The 2024-25 Term ends on August 29. In this penultimate week of the Term, there were no Supreme Court opinions. There were, however, two published decisions from the Appellate Division, one a civil case involving “the latest development in the ongoing controversy surrounding black bear hunting in New Jersey” and the other a criminal appeal centering on constitutional rights associated with a cellphone passcode. Here are summaries of those opinions:

The Lesniak Institute for American Leadership v. New Jersey Fish & Game Council, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). The New Jersey Fish & Game Council is a state regulatory agency whose members are appointed by the Governor with the consent of the Senate. The Council implemented a black bear management policy and authorized a 2023 bear hunt. Opposed to the management policy and the hunt, plaintiffs asserted that the Council was invalidly constituted, in violation of the separation of powers and private non-delegation provisions of the New Jersey Constitution. That was so, plaintiffs alleged, because, by statute, six of the Council’s eleven members were to be, and were, recommended to the Governor by the New Jersey State Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs (“N.J. Sportsmen”), a private organization that represents hunters. The Law Division granted defense motions to dismiss the case. Applying de novo review, Judge Bishop-Thompson’s opinion for the Appellate Division affirmed. The panel held that Humane Soc’y of U.S. v. N.J. State Fish & Game Council, 70 N.J. 565 (1976), and subsequent caselaw foreclosed plaintiffs’ claims.

State v. Ellison, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). Judge Augostini authored the Appellate Division’s decision in this appeal. A jury convicted defendant on multiple charges, including kidnapping, criminal sexual contact, simple assault, and drug charges. He was sentenced to an extended term as a persistent offender, a sentence that the panel vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of intervening Supreme Court of the United States and Appellate Division decisions. Defendant’s primary point on appeal, however, was that a police officer’s observation of defendant’s cellphone passcode, which defendant voluntarily entered in the officer’s presence, was violative of defendant’s right to privacy and his Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination. The Appellate Division disagreed and affirmed his convictions. He had “no reasonable expectation of privacy and there was no violation of defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination where defendant voluntarily requested his cell phone, was not compelled to provide the passcode and voluntarily entered the passcode in the officer's presence.”