Areas of Constitutional Law (US)

PC § 1170(b)(3) and Sixth Amendment Right to a Jury Trial–Circumstances in Aggravation Based on Certified Records of Prior Convictions, Beyond Bare Fact of Convictions

Did the sentencing court’s consideration of circumstances in aggravation based on certified records of prior convictions, beyond the bare fact of the convictions, violate Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b)(3) or defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial? Held:  Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, held that a defendant is entitled to have a jury determine whether…

Case: People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069
Case Number: S283326/A165613
Updated: 20250626
Read more

Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to a 12-person jury.

Whether Petitioner was derived of his right, under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, to a trial by a 12-person jury when the defendant is charged with a serious felony?

Case: Kian v. Florida (2025) 421 So.3d 439, cert. granted 6/15/2026
Case Number: 25-6623
Updated: 20260615
Read more

Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15s.

Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. Certiorari was also granted on this question in Grant v. Higgins, USSC case no. 25-566.

Case: Viramontes v. Cook County (7th Cir. 2025) 24-1437, cert. granted 6/30/2026
Case Number: 25-238
Updated: 20260630
Read more

Whether the court of appeal may consider post-trial evidence in determining prejudice?

Whether the Court of Appeal improperly analyzed evidence which was not presented to the jury in determining whether error under Giglio v. United States (1972) 405 U. S. 150, was prejudicial? Held: The Court of Appeal should not have considered post-trial DNA evidence in assessing whether the state supreme court reasonably determined that a federal error was nonprejudicial. The circuit court…

Case: Whitton v. Dixon (2026) 608 U. S. __ [146 S.Ct. 1368]
Case Number: 25-580
Updated: 20260601
Read more

Whether federal relief was available under Seibert for failure to instruct a jury that it may evaluate the lawfulness of a defendant’s admitted confession?

Whether the federal circuit court improperly granted habeas relief under Missouri v. Seibert (2004) 542 U. S. 600? Held: Federal habeas petition improperly granted because defendants have no clearly established federal right to have a jury evaluate the lawfulness of a defendant's confessions after the trial court admitted the confession under Miranda or Seibert. Seibert held unconstitutional the interrogation tactic under…

Case: McCarthy v. Hernandez (2026) 608 U.S. __ [146 S.Ct. 1873]
Case Number: 25-748
Updated: 20260622
Read more

Second Amendment – prohibition of firearms by licensed carriers on private property open to the public.

Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, in direct conflict with the Second Circuit, that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier? Held:  Hawaii’s law prohibiting licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on…

Case: Wolford v. Lopez (2026) 609 U.S. __ [146 S.Ct. 2032]
Case Number: 24-01046
Updated: 20251003
Read more

Constitutional exceptions to appeal waivers

1. Whether the only permissible exceptions to a general appeal waiver are for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or that the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum. 2. Whether an appeal waiver applies when the sentencing judge advises the defendant that he has a right to appeal and the government does not object. Held: An appeal waiver is unenforceable when…

Case: Hunter v. United States (2026) 608 U.S. __ [146 S.Ct. 1702]
Case Number: 24-1063
Updated: 20260618
Read more

Second amendment – prohibition of possession of a firearm by an unlawful user of controlled substances

Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), the federal statute that prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who "is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance," violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent. Held:  The government’s prosecution of Mr. Hemani under §922(g)(3)’s unlawful user provision is inconsistent with the Second Amendment. Hemani surrendered a gun he kept…

Case: United States v. Hemani (2026) 608 U.S. __ [146 S.Ct. 1677]
Case Number: 24-01234
Updated: 20260618
Read more

Peremptory challenges under Batson

Whether, under the standards set forth in AEDPA, 28 U.S.C. §2254(d), the Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably determined that petitioner waived his right to rebut the prosecutor's asserted race-neutral reasons for exercising peremptory strikes against four black jurors. Held:  The Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably applied the clearly established Batson precedents and unreasonably determined that Pitchford waived his opportunity to rebut the…

Case: Pitchford v. Cain (2026) 608 U.S. __ [146 S.Ct. 1345]
Case Number: 24-7351
Updated: 20260528
Read more

How multiple I.Q. scores may impact a claim of intellectual disability.

Whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins claim. [Editor's Note: In Atkins v. Virginia (2002) 536 U.S. 304, the USSC held that executing a person with an intellectual disability was excessive punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.] Held: "The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted." This case was dismissed on…

Case: Hamm v. Smith
Case Number: 24-872
Updated: 20260521
Read more

Whether Victim Restitution is Penal for Purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause

Whether criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act is penal for purposes of the Constitution’s ex post facto clause, which prohibits laws that retroactively increase the punishment for a crime or criminalize conduct that was legal when it occurred. The act extended the time period for which defendants were required to make restitution payment and added interest assessments. Held:…

Case: Ellingburg v. United States (2026) 607 U.S. 163 [146 S.Ct. 564]
Case Number: 24-482
Updated: 20260120
Read more

Sixth Amendment – May a Trial Court Prohibit Defendant and Counsel from Discussing Defendant’s Testimony During an Overnight Recess.

