Articles Posted in Constitutional Law

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.

July 6-10. 2009.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, July 08, 2009 McCullen v. Coakley , No. 08-2310
In an action challenging a statute creating a fixed buffer zone around reproductive health care facilities, district court judgment rejecting the facial challenge and refuseing to enjoin enforcement of the new law is affirmed where: 1) there is nothing in the text or the legislative history of the statute that deprives that statute of content-neutral status, and thus an intermediate scrutiny analysis applies; 2) the statute is a valid time-place-manner regulation that advances a significant governmental interest without burdening substantially more speech than necessary and leaves open adequate alternative channels of communication; 3) plaintiffs’ overbreadth argument is without merit as the increased degree of the expansion of the buffer zone in the statute is reasonable, and thus the expansion is not a matter of constitutional significance; and 4) plaintiffs’ vagueness argument fails as plaintiffs want to engage in the anti-abortion protests that are proscribed in the atto! rney general’s challenged guidance letter, and a party to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, July 06, 2009 Pilgrim v. Luther, No. 07-1950 In a prisoner civil rights action, district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim fails as a matter of law as entreaties to activity such as petitions protesting prison conditions are not entitled to First Amendment protection where other less disruptive means of airing grievances are available; and 2) plaintiff’s claims that defendant violated his due process rights are without merit as any error on the part of the corrections officer assigned to assisting plaintiff was harmless in light of defendant’s owns failures.

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, July 10, 2009 Little v. KPMG LLP, No. 08-50100 In an action claiming that Plaintiff accounting firms lost business to Defendant when Defendant’s partner practiced without a Texas accounting license, the dismissal of the action is affirmed, where the alleged injury to Plaintiff was too speculative Continue reading

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.

June 15-19, 2009.

U.S. Supreme Court, June 15, 2009 Polar Tankers, Inc. v. Valdez, No. 08–310 In a Tonnage Clause challenge to an Alaska ordinance imposing a personal property tax on large oil tankers, judgment for Defendant is reversed, where the ordinance was unconstitutional because it was designed to impose “a charge for the privilege of entering, trading in, or lying in a port.””

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.

May 25-29, 2009.

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, May 27, 2009 Pyke v. Cuomo, No. 07-0334 District court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants on plaintiffs’ claim that defendants’ response to a period of violent unrest on an Indian reservation violated their equal protection rights is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs failed to show that defendants’ actions constituted an express racial classification; and 2) plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence of racially discriminatory intent and impact.

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, May 29, 2009 Bridgeport & Port Jefferson Steamboat Co. v. Bridgeport Port Auth., No. 08-3886 District court judgment declaring a fee imposed on ferry passengers unconstitutional and enjoining collection of the fee until revised is affirmed where: 1) the existing fee violated the Commerce Clause as defendant failed to show that using a portion of the passenger fees to pay for services was based on a fair approximation of the ferry passengers’ use; and 2) the fee violated the Tonnage Clause as it was used for the impermissible purpose of raising general revenues and for projects which did not benefit the ferry passengers.

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 28, 2009 Am. Atheists, Inc. v. Detroit, No. 07-2398 In an Establishment Clause challenge to a city’s building refurbishment program in which religious organizations were allowed to participate, judgment for Plaintiff is reversed, where the program allocated generally available benefits on a neutral basis and without a hidden agenda, and thus did not have the effect of advancing religion.
Continue reading

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.

May 11-15, 2009.

U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 12, 2009 Midi v. Holder, No. 08-1367 Petitioner’s petition for review of the BIA’s order removing her from the U.S. is denied, where: 1) the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) does not apply to immigrants seeking relief pursuant to the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act; and 2) the BIA’s construction of the CSPA did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.

U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 13, 2009 Iota Xi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. Patterson, No. 08-1417 In an action by a fraternity at a public university claiming that disciplinary action against it violated the First Amendment, summary judgment for Defendants is affirmed, where: 1) the university did not deprive Plaintiff’s members of associational rights; and 2) the sanctions imposed on the chapter were reasonable. ..

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 13, 2009 US v. Tom, No. 08-2345 District court judgment granting defendant’s motion to dismiss petition having have him civilly committed as a sexually dangerous person is reversed where: 1) the court erred in finding the 18 U.S.C. sec. 4248 (the Adam Walsh Act) was an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s powers under the Commerce Clause, as Congress is empowered by the Commerce Clause to criminalize and punish the conduct of which defendant is guilty and has the ancillary authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause to provide for defendant’s civil commitment; and 2) 18 U.S.C. sec. 4248 does not upset the delicate federal state balance mandated by the Constitution.
Continue reading

May 4 -8, 2009

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.

U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals, May 05, 2009 Ellamae Phillips Co. v. US , No. 08-5042 In a takings action, district court grant of summary judgment against the government is vacated and remanded where court of Federal Claims improperly applied the present court’s prior decision in Hash v. US in ruling that a taking had occurred, as Hash did not decide the scope of the easement granted under the 1875 Act or whether any residual easement has been abandoned in this case.

April 27 – May 1, 2009
To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, April 28, 2009 Molinari v. Bloomberg , No. 09-0331 In an action challenging amendments to New York term limits legislation, district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs do not have a viable First Amendment claim as any chilling of plaintiffs’ First Amendment activity is self-imposed and thus incidental and constitutionally insignificant; 2) the challenged law does not violate plaintiffs’ substantive due process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment; 3) New York Municipal Home Rule Law sec. 23(2)(b) does not require a referendum to enact the challenged law; and 4) court properly dismissed plaintiff’s claim that defendants violated the conflicts of interest provisions of the City Charter as any any conflict of interest was not in the terms and conditions of public office.

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, April 27, 2009 McTernan v. City of York , No. 07-4437 In a First Amendment action, district court’s judgment is affirmed in part and vacated and remanded where: 1) the court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the officer on plaintiff’s free exercise claim as a reasonable jury could conclude that the restriction imposed on plaintiff failed the general applicability requirement; 2) the court erred in granting summary judgment on plaintiff’s free speech claim as significant fact questions persist as to whether the restriction was narrowly tailored and burdened no more speech than necessary to protect traffic safety; and 3) the court properly dismissed plaintiff’s municipal liability claims against the defendant and co-defendants in their official capacity.

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, April 27, 2009 Holman v. City of York , No. 07-4438 In a First and Fourth Amendment action, district court judgment is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff failed to demonstrate a cognizable First Amendment violation; 2) plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim fails as the officer had probable cause to arrest plaintiff for trespass at the scene; and 3) the court properly dismissed plaintiff’s municipal liability claims against the defendant and co-defendants in their official capacity.
Continue reading