Date: August 29, 2024

Judge: Thomas L. Ambro

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law

Judith Maureen Henry was mistakenly arrested on a warrant intended for another woman with the same name who had skipped parole in Pennsylvania. The warrant included Henry's home address and driver’s license photo. Henry was detained for over two weeks, despite her repeated claims of innocence and requests for fingerprint comparison. She was eventually released after Pennsylvania officials confirmed her fingerprints did not match those of the actual parole violator.

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey reviewed the case and denied a motion to dismiss filed by six deputy United States Marshals. The Marshals argued for qualified immunity, claimed that Henry could not pursue her claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, and contended that her complaint failed to state a claim. The District Court rejected these arguments, citing a need for further factual development.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the District Court’s decision. The Third Circuit held that Henry’s claims presented a new context under Bivens, as her arrest was based on a valid warrant and her mistaken-identity arrest was constitutionally valid. The court found that the Marshals’ actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment and that Henry’s other claims, including those for failure to investigate her innocence and failure to present her to a magistrate, also presented a new context. The court concluded that separation of powers concerns precluded extending Bivens to this new context. Additionally, Henry’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act were dismissed, as she failed to provide sufficient factual allegations of discriminatory animus and the Westfall Act barred her NJCRA claim. The Third Circuit remanded the case for dismissal of Henry’s claims against the Marshals.

Anderson v. Hutson

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 23-30633

Opinion Date: August 26, 2024

Judge: Dana M. Douglas

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law

The case involves a long-standing litigation concerning the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office and the conditions at Orleans Parish Prison. Plaintiffs, including detainees and the United States, argued that the jail provided constitutionally inadequate housing and medical care. In 2013, a district court approved a consent decree to address these issues, which included a plan to construct a mental health annex, known as Phase III. Despite years of delays, the district court ordered the construction to proceed. No party appealed these orders at the time.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana oversaw the case initially. In 2016, the parties entered a stipulated order to develop a plan for appropriate housing for prisoners with mental health issues. The Compliance Director later proposed the construction of Phase III, which was agreed upon by the former Sheriff and the City. However, the City later sought to explore alternatives, leading to further court orders in 2019 to proceed with Phase III. The City’s subsequent motion to halt the project was denied, and this decision was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Anderson v. City of New Orleans.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is currently reviewing the case. The new Sheriff, Susan Hutson, moved to terminate all orders concerning Phase III, arguing that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) prohibits the construction of a new jail facility. The district court denied this motion, and the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that it could review the denial of the motion but not the underlying orders, as the Sheriff’s motion was not a proper procedural mechanism under the PLRA to challenge the 2019 Orders and Stipulated Order. The appeal was dismissed, and the construction of Phase III continues.

Arnesen v. Raimondo

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 24-60055

Opinion Date: August 23, 2024

Judge: Stephen Andrew Higginson

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law

Commercial fishers challenged the constitutionality of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council's actions, specifically targeting the approval and implementation of Amendment 54, which significantly reduced the greater amberjack catch limit. The plaintiffs argued that the Council members were improperly appointed under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and were unconstitutionally insulated from removal. They sought a declaratory judgment and an injunction to set aside the Final Rule implementing the catch limit and to prevent further development of annual catch limits for the greater amberjack fishery.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi consolidated the cases and granted summary judgment to the government. The court found that six of the Council’s seventeen members were improperly appointed as inferior officers. However, it concluded that the plaintiffs were not entitled to relief because the constitutional violation was not the proximate cause of their injuries. The decision to implement Amendment 54 was made by the NMFS Assistant Administrator, not the Council. Additionally, the court noted that the remaining eleven Council members were properly appointed and constituted a quorum.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and remanded it to the district court. The appellate court instructed the lower court to determine whether it had jurisdiction to consider the plaintiffs' request to declare Amendment 54 void and to enjoin the Council from developing further catch limits. The district court was also directed to address whether the NMFS Assistant Administrator’s review and approval of the Final Rule functioned as a ratification of the Council’s actions. The appellate court emphasized the need for a thorough district court analysis of the ratification issue before addressing the validity of the Council members' appointments and the plaintiffs' entitlement to relief.

Tesla v. Louisiana Automobile Dealers

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 23-30480

Opinion Date: August 26, 2024

Judge: Jerry E. Smith

Areas of Law: Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Business Law, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

Tesla, Inc. and its affiliates challenged a Louisiana law that prohibits automobile manufacturers from selling directly to consumers and performing warranty services for cars they do not own. Tesla alleged that the law violated federal antitrust law, due process rights, and equal protection rights. The defendants included the Louisiana Motor Vehicle Commission, its commissioners, the Louisiana Automobile Dealers Association (LADA), and various dealerships.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana dismissed Tesla's claims. The court found that the private defendants were immune from antitrust liability, Tesla had not plausibly pleaded a Sherman Act violation against the governmental defendants, there was insufficient probability of actual bias to support the due process claim, and the regulations passed rational-basis review for the equal protection claim.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the dismissal of Tesla's due process claim, finding that Tesla had plausibly alleged that the Commission's composition and actions created a possible bias against Tesla, violating due process. The court vacated and remanded the dismissal of the antitrust claim, noting that the due process ruling fundamentally altered the grounds for Tesla's alleged antitrust injury. The court affirmed the dismissal of the equal protection claim, holding that the regulations had a rational basis in preventing vertical integration and controlling the automobile retail market.

