Rojas-Tapia v. United States

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Dockets: 20-1514, 20-1735

Opinion Date: March 3, 2025

Judge: David Barron

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In this case, José M. Rojas-Tapia appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petitions for post-conviction relief, which he filed in the District of Puerto Rico. Rojas's convictions and sentences stem from his October 2000 guilty pleas to charges related to two separate post office robberies. The first indictment involved the Levittown Post Office, and the second involved the Sabana Seca Post Office. Both indictments included charges under 18 U.S.C. § 2114(a) for assaulting postal employees with intent to rob, and under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for using a firearm during a crime of violence. Additionally, Rojas was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) for being a felon in possession of a firearm.

Rojas did not challenge his convictions or sentences on direct appeal. However, in 2017, he filed two habeas petitions challenging his § 924(c) convictions and the application of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) to his § 922(g) convictions. He argued that his § 924(c) convictions could not stand under Johnson v. United States (2015) and United States v. Davis (2019), as his underlying offenses did not qualify as crimes of violence. He also contended that his ACCA-enhanced sentences were improper because his prior convictions did not qualify as violent felonies or serious drug offenses.

The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico denied both petitions. The court concluded that Rojas's federal mail robbery convictions under § 2114(a) qualified as crimes of violence under the force clause of § 924(c). Additionally, the court found that Rojas's prior convictions for attempted murder, second-degree murder, and armed carjacking under Puerto Rico law qualified as violent felonies under the ACCA.

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Rojas's convictions for aggravated mail robbery under § 2114(a) qualified as crimes of violence under § 924(c)'s force clause. The court also rejected Rojas's argument that his aiding and abetting convictions did not qualify as crimes of violence, reaffirming that aiding and abetting liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2 does not alter the application of the categorical approach. The court did not address Rojas's ACCA-related arguments, as his request for a Certificate of Appealability on those claims had been denied.

Jean-Paul Weg LLC v. Director of the New Jersey Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Docket: 23-2922

Opinion Date: February 28, 2025

Judge: Luis Felipe Restrepo

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law

A New York wine retailer, Jean Paul Weg LLC, and its owner, Lars Neubohn, challenged New Jersey's regulations that require wine retailers to have a physical presence in the state and to purchase their products from New Jersey licensed wholesalers. These regulations prevent the retailer from directly shipping wine to New Jersey customers. The plaintiffs argued that these requirements violate the Commerce Clause by discriminating against out-of-state economic interests.

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, including the Director of the New Jersey Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control and the Attorney General of New Jersey. The District Court found that New Jersey's regulations were justified by legitimate local purposes, such as ensuring alcohol sold to New Jersey consumers passes through the state's three-tier system and facilitating inspections to ensure compliance with regulations.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The Third Circuit held that New Jersey's regulations, while discriminatory in effect, were justified on legitimate nonprotectionist grounds. The court found that the physical presence requirement facilitates inspections and investigations, while the wholesaler purchase requirement helps quickly identify sources of contamination and facilitates product recalls. Additionally, the court determined that these regulations are essential features of New Jersey's three-tier system of alcohol regulation, which is "unquestionably legitimate" under the Twenty-first Amendment. Therefore, the challenged regulations were upheld as constitutional.

Gowen v. Winfield

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Docket: 22-6380

Opinion Date: March 4, 2025

Judge: Nicole Berner

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

Jason Wayne Gowen, a pretrial detainee at the Lynchburg Adult Detention Center, was placed in solitary confinement for 125 days after complaining about hot conditions in his cell and encouraging other inmates to do the same. Gowen filed a lawsuit against several correctional officers, alleging violations of his First Amendment rights due to retaliation for his grievances and his Fourteenth Amendment rights for being placed in solitary confinement without due process.

The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed Gowen’s First Amendment retaliation claim, stating that he failed to show a causal connection between his grievances and the adverse actions taken against him. The court later granted summary judgment to the officers on Gowen’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim, concluding that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that Gowen adequately alleged a First Amendment retaliation claim by showing that he engaged in protected activity, faced adverse action, and established a causal connection through temporal proximity and the officers' awareness of his grievances. The court also determined that Gowen did not forfeit his argument regarding the exhaustion of administrative remedies, as his verified complaint contained sufficient evidence of his attempts to use the grievance process and the officers' failure to respond.

The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of Gowen’s First Amendment retaliation claim and vacated the summary judgment on his Fourteenth Amendment due process claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s findings.