Whether a trial court abridges a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendant’s testimony during an overnight recess. Held:  A qualified conferral order that prohibits only discussion of the defendant’s testimony for its own sake during a midtestimony overnight recess permissibly balances the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel against…

Case: Villarreal v. Texas (2026) 607 U.S. 465 [146 S.Ct. 756]
Case Number: 24-557
Updated: 20260225
Read more

First Amendment – Is a provision that criminalizes the failure to use a care facility resident’s preferred name unconstitutional?

Did the Court of Appeal err in declaring the provision of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Long-Term Care Facility Residents’ Bill of Rights (Health & Saf. Code, § 1439.51) that criminalizes the willful and repeated failure to use a resident’s chosen name and pronouns unconstitutional on its face under the First Amendment? Held: [1] The present version of…

Case: Taking Offense v. State of California (2025) 18 Cal.5th 891
Case Number: S270535/C088485
Updated: 20251125
Read more

Whether state habeas procedures procedurally barred the Court from reviewing a Napue error?

This case presents the following questions: 1. a. Whether the State's suppression of the key prosecution witness's admission he was under the care of a psychiatrist and failure to correct that witness's false testimony about that care and related diagnosis violate the due process of law. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264…

Case: Glossip v. Oklahoma (2025) 604 U.S. 226 [145 S.Ct. 612]
Case Number: 22-7466
Updated: 20250225
Read more

Admissibility of statements obtained through a Perkins operation after defendant invoked right to remain silent.

This case presents the following issues: (1) If a defendant has invoked his right to remain silent while being interrogated by a law enforcement officer, are incriminating statements obtained through a subsequent Perkins operation (i.e., the use of an undercover agent to question a jailed defendant) admissible as substantive proof of the defendant’s guilt at trial? (See Illinois v. Perkins…

Case: People v. Allen (July 22, 2004, B328333) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 11/20/2023
Case Number: S286520/B328333
Updated: 20260812
Read more

Admission of Evidence and the Confrontation Clause

Whether, or under what circumstances, a criminal defendant who opens the door to responsive evidence also forfeits his right to exclude evidence otherwise barred by the Confrontation Clause.  In 2006, a stray 9-millimeter bullet killed a 2-year-old child in the Bronx. The State charged Nicholas Morris with the murder, but after trial commenced, it offered him a plea deal for…

Case: Hemphill v. New York (2022) __ U.S.__ [142 S.Ct. 681]
Case Number: 20-637
Updated: 20220120
Read more

Whether Prosecution Expert is Permitted to Convey Testimonial Statements of Nontestifying Forensic Analyst Under Certain Conditions

Whether the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment permits the prosecution in a criminal trial to present testimony by a substitute expert conveying the testimonial statements of a non-testifying forensic analyst, on the grounds that (a) the testifying expert offers some independent opinion and the analyst’s statements are offered not for their truth but to explain the expert’s opinion, and…

Case: Smith v. Arizona (2024) 602 U.S. 779 [219 L.Ed.2d 420]
Case Number: 22-899
Updated: 20240621
Read more

Whether Jury Must Find Defendant’s Prior Convictions Were “Committed on Occasions Different from One Another”

Whether the Constitution requires a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt to find that a defendant’s prior convictions were “committed on occasions different from one another,” as is necessary to impose an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). Held: The Sixth Amendment requires jury determination by proof beyond a reasonable doubt of…

Case: Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821 [219 L.Ed.2d 451]
Case Number: 23-370
Updated: 20240621
Read more

Second Amendment Right for Ordinary Law-Abiding Citizens to Carry Handguns Outside the Home for Self-Defense

New York prohibits its ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying a handgun outside the home without a license, and it denies licenses to every citizen who fails to convince the state that he or she has “proper cause” to carry a firearm. In District of Columbia v. Heller, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects “the individual right to possess…

Case: N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022) 597 U.S. 1 [142 S.Ct. 2111]
Case Number: 20-843
Updated: 20220623
Read more

Is Unsuccessful Attempt to Detain Suspect by Use of Physical Force a “Seizure”

Police officers shot Petitioner, but she drove away and temporarily eluded capture. In this excessive force suit, the district court granted summary judgment for the officers on the ground that no Fourth Amendment “seizure” occurred. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that an officer’s application of physical force is not a seizure if the person upon whom the force is applied…

Case: Torres v. Madrid (2021) __ U.S. __ [141 S.Ct. 989].
Case Number: 19-292
Updated: 20210325
Read more