In summary, the Fifth Circuit reversed the due process claim dismissal, vacated and remanded the antitrust claim dismissal, and affirmed the equal protection claim dismissal. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion.

United States v. Connelly

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 23-50312

Opinion Date: August 28, 2024

Judge: Engelhardt

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Paola Connelly, a non-violent marijuana user, was charged after El Paso police responded to a "shots fired" call at her home. Her husband, John, was found firing a shotgun at a neighbor's door and was arrested. Paola admitted to occasionally using marijuana for sleep and anxiety. A search of their home revealed drug paraphernalia and several firearms, including a pistol owned by Paola. She was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) for possessing firearms as an unlawful user of a controlled substance and 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3) for providing firearms to an unlawful user.

The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas initially denied Paola's motion to dismiss the charges. However, after the Fifth Circuit's decision in United States v. Rahimi, the District Court reconsidered and found that §§ 922(g)(3) and 922(d)(3) were facially unconstitutional and that § 922(g)(3) was unconstitutional as applied to Paola under the Second Amendment. The government appealed this decision.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that while historical and traditional regulations may support some limits on a presently intoxicated person's right to carry a weapon, they do not support disarming a sober person based solely on past substance usage. The court affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the charges against Paola as applied to her but reversed the facial challenges to §§ 922(g)(3) and 922(d)(3). The court concluded that there are circumstances where these statutes could be constitutionally applied, such as banning presently intoxicated individuals from carrying firearms.

USA v. Medina-Cantu

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 23-40336

Opinion Date: August 27, 2024

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Jose Paz Medina-Cantu was charged with possession of a firearm and ammunition as an illegal alien, violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5)(A) and 924(a)(2), and illegal reentry into the United States, violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). He moved to dismiss the firearm possession charge, arguing that the statute was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen. The district court denied his motion, referencing the Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Portillo-Munoz, which held that the Second Amendment does not extend to illegal aliens.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied Medina-Cantu’s motion to dismiss, holding that Bruen did not abrogate the precedent set by Portillo-Munoz. Medina-Cantu then pleaded guilty to both counts without a plea agreement but preserved his constitutional argument for appeal. He was sentenced to fifteen months of imprisonment followed by two years of supervised release.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. Medina-Cantu argued that the Supreme Court’s decisions in Bruen and United States v. Rahimi abrogated Portillo-Munoz. However, the Fifth Circuit held that neither Bruen nor Rahimi unequivocally overruled Portillo-Munoz. The court emphasized that under its rule of orderliness, it could not overturn another panel’s decision unless there was an unequivocal change in the law by the Supreme Court or an en banc decision. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, upholding the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) under the Second Amendment.

Barton v. Neeley

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Docket: 23-2089

Opinion Date: August 27, 2024

Judge: Richard Allen Griffin

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

Two young African American boys died in a house fire after two City of Flint firefighters failed to properly search the home. The then-City Fire Chief, Raymond Barton, attempted to discharge the firefighters for gross misconduct. However, Flint’s Mayor, Sheldon Neeley, allegedly intervened to cover up the firefighters' actions to gain support from the firefighters’ union for his re-election. When Barton refused to comply with Neeley’s directives to alter official reports and make false public statements, Neeley fired him.

In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Barton filed a lawsuit claiming that his termination was retaliation in violation of his First Amendment rights. The district court denied Neeley’s motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, leading to this interlocutory appeal.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Barton plausibly alleged a violation of his First Amendment rights, as public employees cannot be compelled to make false, politically motivated statements on matters of public concern in response to threats of retaliation. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Neeley, concluding that Barton’s refusal to alter reports and make false statements was protected speech, and that it was clearly established that such compelled speech and retaliation violated the First Amendment.