Simpson v. Cisneros

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 23-50678

Opinion Date: March 4, 2025

Judge: Patrick Higginbotham

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

Amber Simpson, Britney Foster, and Stephanie Olivarri, former inmates at the Linda Woodsman State Jail in Texas, filed a lawsuit in August 2020 against Joe Cisneros, a jail guard, alleging sexual abuse and harassment. They claimed violations of their Eighth Amendment rights under the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause and their Fourteenth Amendment rights under the Due Process Clause. The plaintiffs described various instances of inappropriate sexual conduct by Cisneros, including sexual comments, physical assaults, and requests for sexual favors.

The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Jeffrey C. Manske in the Western District of Texas. Cisneros moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs' claims under both the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments were invalid. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment for Cisneros on the Eighth Amendment claims but denying it on the Fourteenth Amendment claims. The district court adopted this recommendation, leading Cisneros to appeal the denial of summary judgment on the Fourteenth Amendment claims.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Eighth Amendment, not the Fourteenth Amendment, protects inmates from abusive treatment. The court found that the plaintiffs did assert a Fourteenth Amendment claim in their initial complaint but concluded that the Eighth Amendment provides the explicit textual source of protection for prisoners, making the Fourteenth Amendment inapplicable in this context. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's ruling on the Fourteenth Amendment claim, granted summary judgment in favor of Cisneros on that claim, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Space Exploration Technologies Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 24-40315

Opinion Date: March 5, 2025

Judge: Irma Ramirez

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law

Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) operates a space launch business and a global satellite-based internet service called Starlink. In June 2022, a group of SpaceX employees sent an open letter demanding certain actions from the company and solicited support through a survey. SpaceX discharged four employees involved in the letter's distribution for violating company policies. Additional employees were later discharged for lying during a leak investigation and for unrelated performance issues. These employees filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in November 2022, alleging violations of the National Labor Relations Act.

The NLRB Regional Director found merit in the claims and issued an order consolidating the employees' cases with a hearing set for March 2024. SpaceX sued the NLRB in the Southern District of Texas (SDTX) in January 2024, challenging the NLRB's structure as unconstitutional and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The NLRB moved to transfer the case to the Central District of California (CDCA), arguing improper venue. The SDTX granted the transfer motion in February 2024. SpaceX petitioned for an emergency writ of mandamus to vacate the transfer order, which was initially stayed but later denied.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. SpaceX argued that the district court effectively denied its motion for a preliminary injunction by failing to rule on it by May 2, 2024. The Fifth Circuit found that SpaceX did not demonstrate the "serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence" required for an immediate appeal. The court noted that participating in the administrative proceeding did not constitute irreparable harm and that the district court did not act unreasonably in waiting to resolve procedural challenges. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit dismissed SpaceX's appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

United States v. Cisneros

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 23-40625

Opinion Date: March 6, 2025

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In January 2023, law enforcement executed a search warrant at Juan David Cisneros's residence, resulting from a narcotics investigation. They found ammunition in his bedroom but no drugs or firearms attributable to him. Cisneros admitted to using the ammunition previously but claimed his mother-in-law purchased it. He was charged with possessing ammunition as a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied Cisneros's motion to dismiss the indictment, which argued that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and exceeded Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. Cisneros pleaded guilty but reserved the right to appeal on Second Amendment grounds. The court adopted the Presentence Investigation Report, which included a four-level enhancement for possessing ammunition in connection with drug trafficking, and sentenced him to ninety-six months in prison.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. Cisneros's facial challenge to § 922(g)(1) was foreclosed by precedent, and his as-applied challenge failed under plain error review. The court affirmed his conviction, finding no clear or obvious error in the application of § 922(g)(1) under the Second Amendment.

However, the court found that the district court plainly erred in applying the sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing ammunition in connection with another felony offense. The court noted that there was no evidence the ammunition facilitated drug trafficking, as required by precedent. This error affected Cisneros's substantial rights, as it likely resulted in a longer sentence. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit vacated Cisneros's sentence and remanded for resentencing.

