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.

January 19 – January 23, 2009
U.S. Supreme Court, January 21, 2009 Locke v. Karass, No. 07-610 In a case involving circumstances where a local union charges nonmembers a service fee that (among other things) reflects an affiliation fee that the local union pays to its national union organization, a portion of which the national union uses to pay for litigation expenses incurred in large part on behalf of other local units, the Supreme Court rules that the Constitution permits including such an element in the local’s charge to nonmembers as long as: 1) the subject matter of the extra-local litigation is of a kind that would be chargeable if the litigation were local; and 2) the litigation charge is reciprocal in nature.

U.S. Supreme Court, January 21, 2009 Pearson v. Callahan, No. 07-751 In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action against state law enforcement officers who conducted a warrantless search of plaintiff’s house incident to his arrest for the sale of methamphetamine to an undercover informant (whom plaintiff had voluntarily admitted to the premises), a court of appeals ruling reversing a ruling that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity is reversed where: 1) the procedure the Supreme Court mandated in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), should not be regarded as an inflexible requirement; and 2) petitioners were entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that it was not clearly established at the time of the search that their conduct was unconstitutional. ..

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, January 22, 2009 Abraham v. Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst., No. 08-1655 In an employment discrimination action brought by former employee, a researcher on the biological aspect of zebrafish, who was terminated after he stated he did not believe in the theory of evolution, denial of plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint, as well as a decision not to apply equitable tolling principles in granting defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, are affirmed where: 1) the request to amend was futile; and 2) the doctrine of equitable tolling could not apply as plaintiff failed to exercise diligence in meeting any of the filing deadlines for his employment discrimination claim Continue reading

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

December 29, 2008 – January 3, 2009

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 30, 2008 Gonzalez v. Duncan, No. 06-56523 A sentence of 28 years to life imprisonment under California’s “Three Strikes” law violates the Eighth Amendment where: 1) the offense was Petitioner’s failure to update his annual sex offender registration within five working days of his birthday; and 2) he was living at his registered address throughout the relevant time period. Habeas relief is warranted because the state court’s application of the gross disproportionality principle was objectively unreasonable.

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

Week of December 15-19, 2008.

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, December 15, 2008 Doe, Inc. v. Mukasey, No. 074943 In litigation concerning First Amendment challenges to the constitutionality of statutes governing the issuance and judicial review of National Security Letters (NSLs) which request records from providers of wire or electronic communication services, decision finding 18 U.S.C. subsections 2709(c) and 3511(b) unconstitutional and enjoining certain actions by FBI officials is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded where: 1) the statutes are construed to avoid some constitutional challenges; 2) subsections 2709(c) and 3511(b) were unconstitutional to the extent that they imposed a nondisclosure requirement on NSL recipients without placing on the Government the burden of initiating judicial review of such a requirement; 3) subsections 3511(b)(2) and (b)(3) were unconstitutional to the extent that a governmental official’s certification that disclosure may endanger the national security of the U.S. or interfere with diplomatic relations was treated as conclusive; and 4! ) district court’s injunction is modified by limiting it to enjoining FBI officials from enforcing the nondisclosure requirement of section 2709(c) in the absence of Government-initiated judicial review.

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

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, December 11, 2008 Dutil v. Murphy, No. 06-2292 The text of the Massachusetts SDP statute, as interpreted by state courts, does not on its face violate the due process protections heretofore afforded sexually dangerous persons subject to civil commitment. Appellant’s due process rights are not violated by the statute’s failure to provide an unambiguous timeline for a redetermination of his sexual dangerousness. .

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, December 11, 2008 Broadley v. Hardman, No. 08-1342 Absent any allegation that state officials were used to enforce the process, Defendant was not transformed into a state actor for section 1983 purposes when he issued a subpoena commanding the Plaintiff to appear at a pretrial deposition, even though the subpoena was issued in his capacity as a notary public and in the name of the state of Rhode Island.

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

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, November 26, 2008 Estate of Bennett, No. 072169 In a suit against defendant-police officers for the shooting death of decedent following gunfire initiated by decedent, judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly granted defendant-officer’s motion to dismiss where the estate failed to show a deprivation of a protected interest in life, liberty, or property; 2) the district court did not err in dismissal by judgment on the pleadings because plaintiff-estate did not meet its pleading requirements, plaintiff-estate waived its equal protection claim, and there was no property interest that was allegedly taken to support the takings claim; and 3) grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants was proper.

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, November 24, 2008 In reTerrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa, No. 011535, 011550, 011553, 011571, 056149, 056704 Judgments of convictions for offenses arising from involvement in an international conspiracy, led by Osama Bin Laden and organized through the al Qaeda terrorist network, to kill American citizens and destroy American facilities across the globe are affirmed and remanded for re-sentencing where: 1) the indictment was sufficient to support a conviction of a capital offense; 2) sufficient evidence supported the convictions; 3) the District Court’s application of the Classified Information Procedures Act did not violate the Constitution; 4) a severance motion was properly denied; 5) statements of co-defendants, co-conspirators, and certain third parties were properly admitted at trial; 6) the government withheld exculpatory evidence; 7) there was no merit in co-defendant’s suggestion that “cumulative error” deprived him of a fair trial; and 8) the application of certain enhancements to co-defendant’s sentencing guidelines calculation was not in error. Insofar as co-defendant’s! sentence resulted from the mandatory application of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, he is entitled to be resentenced pursuant to U.S. v. Fagans, 406 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2005). R

November 10 – 14, 2008.

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

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, November 10, 2008 Giragosian v. Ryan, No. 081067 In a claim by plaintiff gun shop owner against chief of police and town for revocation and forfeiture of plaintiff’s licenses to carry and sell firearms, defendants’ motion to dismiss is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff’s section 1983 claims against defendants are barred by the doctrine of res judicata on the basis of claim preclusion; and 2) the district court did not improperly convert plaintiff’s motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.

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

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, November 05, 2008 Parker v. Gerrish, No. 081045 In a claim that defendant-police officer violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights by using his Taser during the course of arrest, verdict in favor of plaintiff and compensatory damage award of $111,000, are affirmed over claims of error that: 1) defendant was entitled to qualified immunity; and 2) the district court’s answer to a jury was responsible for an inappropriate damages award.

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, November 07, 2008 Choose Life Illinois, Inc. v. White, No. 07-1349 In a suit by an interest group seeking on First Amendment grounds to force the state of Illinois to issue “Choose Life” specialty license plates, judgment in favor of plaintiffs is reversed where: 1) specialty license plates implicate the speech rights of private speakers, not government speech; 2) specialty plates are a nonpublic forum; and 3) the state could enforce a content-based but viewpoint-neutral ban disallowing any abortion-related message, whether pro-life or pro-choice, to be displayed on its license plates.