Couzens v. City of Forest Park, Ohio

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Docket: 23-3930

Opinion Date: August 27, 2024

Judge: Bush

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law

Victor S. Couzens, the senior pastor of Inspirational Bible Church (IBC), faced a significant decline in church membership and financial troubles following public accusations of an adulterous relationship. In response, church leaders organized a vote to remove him from his position. To enforce this decision, they hired off-duty police officers for the next Sunday service. When Couzens attempted to address the congregation, the officers threatened him with arrest, leading him to leave the church. Couzens subsequently sued the officers, their police chief, and the City of Forest Park, alleging a conspiracy to deny him his constitutional rights.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court found that while the officers' actions could be seen as a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, their actions were not unreasonable. The court also determined that the free exercise claim failed because the police department's policy did not target religious conduct. Without constitutional violations from individual defendants, the court found no merit in the municipal liability and civil conspiracy claims.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the officers' actions were objectively reasonable given the circumstances and the evidence they had, including a letter indicating Couzens' removal as pastor. The court also found that Couzens failed to establish a violation of his First Amendment rights, as the officers' actions did not reflect state interference in church governance. Consequently, the court upheld the summary judgment on the constitutional, civil conspiracy, and municipal liability claims.

Libertarian National Committee, Inc. v. Saliba

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Docket: 23-1856

Opinion Date: August 28, 2024

Judge: Gibbons

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Intellectual Property, Trademark

In 2022, two top officers of the Libertarian Party of Michigan resigned, leading to a power struggle within the party. Andrew Chadderdon became the acting Chair, but his leadership was contested by the defendants, who then voted to remove him and elected themselves to committee positions. The Libertarian Party Judicial Committee later voided these elections, reinstating Chadderdon. The defendants, however, continued to use the Libertarian National Committee’s (LNC) trademark, claiming to be the rightful leaders of the Michigan affiliate.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted the LNC’s request for a preliminary injunction, barring the defendants from using the LNC’s trademark. The defendants appealed, arguing that the district court’s application of the Lanham Act to their noncommercial speech violated the First Amendment and that their use of the trademark was authorized and not likely to cause confusion.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the Lanham Act could apply to the defendants’ use of the LNC’s trademark because they used it as a source identifier for their political services, which falls within the scope of the Act. The court also determined that the defendants’ use of the trademark created a likelihood of confusion among potential voters, party members, and donors. However, the court found that the defendants’ use of the trademark for online solicitation, when accompanied by clear disclaimers, did not create a likelihood of confusion.

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction in part, except for the aspect concerning the defendants’ online solicitation with disclaimers, which it vacated.

Somberg v. McDonald

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Docket: 23-1872

Opinion Date: August 28, 2024

Judge: THAPAR

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law

Nicholas Somberg, an attorney in Michigan, was representing a criminal defendant in the 52nd Judicial District. During a virtual courtroom conference, Somberg took a picture of the Zoom meeting without the judge's permission and posted it on Facebook. The Oakland County Prosecutor filed a motion to hold Somberg in contempt for violating Michigan court rules that prohibit recording or broadcasting judicial proceedings without permission. The court dismissed the motion on procedural grounds without addressing the rule's merits. Somberg, fearing future contempt actions, sued the prosecutor, seeking a declaration that the rule violates the First Amendment and an injunction to prevent its enforcement against him.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in favor of the prosecutor, concluding that the Electronics Rule satisfied First Amendment scrutiny. Somberg appealed the decision, arguing that the rule infringes on his constitutional rights.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and focused on the issue of standing. The court held that Somberg lacked Article III standing to pursue his claim because he could not demonstrate causation and redressability. The court noted that even if the prosecutor were enjoined from seeking contempt sanctions, the court itself could still hold Somberg in contempt sua sponte. Additionally, third parties could refer Somberg for contempt proceedings. Therefore, the court concluded that the prosecutor was not the cause of Somberg's asserted future injury, and an injunction against her would not redress that injury. The court vacated the district court's order and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.

United States v. Williams

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Docket: 23-6115

Opinion Date: August 23, 2024

Judge: Thapar

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Erick Williams was stopped by Memphis police for speeding and erratic driving. Officers smelled marijuana and saw an open beer can, leading them to search the car after a canine alert. They found a loaded pistol in the trunk. Williams, a convicted felon for aggravated robbery, was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the statute violated the Second Amendment. The district court denied his motion, and Williams pled guilty while reserving the right to appeal.

The United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee denied Williams's motion to dismiss the indictment. Williams then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, arguing that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to him.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and upheld the district court's decision. The court held that § 922(g)(1) does not violate the Second Amendment. The court reasoned that historical precedent supports the disarmament of individuals deemed dangerous, and Williams's criminal record, including convictions for aggravated robbery and attempted murder, demonstrated that he was dangerous. Therefore, the statute was constitutional as applied to him. The court also noted that while individuals must have an opportunity to show they are not dangerous, Williams failed to do so. The court affirmed the district court's decision, maintaining Williams's conviction under § 922(g)(1).