Ermold v. Davis

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Docket: 24-5524

Opinion Date: March 6, 2025

Judge: Helene White

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

Plaintiffs David Moore and David Ermold sued Kim Davis, the clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for refusing to issue them a marriage license, claiming it violated their constitutional right to marry. This refusal occurred after the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Davis, citing her religious beliefs, stopped issuing all marriage licenses until the state provided her with an accommodation. Plaintiffs sought damages for the emotional distress caused by Davis's actions.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on liability, and a jury awarded them compensatory damages. Davis appealed, arguing she was entitled to qualified immunity, had defenses under the Free Exercise Clause and the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and that the evidence of emotional distress was insufficient to support the jury's award.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Davis was not entitled to qualified immunity because Obergefell clearly established the right to same-sex marriage, and Davis's actions violated that right. The court also rejected Davis's Free Exercise Clause defense, stating that the First Amendment does not protect state actions that violate constitutional rights. Additionally, the court found that Kentucky's RFRA did not apply in this case because the state was not a party to the lawsuit.

The court further upheld the jury's award of damages, finding that the plaintiffs provided sufficient evidence of emotional distress. The court noted that the plaintiffs' detailed testimony about their emotional harm was corroborated and not merely conclusory. Davis's request for remittitur was not considered because it was raised for the first time in her reply brief. The Sixth Circuit thus affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.

Morgan v BOP

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Docket: 22-2731

Opinion Date: February 28, 2025

Judge: Amy St. Eve

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

Jack William Morgan, a Messianic Jew, purchased a turkey log from the commissary at the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Thomson in May 2021, which led to the suspension of his kosher diet approval for thirty days by the institutional chaplain. Morgan claimed this forced him to choose between starvation and violating his religious beliefs, and he chose starvation. After exhausting administrative remedies, he sued the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and the prison warden, Andrew Ciolli, seeking changes to dietary policies and monetary damages under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Morgan has since been transferred to a different BOP facility.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed Morgan’s complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The court found that Morgan did not provide sufficient factual allegations to show that the BOP’s dietary policies substantially burdened his religious exercise. Additionally, the court noted that the BOP is immune from suits for damages under RFRA and that Morgan’s complaint did not include allegations about Ciolli’s conduct.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and focused on two threshold issues: subject-matter jurisdiction and sovereign immunity. The court determined that Morgan did not adequately allege standing to pursue his claim for injunctive relief, as his threat of future injury was too speculative. Furthermore, the court held that federal sovereign immunity barred Morgan’s claim for monetary damages, as RFRA does not waive the federal government’s sovereign immunity against damages suits. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal but modified the judgment to reflect a jurisdictional dismissal.

CEDAR PARK ASSEMBLY OF GOD OF KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON V. KREIDLER

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 23-35560

Opinion Date: March 6, 2025

Judge: Susan Graber

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law

A church in Washington, Cedar Park Assembly of God, challenged the state's Reproductive Parity Act (Parity Act), which mandates insurance carriers to cover all federally approved contraceptives and, if maternity care is included, abortions. The church argued that this law violated its First Amendment rights and religious autonomy because it could not find a comparable health plan that excluded abortion coverage after its insurer, Kaiser Permanente, stopped offering such a plan.

The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted summary judgment in favor of the state officials, Myron Kreidler and Jay Inslee, who were sued in their official capacities. The district court found that the church did not have standing to challenge the Parity Act because it could not demonstrate that its inability to obtain a suitable health plan was directly caused by the Act.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and vacated the district court's summary judgment, remanding with instructions to dismiss the action for lack of standing. The Ninth Circuit held that Cedar Park Assembly of God failed to establish that its injury was traceable to the Parity Act or that invalidating the Act would redress its injury. The court noted that Washington's conscientious-objection statute allows insurers to accommodate religious objections, and nothing in the Parity Act prevents insurers from offering plans that exclude abortion coverage. The court concluded that the church's injury was due to the independent decisions of insurers, not the Parity Act, and thus, the church lacked standing to sue.

Day v. Henry

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 23-16148

Opinion Date: March 4, 2025

Judge: Milan Smith

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

Reed Day and Albert Jacobs, Arizona residents, wanted to ship wine directly from out-of-state retailers who do not have in-state premises in Arizona. Arizona law, however, requires retailers to have a physical presence in the state to ship wine directly to consumers. Plaintiffs filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Arizona state officials, claiming that this statutory scheme violates the Commerce Clause.

