Justia U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Gilbert, Arizona prohibits the display of outdoor signs without a permit, but exempts 23 categories. “Ideological Signs,” “communicating a message or ideas” that do not fit in any other category, may be up to 20 square feet and have no placement or time restrictions. “Political Signs,” may be up to 32 square feet and may only be displayed during an election season. “Temporary Directional Signs,” directing the public to a church or other “qualifying event,” are limited to six square feet and may be displayed no more than 12 hours before and one hour after the “qualifying event.” The Church held services at various temporary locations. It posted signs early each Saturday bearing its name and the time and location of the next service and did not remove the signs until midday Sunday. It was cited for exceeding the time limits and for failing to include an event date. The Ninth Circuit upheld the sign categories as content neutral , surviving intermediate scrutiny. The Supreme Court reversed. The code is content-based on its face. It defines categories of temporary, political, and ideological signs on the basis of their messages and subjects each category to different restrictions. A law that is content-based on its face is subject to strict scrutiny regardless of benign motive, content-neutral justification, or lack of “animus toward the ideas contained.” While the law does not single out any viewpoint, the First Amendment’s hostility to content-based regulation extends to prohibition of public discussion of an entire topic. The code singles out specific subject matter, even if it does not target viewpoints within that subject matter. The restrictions do not survive strict scrutiny; the town has not demonstrated that differentiation between temporary directional signs and other signs furthers a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to that end. View "Reed v. Town of Gilbert" on Justia Law

Texas automobile owners can choose between general-issue and specialty license plates. People can propose a specialty plate design, with a slogan, a graphic, or both. If the Department of Motor Vehicles Board approves the design, the state makes it available. The Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) claimed that rejection of SCV’s proposal for a specialty plate design featuring a Confederate flag violated the Free Speech Clause. The Fifth Circuit held that Texas’s specialty license plate designs were private speech and that the Board engaged in constitutionally forbidden viewpoint discrimination. The Supreme Court reversed. Texas’s specialty license plate designs constitute government speech. When government speaks, it is not barred from determining the content of what it says; it is generally entitled to promote a program, espouse a policy, or take a position. States have long used license plates to convey government speech, e.g., slogans urging action and touting local industries and license plate designs are often closely identified in the public mind with the state. Plates serve the governmental purposes of vehicle registration and identification and are, essentially, government IDs. Texas maintains direct control over the messages conveyed on its specialty plates. Forum analysis, which applies to government restrictions on purely private speech occurring on government property, is not appropriate when the state is speaking on its own behalf. That private parties take part in the design and pay for specialty plates does not transform the government’s role into that of a mere forum provider. The Court acknowledged that the First Amendment stringently limits state authority to compel a private party to express a view with which the private party disagrees. Just as Texas cannot require SCV to convey the state’s ideological message, SCV cannot dictate design. View "Walker v. Tex. Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc." on Justia Law

Din petitioned to have her husband, Berashk, a resident citizen of Afghanistan and former civil servant in the Taliban regime, classified as an “immediate relative” entitled to priority immigration status. Din’s petition was approved, but Berashk’s visa application was ultimately denied. A consular officer informed Berashk that he was inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B), which excludes aliens who have engaged in “[t]errorist activities,” but provided no further information. Unable to obtain a more detailed explanation, Din filed suit. The district court dismissed her complaint. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that Din had a protected liberty interest in her marriage that entitled her to review of the denial of Berashk’s visa and that the government deprived her of that liberty interest without due process when it denied Berashk’s visa application without providing a more detailed explanation of its reasons. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded, with Justices Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas concluding that the government did not deprive Din of any constitutional right entitling her to due process of law. Justices Kennedy and Alito found no need to decide whether Din had a protected liberty interest, because, even assuming she did, the notice she received satisfied due process. View "Kerry v. Din" on Justia Law