United States v. Mull

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Docket: 23-3424

Opinion Date: August 29, 2024

Judge: SMITH

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Darris Lamar Mull pleaded guilty to four counts of being a felon in possession of firearms, violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The presentence investigation report (PSR) assessed a base offense level of 20 due to the involvement of a semiautomatic firearm capable of accepting a large capacity magazine. Mull objected, arguing that his co-defendant was responsible for that firearm. The district court overruled the objection and sentenced Mull to 135 months’ imprisonment. Mull appealed, challenging the application of the sentencing enhancement and arguing that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violated his Second Amendment rights.

The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri initially reviewed the case. Mull objected to the PSR's findings, particularly the base offense level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B). The district court found that Mull's offense involved a semiautomatic firearm with a large capacity magazine and overruled his objection. The court adopted the PSR's factual content and calculations, sentencing Mull to 135 months based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not err in applying the § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B) enhancement. It found that Mull and his co-defendant engaged in jointly undertaken criminal activity, making Mull accountable for the co-defendant's possession and use of the firearm. The court also rejected Mull's Second Amendment challenge, citing Eighth Circuit precedent that upheld the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, maintaining Mull's 135-month sentence.

United States v. State of Missouri

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Docket: 23-1457

Opinion Date: August 26, 2024

Judge: Steven M. Colloton

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law

In 2021, Missouri enacted the Second Amendment Preservation Act, which declared certain federal firearms regulations as infringements on the right to keep and bear arms and invalid within the state. The Act prohibited state officials from enforcing these federal laws and allowed private citizens to sue state entities that did so, imposing penalties for violations. The United States sued Missouri, arguing that the Act violated the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri denied Missouri's motions to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the United States, ruling that the Act violated the Supremacy Clause and enjoined its implementation and enforcement. Missouri appealed the decision.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court held that the United States had standing to sue because the Act caused concrete and particularized injury by impairing federal law enforcement efforts. The court also ruled that the Act's attempt to invalidate federal law was unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause. The court found that the Act was not severable, as its provisions were fundamentally interconnected with the invalidation of federal law. Consequently, the injunction against the Act's implementation and enforcement was upheld.

CIVIL BEAT LAW CENTER FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST, INC V. MAILE

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 23-15108

Opinion Date: August 28, 2024

Judge: Paez

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

The case involves a challenge to the Hawai'i Court Records Rules, which mandate that all medical and health records filed in any court proceeding be filed under seal without further judicial order. The plaintiff, Civil Beat Law Center for the Public Interest, argued that this rule is unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment, which grants the public a presumptive right to access court records.

The United States District Court for the District of Hawai'i granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the Chief Court Administrators of the Hawai'i state courts. The district court held that the public does not have a presumptive First Amendment right to access medical and health records, and even if such a right existed, requiring case-by-case litigation to unseal these records did not violate the First Amendment.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s judgment. The Ninth Circuit held that the First Amendment grants the public a presumptive right to access a substantial portion of the records sealed under Hawai'i’s mandatory sealing provision. The court found that the state’s interest in protecting individual privacy rights does not justify the categorical sealing of all medical and health records without any case-by-case consideration. The court concluded that the mandatory sealing rule is not the least restrictive means of protecting privacy interests and that case-by-case judicial review would better balance privacy concerns with the public’s right to access.

The Ninth Circuit held that the Hawai'i Court Records Rules are unconstitutionally overbroad because they encroach on the public’s right of access to court records. The court reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

CROWE V. OREGON STATE BAR

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 23-35193

Opinion Date: August 28, 2024

Judge: Friedland

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law

An attorney, Daniel Crowe, challenged the requirement to join the Oregon State Bar (OSB), arguing it infringed on his First Amendment right to freedom of association. Crowe objected to statements published by OSB in its magazine, which he felt misrepresented his views. OSB refunded Crowe a portion of his dues used for the publication but did not satisfy his concerns, leading him to file a lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages.

The United States District Court for the District of Oregon initially dismissed Crowe's claims, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals partially reversed this decision, allowing the freedom of association claim to proceed. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment for OSB, holding that the bar's activities were germane to its regulatory purpose and did not violate Crowe's rights. Crowe appealed again.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that OSB is an arm of the state entitled to sovereign immunity, dismissing claims against OSB and for retrospective relief against its officers. However, the court found that Crowe demonstrated an infringement on his freedom of association because OSB's statements in its magazine could reasonably be imputed to its members, including Crowe, and were not related to the bar's regulatory purpose. The court concluded that this infringement did not survive exacting scrutiny.

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment regarding Crowe's freedom of association claim for prospective equitable relief against individual OSB officers and remanded the case for further proceedings.

MENDOCINO RAILWAY V. AINSWORTH

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 23-15857

Opinion Date: August 29, 2024

Judge: Consuelo Maria Callahan

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

Mendocino Railway, a California corporation, owns and operates a railroad line known as the "Skunk Train" between Fort Bragg and Willits, California. The City of Fort Bragg and the California Coastal Commission sought to regulate the use and maintenance of the Railway's properties within the City, which the Railway resisted, claiming federal preemption under the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA). The City filed a state court action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to compel the Railway to comply with local regulations. The Railway argued that federal law preempted these local regulations. Subsequently, the Railway filed a federal lawsuit seeking a declaration that the City's and Commission's regulatory actions were preempted by federal law and an injunction to prevent interference with its operations.