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted summary judgment in favor of the state officials and the intervenor-defendant, the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers Association of Arizona. The district court found that the plaintiffs likely lacked standing and that, even if they did, the Arizona laws were not discriminatory. The court reasoned that the physical presence requirement applied equally to in-state and out-of-state retailers and was essential to Arizona’s three-tier system for alcohol distribution.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs had standing because the district court could grant some form of relief. However, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to show that Arizona’s physical presence requirement was discriminatory. The requirement applied even-handedly to all retailers, regardless of their state of origin, and was not so onerous as to be discriminatory. The court noted that out-of-state businesses could and did obtain retail licenses in Arizona, indicating that the laws did not have a discriminatory effect in practice. The court concluded that Arizona’s laws did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause.

HARTZELL V. MARANA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 23-4310

Opinion Date: March 5, 2025

Judge: Milan Smith

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Personal Injury

Rebecca Hartzell, a parent of children attending Dove Mountain K-CSTEM school, was banned from the school premises following an incident where she allegedly assaulted the school principal, Andrea Divijak. Hartzell claimed that she was banned in retaliation for her protected speech criticizing the school and its administration. The Marana Unified School District and Divijak argued that the ban was due to Hartzell's conduct, specifically the alleged assault.

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Hartzell's procedural due process claim, her First Amendment retaliation claim against Divijak, and part of her defamation claim. The court also denied Hartzell's motion to amend her complaint to add a First Amendment theory to her procedural due process claim. At trial, the court precluded Hartzell from pursuing a Monell claim against the District based on a "final policymaker" theory and granted judgment as a matter of law in favor of the District on her First Amendment claim. The jury found in favor of Divijak on the remaining defamation claim.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Hartzell's "final policymaker" theory but erred in granting judgment as a matter of law on her First Amendment claim against the District. The court found that a reasonable jury could conclude that Hartzell was banned pursuant to an unconstitutional District policy prohibiting "offensive or inappropriate" speech. The court also affirmed the district court's ruling that Divijak was entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim. Additionally, the court reversed the summary judgment on Hartzell's defamation claim regarding one of the documents sent to her employer, finding it potentially defamatory. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these findings.

JOHNSON V. MYERS

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 24-349

Opinion Date: March 3, 2025

Judge: William Fletcher

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

Ryan Smith was shot and killed by Seattle police officers Christopher Myers and Ryan Beecroft during a response to a 911 call from Smith's girlfriend, Katy Nolan, who reported that Smith was threatening to kill both himself and her with a knife. When the officers arrived, they kicked in the door to Smith's apartment, and within 5.87 seconds, they shot Smith, who was holding a pocketknife. Smith raised his right arm across his chest and took a step forward before being shot. The officers did not issue any warnings before using deadly force.

The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington denied the officers' motion for partial summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The district court found that there were factual disputes regarding whether a reasonable officer would have believed Smith posed an immediate threat and whether less drastic measures were feasible. The court concluded that the law was clearly established that officers may not use deadly force against suspects who do not pose an immediate threat.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The Ninth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal and that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. The court determined that a reasonable juror could conclude that Smith did not pose an immediate threat to the officers or others, and that the use of deadly force was not justified. The court emphasized that it was clearly established law that a fatal shooting under these circumstances violated the Fourth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity.

United States V. Bowers

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 23-902

Opinion Date: March 4, 2025

Judge: Ana I. de Alba

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Jackson Daniel Bowers was convicted in 2019 of possession of heroin with intent to distribute and sentenced to 36 months imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. In 2023, while on supervised release, Bowers was accused of committing two state crimes: fourth-degree assault and violating a protective order. His probation officer recommended revoking his supervised release. Bowers resolved his state charges by entering a deferral agreement without admitting guilt.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington held a revocation hearing. Bowers requested a jury trial, which the district court denied. The court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Bowers had committed the alleged violations and revoked his supervised release, sentencing him to nine months imprisonment followed by 36 months of supervised release. Bowers appealed, arguing that Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial in revocation proceedings, separate from the Sixth Amendment.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Article III’s jury provision and the Sixth Amendment are equivalent in scope. It found that the history and precedent indicate that the Sixth Amendment was meant to complement, not supersede, Article III. Therefore, a right not triggered by the Sixth Amendment cannot be independently triggered by Article III. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s revocation of Bowers’ supervised release.