Zivotofsky was born to U.S. citizens living in Jerusalem. Under the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, 2003, 116 Stat. 1350, his mother asked Embassy officials to list his place of birth as “Israel” on his passport. Section 214(d) of the Act states for “purposes of the registration of birth, certification of nationality, or issuance of a passport of a United States citizen born in the city of Jerusalem, the Secretary shall, upon the request … record the place of birth as Israel.” Embassy officials refused to list Zivotofsky’s place of birth as “Israel,” citing the Executive Branch’s position that the U.S. does not recognize any country as having sovereignty over Jerusalem. The D. C. Circuit held the statute unconstitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed. The President has the exclusive power to grant formal recognition to a foreign sovereign. The Court cited the Reception Clause, which directs that the President “shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers,” and the President’s additional Article II powers, to negotiate treaties and to nominate the Nation’s ambassadors and dispatch other diplomatic agents. The Constitution assigns the President, not Congress, means to effect recognition on his own initiative. The Nation must “speak . . . with one voice” regarding which governments are legitimate in the eyes of the United States and which are not, and only the Executive has the characteristic of unity at all times. If Congress may not pass a law, speaking in its own voice, effecting formal recognition, then it may not force the President, through section 214(d), to contradict his prior recognition determination in an official document issued by the Secretary of State. View "Zivotofsky v. Kerry" on Justia Law

Elonis used the Web site Facebook to post lyrics containing graphically violent language and imagery concerning his wife, co-workers, children, and law enforcement, interspersed with disclaimers that the lyrics were “fictitious” and that Elonis was exercising his First Amendment rights. His boss fired him. His wife obtained an order of protection. Elonis’s former employer contacted the FBI. The agency monitored Elonis’s Facebook activity and charged him under 18 U.S.C. 875(c), which makes it a crime to transmit in interstate commerce “any communication containing any threat . . . to injure the person of another.” Elonis requested a jury instruction that the government was required to prove that he intended to communicate a “true threat.” The district court told the jury that Elonis could be found guilty if a reasonable person would foresee that his statements would be interpreted as a threat. Elonis was convicted. The Third Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded. The instruction, requiring only negligence with respect to communication of a threat, is not sufficient to support conviction under Section 875(c). Mere omission from a criminal enactment of any mention of criminal intent does not eliminate that requirement. Wrongdoing must be conscious to be criminal. This does not mean that a defendant must know that his conduct is illegal, but a defendant must have knowledge of “the facts that make his conduct fit the definition of the offense.” In some cases, a general requirement that a defendant act knowingly is sufficient, but where such a requirement would not protect an innocent actor, the statute must be read to require specific intent. The crucial element separating legal innocence from wrongful conduct under Section 875(c) is the threatening nature of the communication, so the mental state requirement must apply to the fact that the communication contains a threat. The requirement is satisfied if the defendant transmits a communication for the purpose of issuing a threat or with knowledge that the communication will be viewed as a threat. The Court did not address whether a mental state of recklessness would also suffice or First Amendment issues. View "Elonis v. United States" on Justia Law

Abercrombie refused to hire Elauf, a practicing Muslim, because the headscarf that she wore pursuant to her religious obligations conflicted with Abercrombie’s employee dress policy. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit, alleging violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits a prospective employer from refusing to hire an applicant because of the applicant’s religious practice when the practice could be accommodated without undue hardship. The EEOC prevailed in the district court. The Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that failure-to-accommodate liability attaches only when the applicant provides the employer with actual knowledge of his need for an accommodation. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded. Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision requires Elauf to show that Abercrombie “fail[ed] . . . to hire” her “because of ” “[her] religion” (including a religious practice), 42 U.S.C. 2000e–2(a)(1). Rather than imposing a knowledge standard, the statute prohibits certain motives, regardless of the state of the actor’s knowledge. An employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions. Title VII allows failure-to-accommodate challenges to be brought as disparate-treatment claims and gives favored treatment to religious practices, rather than demanding that religious practices be treated no worse than other practices. View "Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

Barkes was arrested in 2004, for violating probation, and taken to a Wilmington Delaware Correctional Institution. During intake, a nurse who worked for the contractor providing healthcare at the Institution conducted a suicide screening, based on a model form developed by the National Commission on Correctional Health Care in 1997. Barkes disclosed that he had a history of psychiatric treatment and was on medication and that he had attempted suicide in 2003, but stated that he was not currently thinking about killing himself. Because only two risk factors were apparent, the nurse gave Barkes a “routine” referral to mental health services and did not initiate special suicide prevention measures. Barkes was placed in a cell by himself. He called his wife and told her that he was going to kill himself; she did not inform the Institution of this call. The next morning, correctional officers observed Barkes behaving normally at 10:45, 10:50, and 11:00 a.m. At 11:35 a.m., an officer discovered that Barkes had hanged himself with a sheet. His wife sued officials, alleging violation of Barkes’s constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, by failing to supervise and monitor the private contractor. The Third Circuit held that it was clearly established that an incarcerated individual had an Eighth Amendment “right to the proper implementation of adequate suicide prevention protocols” and that there were material factual disputes. There was evidence that the screening process did not comply with NCCHC’s latest standards, as required by contract. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed, finding that the officials were entitled to qualified immunity. No Supreme Court precedent establishes a right to proper implementation of adequate suicide prevention protocols; appellate authority in 2004 suggested that such a right did not exist. Even if the Institution’s suicide screening and prevention measures had the alleged shortcomings, no precedent would have made clear to the officials that they were overseeing a system that violated the Constitution. View "Taylor v. Barkes" on Justia Law