The Mendocino County Superior Court overruled the Railway's demurrer, which argued that federal law preempted all local regulations. The Railway's subsequent petitions to the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court were unsuccessful. The Railway then filed an answer in the state court, asserting federal preemption as an affirmative defense. Meanwhile, the Commission intervened in the state court action, seeking a declaration that the Coastal Act and local coastal program applied to the Railway's activities and were not preempted by federal law. The Railway also attempted to remove the state action to federal court, but the district court remanded it back to state court.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court's dismissal of the Railway's federal lawsuit under the Colorado River doctrine, which allows federal courts to abstain from exercising jurisdiction in favor of parallel state court proceedings. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding that the state court proceedings were sufficiently parallel to the federal action and that considerations of avoiding piecemeal litigation, forum shopping, and the order in which the forums obtained jurisdiction supported the dismissal. The court held that the state court could adequately protect the Railway's rights and that the federal preemption issue could be resolved in the state court proceedings.

SALAS V. USA

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 22-16936

Opinion Date: August 27, 2024

Judge: Koh

Areas of Law: Animal / Dog Law, Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law

A resident of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) filed a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States precludes the application of a federal cockfighting prohibition. The plaintiff also sought an injunction to prevent the enforcement of this prohibition. The federal cockfighting prohibition, codified in 7 U.S.C. § 2156 and amended in 2018, made cockfighting illegal in all U.S. jurisdictions, including the CNMI.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding that the federal cockfighting prohibition applied to the CNMI under the Covenant. The district court determined that 7 U.S.C. § 2156 was applicable to Guam and the several states as required by Covenant § 502, and thus also applicable to the CNMI. The court also found that Covenant § 105, which governs laws enacted after January 9, 1978, did not apply to amendments of laws that existed on that date.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that Covenant § 502 governs the applicability of 7 U.S.C. § 2156 and its 2018 Amendment to the CNMI. The court found that § 2156 was applicable to Guam and the several states as of January 9, 1978, and thus applicable to the CNMI. The court also held that even if Covenant § 105 were to govern, the federal cockfighting prohibition would still apply to the CNMI because it is applicable to the several states and does not impermissibly intrude upon the internal affairs of the CNMI. The court concluded that the federal interests in regulating interstate commerce, ensuring the humane treatment of animals, and preventing the spread of avian flu outweighed any intrusion into the CNMI’s internal affairs. The judgment was affirmed.

Zeyen v. Bonneville Joint District

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 23-35438

Opinion Date: August 23, 2024

Judge: Murguia

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Education Law

The plaintiffs, parents of Idaho school children, sought reimbursement for fees associated with educational and extracurricular activities within Idaho public school districts. They argued that these fees were improperly assessed because the Idaho Constitution mandates "free common schools," and that the payment of such fees constituted a taking of property without due process, violating the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The United States District Court for the District of Idaho initially denied the school districts' motion for summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiffs had a property interest in a free education under the Idaho Constitution. However, the case was later reassigned to a different district judge, who revisited the issue. The second district judge granted summary judgment in favor of the school districts, concluding that the plaintiffs did not possess a property right protected by the Takings Clause because the right to a free public education in Idaho does not constitute a vested private property interest.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment. The court held that the Idaho Constitution does not create a vested private property interest in specific educational benefits. It determined that public education in Idaho lacks the essential characteristics of private property, such as the right to possess, use, dispose of, or sell. Therefore, money paid to satisfy fees related to supplemental educational services is not subject to a Takings Clause claim. The court also clarified that a second district judge should not reconsider a prior judge's ruling unless specific conditions are met, but found any procedural error in this case to be harmless.

Godinez v. Williams

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Docket: 22-1194

Opinion Date: August 26, 2024

Judge: Timothy M. Tymkovich

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Omar Godinez, a minor at the time of his conviction, is serving a 32-years-to-life sentence in Colorado state prison for kidnapping and sexually assaulting two victims. After exhausting state appeals, he sought federal habeas relief, arguing that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment as interpreted in Graham v. Florida, which prohibits life imprisonment without parole for non-homicide offenses committed by minors without a meaningful opportunity for release based on maturity and rehabilitation.