Magnetsafety.org v. Consumer Product Safety Commission

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Docket: 22-9578

Opinion Date: March 3, 2025

Judge: Nancy Moritz

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

The case involves the Consumer Product Safety Commission's (CPSC) second attempt to regulate small, high-powered magnets that pose serious health risks to children when ingested. These magnets, used in various consumer products like jewelry and puzzles, can cause severe internal injuries or death if swallowed. The CPSC's first attempt to regulate these magnets was struck down by the Tenth Circuit in 2016 due to inadequate data supporting the rule. The CPSC then revised its approach and issued a new rule, which is now being challenged by industry groups.

The industry groups petitioned for review of the CPSC's new rule, arguing that the CPSC's cost-benefit analysis was flawed and that the rule was promulgated by an unconstitutionally structured agency. They contended that the CPSC's data on magnet ingestions was unreliable, that the CPSC failed to consider the impact of its own enforcement efforts, and that the rule was underinclusive and arbitrary. They also argued that existing voluntary standards were sufficient to address the risks posed by the magnets.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the CPSC's rule was supported by substantial evidence, noting that the CPSC had adequately addressed the shortcomings identified in the previous case and had conducted a thorough cost-benefit analysis. The court also held that the CPSC's structure, which includes removal protections for its commissioners, was constitutional, reaffirming its previous decision in Leachco, Inc. v. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

The Tenth Circuit denied the petition for review, upholding the CPSC's rule regulating small, high-powered magnets. The court concluded that the rule was necessary to address the significant health risks posed by these magnets and that the CPSC had acted within its authority in promulgating the rule.

Catholic Medical Mission Board v. Bonta

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: B315409(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: March 5, 2025

Judge: Gonzalo Martinez

Areas of Law: Business Law, Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law, Non-Profit Corporations

The case involves two charitable organizations, Catholic Medical Mission Board, Inc. (CMMB) and Food for the Poor, Inc. (FFP), which were issued cease and desist orders and civil penalties by the California Attorney General for allegedly overvaluing in-kind donations and making misleading statements in their solicitations. The Attorney General found that both organizations used inflated domestic market prices for donated medicines, which could not be distributed within the U.S., and misrepresented their program efficiency ratios to donors.

The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed the case and found that the challenged statutory provisions, sections 12591.1(b) and 12599.6(f)(2) of the Government Code, were unconstitutional as they constituted prior restraints on speech. The court vacated the civil penalties and issued permanent injunctions against the Attorney General, preventing the enforcement of these provisions. The court also reformed section 12591.1(b) by adding language to exclude violations of section 12599.6 from the Attorney General's cease and desist authority.

The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by granting the permanent injunctions without requiring the plaintiffs to plead and prove their entitlement to such relief. The appellate court vacated the injunctions and remanded the case to allow the plaintiffs to amend their complaints and prove their entitlement to injunctive relief. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's reformation of section 12591.1(b), allowing the Attorney General to issue cease and desist orders for violations unrelated to speech. The appellate court also vacated the postjudgment orders awarding attorney fees and directed the trial court to reconsider the fees in light of the remand.

Civil Rights Dept. v. Cathy's Creations

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: F085800M(Fifth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: March 5, 2025

Judge: Kathleen Meehan

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

A bakery, owned by Catharine Miller, refused to sell a predesigned, plain white cake to a same-sex couple, the Rodriguez-Del Rios, for their wedding reception. The bakery's policy prohibited the sale of any preordered cake for same-sex weddings based on Miller's religious beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman. The couple ultimately obtained a similar cake from another bakery.

The Civil Rights Department (CRD) filed a lawsuit against the bakery and Miller, alleging discrimination under the Unruh Civil Rights Act (UCRA). The Kern County Superior Court ruled in favor of the bakery, concluding there was no intentional discrimination and that Miller's referral of the couple to another bakery constituted full and equal access under the UCRA. The court also found that the bakery's refusal was protected by the First Amendment as both pure speech and expressive conduct.

The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court determined that the bakery's policy was facially discriminatory as it required a distinction in service based on the sexual orientation of the end user. The court concluded that the trial court erred in its determination that the policy was facially neutral and in its application of the intentional discrimination standard. The court also found that Miller's referral to another bakery did not satisfy the UCRA's full and equal access requirement.

