Justia U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A Virginia college student applied for a state tuition grant program that provides financial assistance to residents attending accredited private, nonprofit colleges in Virginia. The program disqualifies students whose primary major falls under “religious training or theological education,” as classified by certain federal instructional codes. After enrolling at Liberty University as a Music Education major and being notified of her eligibility for the grant, she changed her major first to “Youth Ministries” and later to “Music & Worship”—both considered religious vocational programs under the state’s rules. As a result, she was found ineligible for the grant for two academic years.The student filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging that the grant program’s exclusion of her religious vocational major violated her First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. The defendant, the director of the state higher education council, moved to dismiss, arguing that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Locke v. Davey directly controlled and foreclosed her claim. The district court agreed, finding her situation essentially identical to the plaintiff’s in Locke, and concluded that subsequent Supreme Court decisions—Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, and Carson ex rel. O.C. v. Makin—had not overruled Locke. The court dismissed her claim with prejudice.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The appellate court held that Locke v. Davey remains binding precedent, and that the Supreme Court’s more recent decisions reaffirmed rather than abrogated it. The Fourth Circuit therefore affirmed the district court’s dismissal, upholding the constitutionality of the grant program’s exclusion of religious vocational majors. View "Hall v. Fleming" on Justia Law

AAC, a company that finances motorcycle purchases and holds security interests in the vehicles, acquired installment contracts for two motorcycles owned by individuals involved in a criminal case. After one owner, Brock, was killed during a gang shootout, and the other, Andrzejewski, was arrested and charged in connection with the incident, the Lexington County Sheriff’s Department seized both motorcycles as evidence. AAC was not notified of the seizures or the motorcycles’ location and learned about the events through news reports. AAC contacted the Sheriff’s Department seeking information and access to the motorcycles but was told that the vehicles would not be returned until the criminal proceedings concluded.AAC initially filed claim and delivery actions in the Lexington County Circuit Court, but the court dismissed these actions for improper service, noting it would not order release of evidence during a pending murder case. AAC then brought suit in the Lexington County Court of Common Pleas under state law and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging procedural due process violations. The Sheriff’s Department removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, which dismissed AAC’s federal claim, holding that the seizure was lawful and that AAC’s property interests must yield to the state’s duty to preserve evidence for criminal proceedings. The district court remanded the state law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The Fourth Circuit held that when property is seized in connection with a criminal investigation, the Fourth Amendment defines the process that is due, and compliance with its requirements satisfies procedural due process. The court found the seizures lawful and determined that no additional process was required for AAC as a lienholder. The court affirmed the district court’s order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss. View "American Acceptance Corporation of SC v. Gietz" on Justia Law

A former software developer and naval reservist from Virginia, the defendant became the subject of a federal investigation after participating in the events of January 6, 2021, for which he was later pardoned. In the following months, he purchased several firearms and accessories, including devices labeled as “solvent traps” from an online retailer. These devices, although purportedly for cleaning firearms, were constructed in a manner similar to silencers, with features such as threaded ends and internal baffles. The defendant discussed with an undercover FBI employee how these devices could be converted into silencers, despite not possessing the necessary tools for such modification.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia heard the case after a federal grand jury indicted the defendant for possessing unregistered silencers in violation of the National Firearms Act (NFA). The defendant moved to dismiss the indictment, contending that the statutory definition of a silencer was unconstitutionally vague and that his conviction would violate the Second Amendment. The district court denied these motions and, after a mistrial, the second jury found the defendant guilty on all counts. He was sentenced to 36 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court’s jury instructions accurately reflected the statutory definition of a silencer, which does not require operability or exclude dual-use devices. The court found sufficient evidence for the conviction, as the devices’ design and the defendant’s statements supported their classification as silencers. The court also determined the NFA was not unconstitutionally vague as applied. Finally, the court concluded that, even if silencers are protected by the Second Amendment, the NFA’s shall-issue registration regime is presumptively constitutional and the defendant had not shown otherwise. The conviction was affirmed. View "US v. Hatchet Speed" on Justia Law