The state trial court rejected Godinez's interpretation of Graham, concluding that the Colorado Sex Offender Lifetime Supervision Act (SOLSA) allows the parole board to consider maturity and rehabilitation, even if not explicitly mandated. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence on different grounds, and the Colorado Supreme Court denied certiorari. Godinez then filed a habeas petition in the District of Colorado, which was denied. The district court agreed with the state trial court that the parole board could consider the Graham factors.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. They had previously certified a question to the Colorado Supreme Court, which clarified that SOLSA permits consideration of maturity and requires consideration of rehabilitation. The Tenth Circuit denied Godinez's habeas petition, holding that he could not show that the Colorado courts unreasonably applied federal law. The court concluded that the parole board's ability to consider maturity and rehabilitation when Godinez becomes eligible for parole in 2034 meets the requirements set forth in Graham. The court also noted that any future failure by the parole board to adhere to constitutional requirements could be challenged at that time.

Boyd v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Docket: 22-10299

Opinion Date: August 28, 2024

Judge: GRANT

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Lucious Boyd, a Florida prisoner sentenced to death for first-degree murder, sexual battery, and armed kidnapping, filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after a series of unsuccessful state collateral attacks. The district court held an evidentiary hearing on Boyd's claim that his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated due to a juror's undisclosed criminal history. The juror, Tonja Striggles, admitted her criminal history and disclosed additional information, but Boyd did not amend his petition to include these new disclosures. The district court denied Boyd's habeas petition on the merits and granted a certificate of appealability, leading Boyd to appeal.

While his appeal was pending, Boyd moved in the district court to amend his habeas petition under Rule 15(a)(2) or, alternatively, to reopen his habeas proceedings under Rule 60(b)(6), citing new evidence from Striggles's testimony. The district court characterized Boyd's motion as a second or successive habeas petition, requiring preauthorization from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which Boyd had not obtained. Consequently, the district court dismissed his motion.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that once a district court has entered a final judgment on a habeas petition, any new filing seeking to relitigate the same claims is considered a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). The court also noted that an appeal transfers jurisdiction to the appellate court, preventing the district court from amending the petition or reopening the case. Boyd's failure to obtain the necessary preauthorization from the appellate court meant that the district court correctly dismissed his motion.

People v. Williams

Court: Supreme Court of California

Docket: S262229

Opinion Date: August 29, 2024

Judge: JENKINS

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The case involves Jeremiah Ira Williams, who was sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of 100 years to life plus 86 years and two months for committing multiple forcible sexual offenses under California's One Strike law when he was 24 years old. Williams argued that the exclusion of One Strike offenders from early parole eligibility under California’s youth offender parole statute (Pen. Code, § 3051) violated his equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that it was irrational to exclude young adults convicted of One Strike offenses from early parole while not excluding young adults convicted of murder without special circumstances.

The San Diego County Superior Court convicted Williams on multiple counts, including robbery, forcible rape, and sodomy by use of force, among others. The jury found him guilty on most counts and found true several aggravating factors, including personal use of a firearm and infliction of great bodily injury. The trial court imposed the lengthy sentence based on these findings. Williams appealed to the Fourth Appellate District, Division One, arguing that the exclusion of One Strike offenders from early parole eligibility violated equal protection. The Court of Appeal rejected his claim, finding a rational basis for the differential treatment based on the threat of recidivism by violent sexual offenders.

The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeal’s judgment. The court held that the Legislature could rationally exclude One Strike offenders from early parole eligibility under section 3051 based on concerns about the high risk of recidivism and the aggravated nature of their offenses. The court concluded that these concerns provided a rational basis for the differential treatment, thus rejecting Williams' equal protection challenge. The court remanded the matter to the Court of Appeal to consider any briefing on Williams' entitlement to the benefit of any ameliorative legislation enacted during the pendency of his appeal.

In re Hill

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: A166191(First Appellate District)

Opinion Date: August 29, 2024

Judge: STEWART

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In 1987, Michael Hill was convicted of two murders and sentenced to death. Hill maintained that the murders were committed by Michael McCray, whose statements to the police incriminated both himself and Hill. McCray did not testify at trial, invoking his privilege against self-incrimination, but his statements were admitted under the hearsay rule. Decades later, Hill discovered that the prosecution had failed to disclose a promise not to prosecute McCray for his involvement in the case. Hill filed a habeas corpus petition alleging violations of Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois.

The trial court dismissed Hill’s claims, finding he failed to establish a prima facie case. The court concluded that the evidence against Hill was overwhelming and that the failure to disclose the non-prosecution agreement did not undermine confidence in the verdict. The court also found that Hill did not plead that false evidence was presented to the jury, as required under Napue.

The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court found that Hill established a prima facie case for both Brady and Napue violations. The court noted that McCray’s testimony at the preliminary hearing was misleading and that the prosecution’s suppression of the non-prosecution agreement allowed McCray to assert his privilege against self-incrimination, leading to the admission of his statements without cross-examination. The court concluded that the suppressed evidence was material and could have affected the jury’s verdict. The court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings, directing the trial court to issue an order to show cause.