Test to Determine Whether the Due Process Clause Requires a State or Local Government to Provide a Post Seizure Probable Cause Hearing Before Forfeiture Proceeding

In determining whether the Due Process Clause requires a state or local government to provide a post seizure probable cause hearing prior to a statutory judicial forfeiture proceeding and, if so, when such a hearing must take place, should district courts apply the “speedy trial” test employed in United States v. $8,850, 461 U.S. 555 (1983) and Barker v. Wingo,…

Case: Culley v. Marshall (2024) 601 U.S. 377 [218 L.Ed.2d 372]
Case Number: 22-585
Updated: 20240509
Read more

Whether Prohibiting Possession of Firearms by Persons Subject to Domestic-Violence Restraining Order Violates Second Amendment

Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face. Held: In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court upholds a federal law prohibiting individuals subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing firearms. The analysis of a law burdening the Second Amendment right must consider…

Case: U.S. v. Rahimi (2024) 602 U.S. 680 [219 L.Ed.2d 351]
Case Number: 22-915
Updated: 20240621
Read more

Proper Remedy for Government’s Failure to Prove Venue

Whether the proper remedy for the government’s failure to prove venue is an acquittal barring re-prosecution of the offense, as the Fifth and Eighth Circuits have held, or whether instead the government may re-try the defendant for the same offense in a different venue, as the Sixth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have held. The U.S. Constitution permits retrial when…

Case: Smith v. United States (2023) 599 U.S. 236 [143 S.Ct. 1594]
Case Number: 21–1576
Updated: 20230615
Read more

Whether the Trial Court’s Failure to Appoint Substitute Counsel Deprived Defendant of the Effective Assistance of Counsel

Did the trial court deprive defendant of effective assistance of counsel by failing to appoint substitute counsel to evaluate and potentially argue defendant’s pro. per. motion to dismiss after appointed counsel refused to consider the motion based on an asserted conflict in arguing her own ineffective assistance of counsel? Held: In 2007, defendant Ishmael Michael Carter was committed to Coalinga…

Case: People v. Carter (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1092
Case Number: S278262/C094949
Updated: 20230520
Read more

Level of Scrutiny for Determination of SVPA Equal Protection Violation

What level of scrutiny applies in determining whether the Sexually Violent Predator Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.) violates equal protection because it does not require an advisement or personal waiver of a jury trial as afforded in other civil commitment statutes? Held: Equal protection challenges to SVP jury demand and waiver procedures are evaluated under a…

Case: People v. Cannon (2025) 18 Cal.5th 497
Case Number: S277995/A163083
Updated: 20250818
Read more

Confrontation Clause–Admitting Codefendant’s Redacted Confession that Inculpates a Defendant

Whether admitting a codefendant's redacted out-of-court confession that immediately inculpates a defendant based on the surrounding context violates the defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Held: Prosecutors have long tried criminal defendants jointly in cases where the defendants are alleged to have engaged in a common criminal scheme. However, when prosecutors seek to introduce a nontestifying…

Case: Samia v. United States (2023) 599 U.S. 635 [143 S.Ct. 2004]
Case Number: 22-196
Updated: 20230623
Read more

Equal Protection Clause Challenge to Penal Code Section 3051

Does Penal Code section 3051, subdivision (h), violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by excluding young adults sentenced to life without the possibility of parole from youth offender parole consideration, while young adults sentenced to parole-eligible terms are entitled to such consideration? On 10/4/2023, the California Supreme Court ordered supplemental briefing on the following issue: Whether the…

Case: People v. Hardin (2024) 15 Cal.5th 834
Case Number: S277487
Updated: 20240304
Read more

Excessive Fines Clause Applicable to States

Whether the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment. Held: The Eighth Amendment's excessive fines clause is an "incorporated" protection applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. Timbs pleaded guilty in Indiana state court to drug charges. Indiana sought civil forfeiture of his vehicle, valued at $42,000, which was over…

Case: Timbs v. Indiana (2019) __ U.S. __ [139 S.Ct. 682]
Case Number: 17-1091
Updated: 20190220
Read more

Whether Eighth Amendment Requires Finding that a Juvenile is Permanently Incorrigible Before Imposing an LWOP Sentence

Whether the Eighth Amendment requires the sentencing authority to make a finding that a juvenile is permanently incorrigible before imposing a sentence of life without parole. Held: "Under Miller v. Alabama, 567 U. S. 460, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 183 L. Ed. 2d 407 (2012), an individual who commits a homicide when he or she is under 18 may be sentenced to life…

Case: Jones v. Mississippi (2021) __ U.S.__ [141 S.Ct. 1307]
Case Number: 18-1259
Updated: 20210422
Read more