Steven Clark Lefemine participated in an anti-abortion protest at a reproductive healthcare facility in Columbia, South Carolina, where he intentionally blocked the entrance by sitting in front of the doorway, preventing patients and staff from entering. After refusing requests to move, the police were called, and Lefemine was arrested. He was initially charged with trespassing under state law, for which he was fined, and subsequently indicted by a federal grand jury for violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act) under 18 U.S.C. § 248.In the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Lefemine was first charged under a provision of the FACE Act carrying a maximum penalty of one year in prison. However, the government amended the penalty sheet—an auxiliary document to the indictment—to reflect a lower maximum penalty: six months’ imprisonment and/or a fine of $10,000. The indictment was also amended to conform to this reduced penalty. Lefemine’s counsel acknowledged and consented to these amendments. The district court denied Lefemine’s request for a jury trial, finding that the charged offense was a “petty” offense not subject to the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, and proceeded with a bench trial that resulted in Lefemine’s conviction.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Lefemine argued that he was entitled to a jury trial both because of the original indictment and because Congress intended all FACE Act violations to require a jury trial. The Fourth Circuit held that the amendments did not require resubmission to a grand jury and that the maximum penalty Lefemine faced rendered the offense “petty” under Supreme Court precedent. The court affirmed that the first-time, nonviolent exception under the FACE Act does not require a jury trial, joining the Second, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits, and affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Lefemine" on Justia Law

Law enforcement officers pursued the defendant, Austin Lodge, after a traffic stop in Clarksburg, West Virginia. During the pursuit, Lodge attempted to place a camouflage backpack inside a residence where his children’s grandmother lived, but was turned away by the occupant. He then fled to the backyard and discarded the backpack next to a shed. Lodge was apprehended without the backpack. Later, officers searched the area, found the bag, and searched it without a warrant, uncovering controlled substances. Lodge admitted ownership of the backpack but argued that his actions were meant to conceal, not abandon, the bag because it was left on familiar, semi-private property.The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia first reviewed Lodge’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless search. The case was referred to a magistrate judge, who conducted an evidentiary hearing and found that Lodge had abandoned the bag, thus forfeiting any reasonable expectation of privacy in its contents. The district court adopted these findings and denied the suppression motion, concluding that Lodge’s conduct amounted to abandonment, relying on the Fourth Circuit’s precedent in United States v. Small.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s findings for clear error and the legal conclusions de novo. The appellate court emphasized that abandonment is a factual finding based on the objective circumstances known to officers at the time. The Fourth Circuit held that the district court’s finding—that Lodge abandoned the backpack when he discarded it after being denied entry at the residence—was not clearly erroneous. Because Lodge abandoned the backpack, he lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in it, and the denial of the motion to suppress was affirmed. The court declined to resolve whether a different result would obtain if the property had not been abandoned but was merely concealed on private property. View "US v. Lodge" on Justia Law

A police officer in Columbia, South Carolina, shot and killed a high school senior, J.R., during the COVID-19 curfew. The officer was responding to a report of teenagers looking into cars and saw J.R. walking alone. When the officer approached, J.R. ran away. The officer chased J.R. and, during the pursuit, observed that J.R. was armed. Despite repeatedly commanding J.R. to stop, get on the ground, and show his hands, J.R. did not comply. At one point, J.R. crouched near a fence, picked up his gun, and then ran again. The officer fired multiple shots, ultimately striking J.R. in the forehead and killing him.J.R.’s mother, acting as his personal representative, sued the officer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that the use of deadly force violated J.R.’s Fourth Amendment rights. The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina denied the officer’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, finding that although J.R. was armed, ignored commands, and turned to face the officer, there was no undisputed evidence that J.R. made a threatening movement with his weapon. The court concluded that genuine disputes of material fact remained and that it was clearly established law that deadly force could not be used under these circumstances.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Fourth Circuit held that, at the time of the shooting, clearly established law prohibited a police officer from using deadly force against a fleeing, armed suspect who did not make a furtive or threatening movement with his weapon. The court concluded that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity and allowed the case to proceed. View "Ruffin v. Davis" on Justia Law

In December 2021, an individual with a lower leg amputation and a history of medical episodes broke into a car dealership in Chesterfield County, Virginia. After the alarm was triggered, police—including an officer and his police K-9—responded to the scene. The individual hid in a storage room, unarmed and passively waiting to be arrested. When the officer and his leashed K-9 located him lying in a submissive, fetal-like position, the officer allegedly gave no orders or warnings before directing the dog to attack. The K-9 inflicted severe injuries, including to sensitive areas of the individual’s body, resulting in significant blood loss and destruction of his prosthetic leg. Following the incident, the individual was charged with trespassing and vandalism, but no violent offenses.The individual filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, asserting a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as related state law claims. The officer moved to dismiss, arguing that the use of force was objectively reasonable and that qualified immunity applied because the right in question was not clearly established. The district court ruled that the complaint plausibly alleged a Fourth Amendment violation but concluded that the specific right was not clearly established, granting the officer qualified immunity and dismissing the federal claim. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and held that, as of 2013, it was clearly established that a non-threatening, unarmed, and passively-resisting suspect had a right to be free from unnecessary, gratuitous, and disproportionate force by deployment of a police K-9. The court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Harrold v. Hagen" on Justia Law

