Recent SCOTUS Cases

In a 6-3 opinion, the Supreme Court struck down Hawaii’s law prohibiting licensed handgun owners from carrying on private property open to the public except with the property owner’s express permission. The Court rejected Hawaii’s historical analogues to laws restricting unauthorized hunting on private property and arguments that Hawaii’s distinctive local traditions affected the analysis under the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court held that 18 USC 922(g)(3), which prohibits firearm possession by unlawful drug users, was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment as applied to a defendant who was charged based on his daily marijuana use. The Court rejected the Government’s historical analogues concerning habitual drunkards, vagrancy, civil-commitment, and surety laws as distinguishable from the categorical ban on anyone who merely uses a marijuana, and there was no individualized proof that marijuana made the defendant more dangerous. The Court’s opinion is narrow and expressly leaves open laws directed at present intoxication, individualized evidence of danger, and restrictions involving certain drugs.

In an 8-1 decision (with multiple concurrences), the Supreme Court held that the appeal waiver in a defendant’s written plea agreement was not necessarily enforceable if enforcement would “produce a miscarriage of justice.” While that standard is narrow, the Court remanded the case for the Fifth Circuit to determine whether the appeal waiver was enforceable against an appeal of the sentencing court’s decision to impose a mandatory-medication condition of supervised release.

In a per curiam order, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded an Eleventh Circuit order affirming denial of a defendant’s federal habeas petition based on a Giglio/Brady violation. The prosecution had failed to disclose impeachment materials relating to a jailhouse informant, and the Eleventh Circuit erred by holding that post-trial DNA testing made the Brady violation harmless. The Court held that the focus should be only on what evidence existed at the time of the verdict and whether the claimed Brady violation affected the verdict.

In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court reversed denial of a defendant’s motion to change venue. The defendant was charged in federal court in California with falsifying a document with intent to obstruct a federal investigation under 18 U.S.C. § 1519. The defendant had created and provided a false invoice to FBI agents interviewing him in his home in Seattle, and the agents discovered the invoice was false upon returning to San Fransisco. The Court held that the offense was completed in Seattle and rejected arguments that venue was proper based on the intended effects or actual effect on the investigation.

In a 5-4 opinion, the Court held that the defendant was entitled to habeas relief based on a jury selection issue under Batson v. Kentucky. The trial court did not allow the defense to argue that the prosecutor’s “race-neutral” explanations for striking 4 of 5 black jurors were pre-textual (the “third step” of the Batson analysis), and the state appellate courts erroneously held that the defense had failed to preserve that issue.

The Supreme Court held that a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated by a judge’s order that he and his attorney not discuss his ongoing testimony during a 24-hour recess at trial. The Court compared Geders v. United States, which prohibited a complete overnight ban on attorney-client consultation, and Perry v. Leeke, which permitted limited restrictions during a brief mid-testimony recess, and upheld narrow restrictions prohibiting a defendant and his attorneys from managing his ongoing testimony, while recognizing that a defendant may still discuss trial strategy with their attorney, other witnesses or evidence, evidentiary rulings, plea negotiations, sentencing, and other matters, even when those discussions incidentally involve the testimony already given.

In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court held that restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) is a criminal penalty subject to the Ex Post Facto Clause, and the defendant had improperly been ordered to pay restitution because his offense predated the MVRA. The Court reasoned that the text and structure of the MVRA labels restitution a “penalty,” permits an order only after a criminal conviction, imposes restitution at sentencing alongside imprisonment and fines, and uses procedures applicable to criminal penalties.

In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court upheld a Terry stop of a defendant’s vehicle after officers approached the vehicle, two passengers fled the vehicle, and the driver began backing the car away after. The Court held that, in considering the totality of the circumstances, courts may not isolate individual facts, identify innocent explanations for each fact, and then remove them from consideration.

In a unanimous opinion, the Court upheld a warrantless entry into a defendant’s home, where officers found him with a gun and later charged him with assaulting an officer. The Court upheld the warrantless entry under the “emergency aid” exception to the warrant requirement, as the officers had an objectively reasonable basis that the defendant-occupant was seriously injured or imminently threatened serious injury. The defendant’s ex-girlfriend told police that he had threatened to kill himself, and officers arriving at his house received no answer and observed empty beer cans, an empty holster, and an apparent suicide note through the window.