Sharif tried to discharge a debt to Wellness in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Wellness argued that a trust Sharif claimed to administer was actually Sharif’s alter ego, and that its assets were part of his bankruptcy estate. The Bankruptcy Court entered default judgment against Sharif. While appeal was pending, but before briefing concluded, the Supreme Court held (Stern v. Marshall) that Article III forbids bankruptcy courts to enter final judgment on claims that seek only to “augment” the bankruptcy estate and would otherwise “exis[t] without regard to any bankruptcy proceeding.” The district court denied Sharif permission to file a supplemental brief and affirmed. The Seventh Circuit determined that Sharif’s “Stern” objection could not be waived and reversed, holding that the Bankruptcy Court lacked constitutional authority to enter judgment on the alter ego claim. The Supreme Court reversed. Article III permits bankruptcy judges to adjudicate Stern claims with the parties’ knowing and voluntary consent. The right to adjudication before an Article III court is “personal” and “subject to waiver,” unless Article III’s structural interests as “an inseparable element of the constitutional system of checks and balances” are implicated; parties “cannot by consent cure the constitutional difficulty.” Allowing bankruptcy courts to decide Stern claims by consent does not usurp the constitutional prerogatives of Article III courts. Bankruptcy judges are appointed and may be removed by Article III judges, hear matters solely on a district court’s reference, and possess no free-floating authority to decide claims traditionally heard by Article III courts. Consent to adjudication by a bankruptcy court need not be express, but must be knowing and voluntary. The Seventh Circuit should decide on remand whether Sharif’s actions evinced the requisite knowing and voluntary consent and whether Sharif forfeited his Stern argument. View "Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif" on Justia Law

Sheehan lived in a group home for individuals with mental illness. After Sheehan threatened to kill her social worker, San Francisco dispatched officers to escort Sheehan to a facility for evaluation and treatment. When the officers entered Sheehan’s room, she grabbed a knife and threatened them. They retreated and closed the door. Concerned about what Sheehan might do, and without considering whether they could accommodate her disability, the officers reentered. Sheehan, knife in hand, again confronted them. After pepper spray proved ineffective, the officers shot Sheehan multiple times. Sheehan sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12132 and 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Ninth Circuit held that the ADA applied and that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. The Supreme Court dismissed certiorari as to whether the ADA “requires law enforcement officers to provide accommodations to an armed, violent, and mentally ill suspect in the course of bringing the suspect into custody,” because, instead of arguing that the ADA does not apply when an officer faces an armed and dangerous individual, San Francisco argued only that Sheehan was not “qualified” for an accommodation, because she “pose[d] a direct threat to the health or safety of others,” which could not “be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services.” The lower courts did not address that question. The officers are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for injuries suffered by Sheehan. Their use of force was also reasonable. Any Fourth Amendment right involving accommodation of a disability, even assuming it exists, was not clearly established. View "City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. Sheehan" on Justia Law

After being charged with the felony offense of distributing marijuana, Henderson was required, as a condition of bail, to turn over firearms that he lawfully owned. Henderson pleaded guilty, and, as a felon, was prohibited under 18 U.S.C. 922(g) from possessing any firearms. Henderson asked the FBI, which had custody of his firearms, to transfer them to his friend. The agency refused. The district court reasoned that Henderson’s requested transfer would give him constructive possession of the firearms. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The unanimous Supreme Court vacated: A court-ordered transfer of a felon’s lawfully owned firearms from government custody to a third party is not barred by section 922(g) if the court is satisfied that the recipient will not give the felon control over the firearms, so that he could either use them or direct their use. The government’s view conflated possession, which section 922(g) prohibits, with an owner’s right to alienate his property, which it does not. The Court stated that a felon may select a firearms dealer or third party to sell his guns; a court, with proper assurances from the recipient, may also grant a felon’s request to transfer his guns to a person who expects to maintain custody of them. View "Henderson v. United States" on Justia Law