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

Plaintiff sued the Richmond International Airport and TSA agents, alleging violations of his constitutional rights when he was seized and arrested for displaying the text of the Fourth Amendment on his chest. The district court denied the TSA agents' motion to dismiss the First Amendment claim and the TSA agents appealed. Because the court found that the facts as alleged by plaintiff plausibly set forth a claim that the TSA agents violated his clearly established First Amendment rights, the court affirmed the district court's decision. View "Tobey v. Jones" on Justia Law

This case involved the constitutionality of the North Carolina "Woman's Right to Know Act," N.C. Gen. Stat. 90-21.80 to -21.92, a statute that required certain informed consent procedures prior to the performance of an abortion. Appellants - a group of pro-life medical professionals, women who have previously undergone abortions, and pregnancy counseling centers - filed a motion to intervene as defendants in the suit. The court affirmed the district court's denial of appellants' motion to intervene as of right based on its finding that the Attorney General was adequately representing their interests. The court held that the putative intervenor must mount a strong showing of inadequacy. In this instance, both the government agency and the would-be intervenors wanted the statute to be constitutionally sustained. The court also held that the district court did not err in concluding that appellants failed to establish adversity of interest with the Attorney General and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting appellants' claim of nonfeasance by the Attorney General. View "Stuart v. Huff" on Justia Law

Carilion initiated an arbitration proceeding against UBS and Citi under the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA) Rule 12200, which required FINRA members to arbitrate disputes with a customer at the customer's request. UBS and Citi commenced this action to enjoin the arbitration proceedings, contending that Carilion was not a "customer" as that term was used in FINRA Rule 12200 and that, in any event, Carilion waived any right to arbitrate by agreeing to the forum selection clause contained in written agreements with UBS and Citi. The court concluded that Carilion, by purchasing UBS and Citi's services, was indeed a "customer" entitled to arbitration under FINRA Rule 12200 and that the forum selection clause did not have the effect of superseding or waiving Carilion's right to arbitrate. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of UBS and Citi's motion for injunctive relief. View "UBS Financial Services, Inc. v. Carilion Clinic" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for crimes related to his involvement in an investment scheme which resulted in nearly $100 million dollars in losses for investors. The court held that defendant's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated where the government limited its case to events occurring while defendant was an owner of A&O to simply prove a more narrow conspiracy than was charged in the superseding indictment. Because the conspiracy proven was within the scope of those alleged in the unredacted indictment, the narrowing at most created a non-fatal variance. Finally, the court rejected defendant's claims that his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions and sentence. View "United States v. Allmendinger" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of two firearm offenses: (1) making a false statement that was material to the lawfulness of a firearm sale, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6); and (2) making a false statement with respect to information required to be kept in the records of a licensed firearms dealer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(1)(A). On appeal, defendant challenged the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment and the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Concluding that the court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291, the court held that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment because, by virtue of the bold-print warning on the ATF Form 4473, defendant was on notice that he was not the actual buyer of the handgun if he was purchasing it for someone else. The court also held that the district court did not err in declining to suppress the receipt concerning defendant's transaction with his uncle where the warrant at issue was supported by probable cause and the court rejected defendant's challenge to the scope of the search warrant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Abramski, Jr." on Justia Law

The Town appealed the district court's invalidation of its municipal sign ordinance as it applied to a resident. Dissatisfied with the Town's efforts to resolve a dispute with the resident, the resident painted the words, "Screwed by the Town of Cary" across a fifteen foot swath of the facade of his home. The court acknowledged that the Town's Sign Ordinance, and in particular its application to the resident, has aggravated some town residents who believed that it was excessively restrictive. But their recourse lies with the ballot, not the Constitution. Because the Sign Ordinance had distinguished content for a constitutionally permissible purpose, the court held that it did not violate the First Amendment. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court. View "Bowden v. Town of Cary" on Justia Law

CFIF and WVFL are 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(4) organizations that engage in election-related speech. These organizations and an individual brought suit alleging that West Virginia's campaign finance statutes were constitutionally impermissible. At issue was whether West Virginia's campaign-finance reporting and disclaimer requirements could survive constitutional scrutiny, West Virginia Code section 3-8-1 et seq. The court affirmed the district court's decisions to (1) strike "newspaper, magazine or other periodical" from West Virginia's "electioneering communication" definition; (2) upheld the "electioneering communication" definition's exemption for grassroots lobbying; (3) declined to consider the merits of the CFIF's challenge to the bona fide news account exemption because the organization lacked standing; and (4) prohibited prosecutions for violations that occurred while the earlier injunctions were in effect. However, the court reversed the district court's decision with respect to (1) its conclusion that subsection (C) of the "expressly advocating" definition was unconstitutional; (2) its choice to uphold the "electioneering communication" definition's section 501(c)(3) exemption; and (3) its application of an "earmarked funds" limiting construction to the reporting requirement for electioneering communications. Because WVFL did not file a notice of appeal in this case, the court could not consider its challenge to the district court's finding that the statutory scheme's twenty-four- and forty-eight-hour reporting requirements were constitutional. Consequently, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Center for Individual Freedom v. Tennant, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of murder and various drug and firearm offenses in connection with a drug distribution conspiracy. On appeal, defendant argued that the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception to the Confrontation Clause, upon which the district court relied in admitting the victim's statement, did not apply unless a criminal defendant's sole motivation in making a witness unavailable was to prevent that witness's testimony. The court held however, that so long as a defendant intended to prevent a witness from testifying, the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception applied even if the defendant also had other motivations for harming the witness. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the firearm that was the basis of the conviction. The court held that the district court did not err in concluding that the officer possessed a reasonable suspicion that defendant was trespassing at the time of the Terry stop. The court rejected defendant's argument that the officer's decision to stop him for investigatory purposes was unreasonable because other less intrusive investigatory techniques could have been used because the issue had already been considered and rejected by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Bumper" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, D.L. and his parents, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the BCBSC and Baltimore City Public Schools, contending that Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794, compelled BCBSC to provide D.L. education services related to certain disorders even though D.L. was enrolled exclusively in a private religious school. Because plaintiffs retained full discretion over school enrollment and because BCBSC has taken reasonable measures to fulfill its mission, the court found that BCBSC's policies placed no undue burden on plaintiffs' constitutional rights. Because the court did not read Section 504 to apply an affirmative obligation on school districts to provide services to private school students and because plaintiffs retained full educational discretion, the court affirmed the district court's ruling. View "D. L. v. Baltimore City Bd. of Sch. Comm." on Justia Law