Regarding the First Amendment defenses, the appellate court held that the plain white cake was not pure speech or expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. The court reasoned that the cake was a generic, multi-purpose product and did not convey any particularized message about marriage. The court also upheld the UCRA's application under the federal and state Constitutions' free exercise clauses, concluding that the law is neutral and generally applicable and that there are no less restrictive means to achieve the state's compelling interest in ensuring full and equal access to goods and services irrespective of sexual orientation. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

JONES v. THE STATE

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia

Docket: S24A1085

Opinion Date: March 4, 2025

Judge: Andrew Pinson

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

James Christopher Jones was charged with murder after police identified her using cell phone location history obtained through search warrants. The warrants allowed police to get an anonymized list of devices near the victim’s home during the murder and identifying information for relevant devices. Jones moved to suppress this evidence, arguing the warrants violated the Fourth Amendment due to lack of probable cause and particularity. The trial court denied the motion, and Jones appealed.

The trial court found the warrants were supported by probable cause and were sufficiently particular. The first warrant was based on evidence that the suspect used a cell phone near the victim’s home, and the second warrant, obtained after analyzing the anonymized data, identified a specific device linked to the suspect. The court concluded that the affidavits provided a fair probability that the location data and identifying information would yield evidence of the crime. The court also found the warrants were particular enough, specifying the crime, date, time, location, and a reasonable 100-meter radius.

The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the trial court’s decision. The court held that the warrants were supported by probable cause, as the suspect was seen using a cell phone near the crime scene, and the location data was likely to help identify the suspect. The court also found the warrants met the particularity requirement, as they provided specific guidance on the information to be accessed and avoided unfettered discretion. The court rejected Jones’s arguments about overbreadth and lack of particularity, noting that the warrants were appropriately tailored to the investigation and did not authorize a general search. The judgment was affirmed.

LA ANYANE v. THE STATE

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia

Docket: S24A1112

Opinion Date: March 4, 2025

Judge: Andrew Pinson

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Transportation Law

Evelyn-Natasha La Anyane was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol less safe and other traffic offenses. During a traffic stop, she was read the statutory implied-consent warning and consented to a blood test, which revealed a blood alcohol content above the legal limit. La Anyane argued that Georgia’s implied-consent statutory scheme is unconstitutional, claiming it coerces drivers into consenting to blood tests by falsely stating that refusal can be used against them at trial. She also contended that the trial court made evidentiary errors by not allowing her to cross-examine an expert with a study on field sobriety tests and by admitting evidence of her blood alcohol content.

The trial court denied La Anyane’s motion to suppress the blood test results and admitted the evidence at trial. The jury found her guilty of all charges. La Anyane appealed, arguing that the implied-consent warning was unconstitutionally coercive and that the trial court made evidentiary errors.

The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and held that the implied-consent warning was not unconstitutionally coercive. The court found that the warning did not state that consent was mandatory and that the statement about refusal being used at trial was not false. The court also determined that La Anyane’s consent to the blood test was freely and voluntarily given, making the search valid under the Fourth Amendment. Consequently, her as-applied and facial challenges to the implied-consent statutory scheme failed.

Regarding the evidentiary issues, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the study on field sobriety tests due to lack of proper foundation and in admitting evidence of La Anyane’s blood alcohol content, as it was relevant to the DUI less safe charge and not unfairly prejudicial. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

OKLAHOMA GAS AND ELECTRIC CO. v. STATE

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Citation: 2025 OK 15

Opinion Date: March 4, 2025

Judge: Richard Darby

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

In the spring of 2018, People's Electric Cooperative and Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company (OG&E) submitted competing bids to provide retail electric service to the Tall Oak Woodford Cryo Plant in Coal County, Oklahoma. The Plant is located in People's certified territory, which grants them exclusive rights to provide electricity under the Retail Electric Supplier Certified Territory Act (RESCTA). OG&E's proposal relied on the Large Load exception to RESCTA, which allows a supplier to extend its service into another supplier's territory for large-load customers. OG&E used third-party transmission facilities to provide service to the Plant without extending its own distribution lines.

The Oklahoma Corporation Commission enjoined OG&E from serving the Plant, finding that OG&E was not "extending its service" as authorized by RESCTA. The Commission determined that a retail electric supplier may not use third-party transmission lines to extend its service into another supplier's certified territory under the Large Load exception. OG&E appealed the decision.

The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case and upheld the Commission's determination. The Court held that Article 9, Section 20 of the Oklahoma Constitution requires a limited review of the Commission's order. The Court affirmed the Commission's interpretation that the Large Load exception does not permit a supplier to use third-party transmission lines to extend its service into another supplier's certified territory. The Court's decision applies prospectively only and does not affect existing retail electric services and facilities established under the Large Load exception.