Three equestrian trainers, each subjected to sanctions by the United States Center for SafeSport (SafeSport) for past misconduct, sought to challenge those sanctions. Navarro and Giorgio were permanently banned after SafeSport learned of their prior guilty pleas to child sexual abuse, while Shaffer received a suspension and probation following SafeSport’s investigation of complaints against her. Navarro and Giorgio pursued arbitration and internal grievance procedures that ultimately confirmed SafeSport’s sanctions. Shaffer declined to arbitrate, citing the cost. All three alleged that SafeSport’s procedures violated their constitutional rights because they were barred from Olympic sports without a prior hearing, and further argued that SafeSport, a private body, unconstitutionally exercises governmental authority.After their grievances and appeals were rejected by the United States Equestrian Federation (USEF) and the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee (USOC), the trainers filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. The district court dismissed their claims, holding that the trainers lacked standing to sue the USOC, that Shaffer failed to exhaust administrative remedies, that Appellees were not state actors and thus not subject to the Fifth Amendment, and that SafeSport’s powers did not violate the private non-delegation doctrine.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s rulings that the trainers lacked standing to sue the USOC, that the Appellees were not state actors subject to the Due Process Clause, and that the court lacked jurisdiction over the private non-delegation claim. However, it reversed the district court’s finding on administrative exhaustion, holding that Shaffer was not obligated to arbitrate her constitutional claims before seeking relief in federal court. Thus, the judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Navarro v. United States Center for SafeSport" on Justia Law

An Afghan infant was orphaned and injured during a joint U.S.-Afghan military operation and received emergency care at a U.S. military hospital. A U.S. Marine Corps Judge Advocate, Major Joshua Mast, and his wife, Stephanie Mast, initiated custody proceedings and ultimately obtained a Virginia adoption order for the child. Separately, the U.S. Embassy gave custody to a man claiming to be the child's uncle, and the infant was subsequently cared for by John and Jane Doe, who later evacuated from Afghanistan to the United States with the child during Operation Allies Refuge. After arriving in the U.S., the Masts took custody of the child. The Does then challenged the adoption in Virginia state court, but the Supreme Court of Virginia rejected their challenge.Following the state proceedings, the Does filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, seeking, among other things, a protective order to prevent the defendants from disclosing their identities. The district court granted the protective order, concluding that disclosing the Does’ identities would pose a substantial risk to their safety and that of their family in Afghanistan. The order prohibited the defendants and their representatives from revealing any information that could directly or indirectly identify the Does or their family members unless a non-disclosure agreement was executed. After the Does engaged with the media while maintaining anonymity, the Masts moved to vacate or modify the protective order, arguing it was an unconstitutional restraint on speech. The district court denied the motion and held Joshua Mast in contempt for violating the order.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order. The Fourth Circuit held that the protective order, while a content-based prior restraint, fit within a narrow exception because it was narrowly tailored to serve the government’s compelling interest in national security—specifically, the protection of individuals perceived as U.S. collaborators. The court found the order survived strict scrutiny and was not unconstitutionally vague. View "Doe v. Mast" on Justia Law

A federal inmate brought an action for damages against several officials at a federal prison, claiming they provided delayed or inadequate medical treatment and used excessive force against him during his incarceration. His allegations included delayed dental care, insufficient response to rectal bleeding, denial of participation in a mental health class, and the use of restraints and physical force during an incident involving his cellmate. He asserted that these actions violated his constitutional rights under the Eighth, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed his complaint, holding that a damages remedy under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics was not available for his claims. The court reasoned that his claims, both for inadequate medical care and excessive force, presented new contexts beyond those recognized in previous Supreme Court cases and that special factors counseled against extending a judicially implied damages remedy. The inmate appealed from the district court’s judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the inmate’s inadequate medical treatment claims presented a new context distinct from Carlson v. Green, as the facts involved less severe circumstances and implicated broader, systemic prison management issues rather than deliberate malfeasance. The court further found that special factors, including Congress’s silence and provision of alternative remedies, counseled against extending Bivens. Regarding the excessive force claims, the Fourth Circuit found that the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Goldey v. Fields expressly foreclosed recognizing a Bivens remedy in this context. Thus, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal, holding that a Bivens remedy was unavailable for the plaintiff’s claims. View "Spivey v. Breckon" on Justia Law