Justia U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Virginia drivers whose licenses were suspended for failing to pay court fines challenged the constitutionality of the statute under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The District Court granted a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of the statute. Before the case reached final judgment, the Virginia General Assembly repealed the statute, requiring reinstatement of the suspended licenses. The parties agreed to dismiss the case as moot.The District Court declined to award attorney’s fees to the drivers under §1988(b), reasoning that obtaining a preliminary injunction did not qualify them as “prevailing parties.” A Fourth Circuit panel affirmed this decision, but the Fourth Circuit en banc reversed, holding that some preliminary injunctions can provide lasting, merits-based relief, qualifying plaintiffs as prevailing parties even if the case becomes moot before final judgment.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that the drivers, who only obtained preliminary injunctive relief before the action became moot, do not qualify as “prevailing parties” eligible for attorney’s fees under §1988(b). The Court reasoned that no court conclusively resolved their claims by granting enduring judicial relief on the merits that materially altered the legal relationship between the parties. The judgment of the Fourth Circuit was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Lackey v. Stinnie" on Justia Law

In 1997, Justin Sneed murdered Barry Van Treese at an Oklahoma hotel managed by Richard Glossip. Sneed claimed Glossip orchestrated the murder to steal Van Treese's money. Glossip denied involvement but was convicted and sentenced to death based on Sneed's testimony. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) overturned the initial conviction due to ineffective defense counsel but upheld a second conviction despite inconsistencies in Sneed's testimony and new evidence suggesting prosecutorial misconduct.The OCCA initially reversed Glossip's conviction due to ineffective assistance of counsel but affirmed his second conviction, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence to support Sneed's testimony. Glossip's subsequent habeas petitions were unsuccessful. An independent investigation commissioned by Oklahoma legislators raised doubts about the conviction, revealing prosecutorial misconduct, including the destruction of evidence and false portrayal of Sneed. The State disclosed previously withheld documents, including evidence of Sneed's bipolar disorder and false testimony about his lithium prescription.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case, focusing on whether the prosecution violated its constitutional obligation to correct false testimony under Napue v. Illinois. The Court found that the prosecution knowingly allowed Sneed to falsely testify about his lithium prescription and failed to correct it. This false testimony was material, as Sneed's credibility was crucial to Glossip's conviction. The Court held that the prosecution's failure to correct the false testimony violated Glossip's due process rights, warranting a new trial. The judgment of the OCCA was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Glossip v. Oklahoma" on Justia Law

Several unemployed workers in Alabama applied for unemployment benefits and claimed that the Alabama Department of Labor unlawfully delayed processing their claims. They sued the Alabama Secretary of Labor in state court under 42 U.S.C. §1983, arguing that the delays violated their due process and federal statutory rights. They sought a court order to expedite the processing of their claims. The Secretary moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the claimants had not satisfied the administrative-exhaustion requirement under Alabama law. The state trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint.The claimants appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court, which affirmed the dismissal on the grounds of failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court concluded that §1983 did not preempt the state's administrative-exhaustion requirement, effectively preventing the claimants from suing to expedite the administrative process until they had completed it.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that state courts may not deny §1983 claims on failure-to-exhaust grounds when the application of a state exhaustion requirement effectively immunizes state officials from such claims. The Court reasoned that Alabama's exhaustion requirement, as applied, prevented claimants from challenging delays in the administrative process, thus immunizing state officials from §1983 suits. The Court reversed the Alabama Supreme Court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Williams v. Reed" on Justia Law