Gonzales v. Markland

Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

Citation: 2025 S.D. 14

Opinion Date: March 5, 2025

Judge: Janine M. Kern

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Donika Rae Gonzales was convicted in 2014 by a jury of first-degree manslaughter and aggravated assault for beating her boyfriend’s four-year-old son to death. Gonzales filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the jury district, which included residents from both Brule and Buffalo Counties, diluted the percentage of prospective Native American jurors, violating her constitutional rights. She also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for her attorney’s failure to introduce certain evidence at trial. The habeas court found that the jury district violated both federal and state constitutions and reversed her conviction without addressing the ineffective assistance claims.

The Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit initially sent jury questionnaires to only Buffalo County residents, but due to an inadequate number of responses, included Brule County residents as well, based on a 2011 standing order. Gonzales agreed to hold the trial in Brule County and use a combined jury pool from both counties. The jury pool consisted of 236 jurors, with 22% Native American representation, compared to 29% in the combined population of the two counties. Gonzales appealed her conviction, but it was summarily affirmed by the South Dakota Supreme Court in 2016.

The South Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the habeas court’s decision. The court held that the use of a jury district comprising Buffalo and Brule Counties did not violate the South Dakota Constitution’s requirement for a trial by a jury of the “county or district” where the offense occurred. The court also found that Gonzales failed to establish a violation of the Sixth Amendment’s fair cross-section requirement, as the absolute disparity in Native American representation was only 7%, below the constitutional threshold. Consequently, Gonzales’ ineffective assistance claims were also deemed without merit, and the order granting habeas relief was vacated.

State v. Mercedes

Court: Washington Supreme Court

Docket: 102,622-6

Opinion Date: March 6, 2025

Judge: Charles W. Johnson

Areas of Law: Animal / Dog Law, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Mary Mercedes was accused of animal cruelty based on evidence obtained during a warrantless search of her property. Officers visited her property multiple times after receiving complaints about the condition of her animals. During these visits, Mercedes allowed the officers to view the animals, and based on their observations, a search warrant was later issued. The officers then seized the animals, and Mercedes was charged with two counts of animal cruelty.

The trial court granted Mercedes's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the property visits, ruling that the officers' consent to enter was invalid without providing Ferrier warnings, which inform individuals of their right to refuse, limit, and revoke consent. The trial court dismissed the charges due to lack of probable cause. The State appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, concluding that Ferrier warnings were not required for the search of Mercedes's outdoor property and remanded the case to determine if her consent was voluntary.

The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that Ferrier warnings are required only when officers seek to enter a person's home to conduct a warrantless search for evidence of a crime. Since the officers' visits to Mercedes's property were for investigative purposes and did not involve entering her home, Ferrier warnings were not necessary. The case was remanded to the trial court to determine if Mercedes's consent was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.

Vet Voice Foundation v. Hobbs

Court: Washington Supreme Court

Docket: 102,569-6

Opinion Date: March 6, 2025

Judge: Steven Gonzalez

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Election Law

In Washington State, most voters cast their votes by mail, and each voter must swear under oath that they are eligible to cast that ballot. Election workers must verify that the signature on the voter’s sworn ballot declaration matches the signature on file. If the signature cannot be verified, the ballot may be challenged, and if the voter does not cure their ballot in time, their vote will not be counted. The plaintiffs argue that this signature verification process results in some lawfully cast ballots not being counted, thus violating the due process, privileges and immunities, and freedom of elections clauses of the state constitution.

The trial court denied all parties' summary judgment motions and adopted the Anderson-Burdick framework to determine the level of scrutiny for the case. The court concluded that additional factual development was required and reserved ruling on whether signature verification was severable from the rest of the statutory scheme. The defendants moved to certify the trial court’s order for immediate review, which the plaintiffs did not oppose. The court certified two questions for review: the appropriate standard of judicial review for the plaintiffs’ facial challenges and whether any party is entitled to summary judgment under that standard.

The Washington Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that signature verification, when coupled with the increasingly expansive cure system, does not facially violate the state constitution. The court held that the defendants are entitled to summary judgment, reversing in part, affirming in part, and remanding for entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court emphasized that the right to vote is fundamental and that the signature verification process, as part of a robust system of checks, provides both security and ease of voting.