Cole v. State of Florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Docket: SC2024-1170

Opinion Date: August 23, 2024

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In 1994, Loran Cole and his companion encountered John Edwards and his sister while they were camping. Cole murdered John and raped his sister. Cole was indicted and found guilty of first-degree murder, kidnapping, robbery, and sexual battery. The jury recommended the death penalty, which the trial court imposed. Cole's convictions and death sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, and his certiorari petition was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1998.

Cole filed multiple postconviction relief motions, all of which were denied by the circuit court and affirmed by the Florida Supreme Court. His claims included ineffective assistance of counsel, newly discovered evidence, and constitutional challenges. Cole also sought federal habeas relief, which was denied. His subsequent motions for postconviction relief, including claims based on newly discovered evidence and Hurst v. Florida, were also denied.

The Florida Supreme Court reviewed Cole's fourth successive motion for postconviction relief and his public records requests. Cole argued newly discovered evidence regarding his treatment at the Dozier School for Boys, Eighth Amendment violations due to his prison conditions, and the unconstitutionality of Florida's lethal injection procedures. The postconviction court denied these claims as untimely, procedurally barred, or without merit. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the postconviction court's decision, finding no error in the summary denial of Cole's claims and public records requests. The court also denied Cole's motion to stay his execution and his request for oral argument.

Commonwealth v. Canjura

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Docket: SJC-13432

Opinion Date: August 27, 2024

Judge: Georges

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The case involves the defendant, David E. Canjura, who was arrested by Boston police officers on July 3, 2020, after an altercation with his girlfriend. During a search incident to the arrest, officers found a spring-assisted knife on Canjura. He was charged with carrying a dangerous weapon under G. L. c. 269, § 10 (b), and assault and battery on a family or household member. Canjura conceded the knife met the statutory definition of a switchblade but challenged the constitutionality of the statute under the Second Amendment.

In the Boston Municipal Court, Canjura filed a motion to dismiss the charge, arguing that the statute violated his Second Amendment rights. The judge denied the motion, and Canjura entered a conditional plea, reserving his right to appeal. The court accepted his plea and placed him on administrative probation, while the assault and battery charge was dismissed at the Commonwealth's request. Canjura appealed, and the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts granted direct appellate review.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and applied the two-part test from New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen. The court first determined that switchblades are "arms" under the Second Amendment, as they fit historical definitions and were commonly used for lawful purposes at the time of the founding. The court then examined whether the statute was consistent with the nation's historical tradition of arms regulation. Finding no historical analogues to justify the regulation of switchblades, the court concluded that G. L. c. 269, § 10 (b), violated the Second Amendment. The court reversed the denial of Canjura's motion to dismiss, vacated his admission to sufficient facts, and ordered judgment to enter for the defendant on the dangerous weapon charge.

Continental Resources v. Fair

Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Citation: 317 Neb. 391

Opinion Date: August 23, 2024

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Real Estate & Property Law

Kevin L. Fair and his wife owned property in Scotts Bluff County, Nebraska, but failed to pay property taxes. The county treasurer sold a tax certificate to Continental Resources for the unpaid taxes. After three years, Continental notified the Fairs that they needed to redeem the property by paying the total amount due, which they did not. Consequently, Continental requested and received a tax deed from the county treasurer, transferring title to the property free of any encumbrances.

The District Court for Scotts Bluff County granted summary judgment in favor of Continental Resources, rejecting Fair’s constitutional claims, including those under the Takings Clauses of the U.S. and Nebraska Constitutions. Fair argued that the issuance of the tax deed constituted a taking without just compensation. The district court found no merit in Fair’s claims and ruled in favor of Continental. Fair appealed, and the Nebraska Supreme Court initially affirmed the district court’s decision.

The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Nebraska Supreme Court’s judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Tyler v. Hennepin County. Upon reconsideration, the Nebraska Supreme Court concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Continental on Fair’s takings claim. The court found that Fair had a protected property interest in the value of his property exceeding the tax debt and that Continental’s acquisition of the tax deed constituted a taking without just compensation. The court determined that Continental, as a state actor, could be liable for the taking.

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment in all other respects but reversed the summary judgment in favor of Continental on the takings claim, remanding the case for further proceedings.

Nieveen v. TAX 106

Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Citation: 317 Neb. 425

Opinion Date: August 23, 2024

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Real Estate & Property Law

Sandra K. Nieveen owned property in Lincoln, Nebraska, which was free of encumbrances. After failing to pay property taxes, TAX 106 purchased a tax certificate for the delinquent taxes. TAX 106 later transferred its interest to Vintage Management, LLC, which obtained a tax deed for the property. Nieveen alleged that the property was worth significantly more than the tax debt and claimed that the issuance of the tax deed violated her constitutional rights.