The case involves the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, and its laws restricting public camping. The city's laws prohibit activities such as camping on public property or parking overnight in the city’s parks. Violations can result in fines and, in the case of multiple violations, imprisonment. A group of homeless individuals filed a class action lawsuit against the city, arguing that these ordinances violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The district court agreed with the plaintiffs, citing a previous Ninth Circuit decision, Martin v. Boise, which held that cities cannot enforce public camping ordinances against homeless individuals when the number of homeless individuals exceeds the number of available shelter beds.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, leading to the city's appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision, holding that the enforcement of laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the Eighth Amendment focuses on the punishment a government may impose after a criminal conviction, not on whether a government may criminalize particular behavior in the first place. The Court also noted that the punishments imposed by the city of Grants Pass, such as fines and temporary bans from public parks, did not qualify as cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "City of Grants Pass v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The case involves two states and five individual social media users who sued several federal officials and agencies, alleging that the government pressured social media platforms to censor their speech in violation of the First Amendment. The plaintiffs' speech was related to COVID-19 and the 2020 election. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction, which was affirmed in part and reversed in part by the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit held that both the state and individual plaintiffs had standing to seek injunctive relief and that the government entities and officials, by coercing or significantly encouraging the platforms’ moderation decisions, transformed those decisions into state action.The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the Fifth Circuit's decision, holding that neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established Article III standing to seek an injunction against any defendant. The Court found that the plaintiffs' theories of standing depended on the platforms’ actions, yet the plaintiffs did not seek to enjoin the platforms from restricting any posts or accounts. Instead, they sought to enjoin the Government agencies and officials from pressuring or encouraging the platforms to suppress protected speech in the future. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs must show a substantial risk that, in the near future, at least one platform will restrict the speech of at least one plaintiff in response to the actions of at least one Government defendant. The Court found that the plaintiffs failed to meet this burden. View "Murthy v. Missouri" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between Jascha Chiaverini, a jewelry store owner, and police officers from Napoleon, Ohio. The officers charged Chiaverini with three crimes: receiving stolen property, dealing in precious metals without a license, both misdemeanors, and money laundering, a felony. After obtaining a warrant, the police arrested Chiaverini and detained him for three days. However, county prosecutors later dropped the case. Chiaverini, believing that his arrest and detention were unjustified, sued the officers, alleging a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983. To win this claim, he had to show that the officers brought criminal charges against him without probable cause, leading to an unreasonable seizure of his person.The District Court granted summary judgment to the officers, and the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The Court of Appeals held that Chiaverini’s prosecution was supported by probable cause. In its decision, the court did not address whether the officers had probable cause to bring the money-laundering charge. The court believed that there was clearly probable cause to charge Chiaverini with the two misdemeanors. As long as one charge was supported by probable cause, it thought, a malicious-prosecution claim based on any other charge must fail.The Supreme Court of the United States held that the presence of probable cause for one charge in a criminal proceeding does not categorically defeat a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim relating to another, baseless charge. The parties, and the United States as amicus curiae, all agreed with this conclusion, which follows from both the Fourth Amendment and traditional common-law practice. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon" on Justia Law

Sylvia Gonzalez, a city council member in Castle Hills, Texas, was involved in a campaign to remove the city manager, Ryan Rapelye. She gathered signatures for a petition, which was introduced at a city council meeting. After the meeting, the mayor, Edward Trevino, II, asked Gonzalez for the petition. Gonzalez found the petition in her binder, which she claimed was unintentional. Trevino reported this to the city police, leading to an investigation. A private attorney concluded that Gonzalez likely violated a Texas anti-tampering statute, leading to her arrest. The charges were later dismissed, but Gonzalez claimed this incident led her to step away from politics.Gonzalez filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 in Federal District Court against Trevino, the police chief, and the private attorney, alleging that her arrest was in retaliation for her role in the petition and violated her First Amendment rights. The District Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, finding that it fell within an exception to the no-probable-cause rule recognized in Nieves. However, the Fifth Circuit reversed this decision, stating that Gonzalez's claim could only fall within the Nieves exception if she provided "comparative evidence" of similarly situated individuals who engaged in the same criminal conduct but were not arrested.The Supreme Court of the United States disagreed with the Fifth Circuit's interpretation of the Nieves exception. The Court found that the Fifth Circuit's requirement for specific comparator evidence was overly restrictive. The Court clarified that to fall within the Nieves exception, a plaintiff must produce objective evidence to prove that his arrest occurred in circumstances where officers typically exercise their discretion not to make arrests. The Court held that Gonzalez's evidence, showing that no one had ever been arrested for similar conduct, was a permissible type of evidence. The Court vacated the Fifth Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Gonzalez v. Trevino" on Justia Law

The case involves the National Rifle Association (NRA) and Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS). The NRA alleged that Vullo violated their First Amendment rights by pressuring regulated entities to disassociate from the NRA and other gun-promotion advocacy groups. The NRA claimed that Vullo threatened enforcement actions against those entities that refused to disassociate, thereby stifling the NRA's pro-gun advocacy.The District Court initially denied Vullo's motion to dismiss the NRA's First Amendment damages claims, holding that the NRA plausibly alleged that Vullo's actions could be interpreted as a veiled threat to regulated industries to disassociate with the NRA or risk DFS enforcement action. However, the Second Circuit reversed this decision, concluding that Vullo's alleged actions constituted permissible government speech and legitimate law enforcement, not unconstitutional coercion. The Second Circuit also held that even if the complaint stated a First Amendment violation, the law was not clearly established, and so Vullo was entitled to qualified immunity.The Supreme Court of the United States, however, vacated the judgment of the Second Circuit. The Supreme Court held that the NRA plausibly alleged that Vullo violated the First Amendment by coercing DFS-regulated entities to terminate their business relationships with the NRA in order to punish or suppress the NRA's advocacy. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed a case involving the redrawing of congressional districts in South Carolina following the 2020 Census. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and a voter from District 1 challenged the new map, alleging that it resulted in racial gerrymanders in certain districts and diluted the electoral power of the state's black voters. The District Court held that the state drew District 1 with a 17% black voting-age population target in mind, violating the Equal Protection Clause and unlawfully diluting the black vote.The Supreme Court disagreed with the District Court's findings. The Court found that the District Court erred in its conclusion that race predominated in the design of District 1. The Court noted that the challengers did not provide sufficient evidence to show that the legislature subordinated traditional race-neutral districting principles to racial considerations. The Court also criticized the District Court for not drawing an adverse inference from the challengers' failure to submit an alternative map that would have allowed the state to achieve its districting goals while maintaining a higher black voting-age population in District 1.The Supreme Court reversed the District Court's decision in part and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court concluded that the same findings of fact and reasoning that guided the court's racial-gerrymandering analysis also guided the analysis of the challengers' independent vote-dilution claim, and that conclusion also could not stand. The Court found that the District Court erred in conflating the two claims. View "Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP" on Justia Law

The case involves two petitioners, Halima Culley and Lena Sutton, who loaned their cars to others who were subsequently arrested for drug-related offenses. The cars were seized under Alabama's civil forfeiture law, which allowed for the seizure of a car "incident to an arrest" as long as the state promptly initiated a forfeiture case. The State of Alabama filed forfeiture complaints against the cars 10 and 13 days after their seizure, respectively. While the forfeiture proceedings were pending, Culley and Sutton each filed purported class-action complaints in federal court, claiming that state officials violated their due process rights by retaining their cars during the forfeiture process without holding preliminary hearings.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the petitioners' claims, holding that a timely forfeiture hearing affords claimants due process and that no separate preliminary hearing is constitutionally required. The petitioners argued that the Due Process Clause requires a separate preliminary hearing before the forfeiture hearing.The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the Eleventh Circuit's decision. The Court held that in civil forfeiture cases involving personal property, the Due Process Clause requires a timely forfeiture hearing but does not require a separate preliminary hearing. The Court's decision was based on its precedents, which established that a timely forfeiture hearing satisfies due process in civil forfeiture cases. The Court also noted that historical practice reinforces its conclusion that due process does not require preliminary hearings in civil forfeiture cases. View "Culley v. Marshall" on Justia Law