The District Court for Lancaster County dismissed Nieveen’s constitutional claims for failure to state a claim and later granted summary judgment in favor of the county on her remaining claim. The court found that Nieveen was not entitled to an extended redemption period due to a mental disorder. Nieveen appealed, and the Nebraska Supreme Court initially affirmed the district court’s decision.

The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Nebraska Supreme Court’s judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Tyler v. Hennepin County, which recognized a plausible takings claim when a property was sold for more than the tax debt. Upon reconsideration, the Nebraska Supreme Court concluded that Nieveen had alleged a plausible takings claim against Vintage Management, LLC, as the issuance of the tax deed deprived her of property value exceeding her tax debt. The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against other defendants and declined to reconsider the Excessive Fines Clause claim, as just compensation under the Takings Clause would provide complete relief.

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings regarding the takings claim against Vintage Management, LLC.

Kinsley v. Ace Speedway Racing, Ltd

Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Docket: 280PA22

Opinion Date: August 23, 2024

Judge: Dietz

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law

In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Roy Cooper of North Carolina issued an executive order limiting attendance at outdoor venues to twenty-five people. Robert Turner, who operated Ace Speedway in Alamance County, publicly opposed these restrictions and kept the racetrack open. This led to a series of events where Governor Cooper allegedly pressured local officials to enforce the order against Ace Speedway, culminating in the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) issuing an abatement order to shut down the racetrack as a health hazard.

The Superior Court of Alamance County initially issued a preliminary injunction against Ace Speedway, prohibiting it from holding events until it complied with the abatement order. Ace Speedway and its operators counterclaimed, alleging constitutional violations, including the right to earn a living and selective enforcement. The trial court denied the State’s motion to dismiss these counterclaims, and the State appealed. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, allowing the case to proceed.

The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Court held that Ace Speedway sufficiently alleged colorable claims under the North Carolina Constitution. The allegations suggested that the State's actions were not for a proper governmental purpose but to retaliate against Turner for his public criticism, thus violating the right to earn a living. Additionally, the selective enforcement claim was deemed colorable because Ace Speedway alleged it was targeted while other similar venues were not, based on Turner’s exercise of his First Amendment rights. The Court concluded that these claims were sufficient to overcome the State’s sovereign immunity at this stage.

State v. Daw

Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Docket: 174PA21

Opinion Date: August 23, 2024

Judge: Berger

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Petitioner was sentenced to multiple consecutive terms of imprisonment in 2019 for obtaining property by false pretenses. In June 2020, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, claiming his detention was unlawful due to the North Carolina Department of Public Safety's inability to protect him from COVID-19, which he argued violated the Eighth Amendment and the North Carolina Constitution. The trial court denied his petition.

The Superior Court of Wake County summarily denied the petition, citing N.C.G.S. § 17-4(2), which mandates denial of habeas corpus applications when the petitioner is held under a valid final judgment by a competent court. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision but held that N.C.G.S. § 17-33(2) provided an exception to the rule in § 17-4(2). Despite acknowledging the case was moot due to the petitioner's release, the Court of Appeals applied the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine and proceeded to the merits.

The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case to determine if the Court of Appeals erred in its interpretation. The Supreme Court held that the plain language of N.C.G.S. § 17-4(2) requires summary denial of habeas corpus applications for those detained by a final judgment of a competent court. The Court found no conflict between §§ 17-4 and 17-33, as the latter applies only to those detained by civil process, not criminal judgments. The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, emphasizing that habeas corpus relief is not available under the circumstances presented by the petitioner.

IN RE DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS AND BROWN

Court: Supreme Court of Texas

Docket: 24-0426

Opinion Date: August 23, 2024

Judge: YOUNG

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law

Dallas County sued state officials in Travis County, alleging that the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) failed to take custody of criminal defendants adjudicated incompetent to stand trial, imposing costs on the County. The district court denied the State’s plea to the jurisdiction, leading to an appeal in the Third Court of Appeals. However, due to legislative changes, this appeal is set to be transferred to the newly created Fifteenth Court of Appeals, which will have exclusive jurisdiction over certain state-related cases.

The Third Court of Appeals could not resolve the appeal before its mandatory transfer to the Fifteenth Court. Dallas County preferred to remain in the Third Court and petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas to bar the transfer and declare the legislation creating the Fifteenth Court unconstitutional. The County argued that the Fifteenth Court’s statewide jurisdiction, its jurisdictional scope, and the appointment process for its justices were unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that it had jurisdiction over Dallas County’s petition. The Court concluded that the creation of the Fifteenth Court was constitutional. It found that the Texas Constitution allows the legislature substantial discretion in creating courts and defining their jurisdiction. The Court also held that the appointment process for the Fifteenth Court’s justices, who will be appointed initially and then elected in the next general election, was constitutional. Consequently, the Court denied Dallas County’s request for relief, meaning the appeal must be transferred to the Fifteenth Court as scheduled.