Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Lucid USA, Inc., which manufactures and sells electric vehicles, sought to sell its vehicles directly to consumers in Texas through its own retail studio. However, Texas law prohibits motor vehicle manufacturers and their affiliates from directly selling vehicles to consumers, instead requiring sales to occur through independent franchised dealers. In 2021, after the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles notified Lucid that it could not sell vehicles at its Plano studio due to this prohibition, Lucid filed suit against officials of the Department, alleging that the law violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Texas Automobile Dealers Association intervened as a defendant.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment and ruled against Lucid. The district court concluded that the Texas prohibition was rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest and, therefore, did not violate either the Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses. Lucid appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment ruling de novo. Relying on its previous decisions in Ford Motor Co. v. Texas Department of Transportation, International Truck & Engine Corp. v. Bray, and Tesla, Inc. v. Louisiana Automobile Dealers Association, the Fifth Circuit found those precedents controlling. The court held that the Texas law survives rational basis review because the legislature has a legitimate interest in curtailing vertical integration and preventing monopolistic practices in the automobile market. The court rejected Lucid’s arguments that its as-applied challenge was distinct from the facial challenges previously considered. The court also found that Lucid's substantive due process claim fails for the same reasons. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Lucid Group USA v. Johnston" on Justia Law

After being stopped by Illinois State Police for speeding, a driver was questioned about his criminal history and denied a request to search his vehicle. The officer issued only a warning and allowed the driver to leave. However, the officer notified a nearby canine unit about his suspicions. Less than two hours later, the canine officer observed the driver commit another traffic infraction, pulled him over, and conducted a dog sniff that led to the discovery of drugs in the vehicle. The driver was subsequently indicted for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base.Reviewing the case, the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois denied the driver’s motion to suppress the drug evidence, finding the second traffic stop was independently justified by a new traffic violation and that the dog sniff did not unreasonably prolong the stop. The district court also denied the driver’s motion to dismiss the indictment for vindictive prosecution and selective enforcement, concluding that there was no evidence of impermissible motives or that similarly situated individuals were treated differently. The driver entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal these rulings.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions. The appellate court held that the initial traffic stop was unreasonably prolonged but that the evidence from the second stop was attenuated from this violation, as the second stop was based on an independent traffic infraction. The court also found the second stop was not unlawfully prolonged and that the dog sniff occurred during the normal course of the traffic warning process. Regarding the motion to dismiss, the court held the driver failed to raise a reasonable doubt that enforcement was selectively or vindictively motivated and upheld the denial of an evidentiary hearing. View "USA v Pennington" on Justia Law

The case concerns a defendant who was convicted by a jury of forcible digital penetration after a sexual encounter with the complaining witness, Doe. The two had met on a dating website and had several dates before the incident at the defendant’s home, where they drank alcohol, used the hot tub, and engaged in consensual sexual activity before the alleged assault. During the encounter, Doe claimed the defendant forcibly penetrated her anus, causing pain and injury, despite her resistance and lack of consent. Security camera footage captured parts of the evening, but not the full incident. The defendant denied the assault, and character witnesses testified to his nonviolent nature.The Santa Cruz County Superior Court allowed the prosecution to introduce numerous crude, sexist, and racist electronic communications the defendant had sent to friends in the months before the offense. These messages were used to impeach defense character witnesses and, according to the defense, were irrelevant and highly prejudicial. The jury acquitted the defendant of forcible sodomy but convicted him of forcible digital penetration, and he was sentenced to three years in prison.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. It found that most of the electronic communications admitted at trial were irrelevant to the issues of truthfulness, use of force, or intent, and their prejudicial impact substantially outweighed any probative value. The court concluded that the admission of this evidence, combined with the prosecutor’s focus on it, deprived the defendant of a fair trial and due process. Because the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the court reversed the conviction and remanded the case for possible retrial. View "People v. Stammers" on Justia Law

A former applicant for the position of police commissioner in St. Louis alleged that after a competitive selection process, he and another white male candidate were certified as the only eligible finalists. The mayor publicly stated she did not want to select either finalist because both were white males, emphasizing the city’s diversity. The city then abandoned the original selection process, reopened the search with lower minimum qualifications, and ultimately hired a different white male candidate after two Black finalists withdrew. The plaintiff, who was ranked first and asserted he was entitled to the position under civil service rules, claimed the process was reopened solely due to the race of the finalists.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss on the grounds of failure to state a claim and qualified immunity. The court found that the plaintiff had plausibly alleged an adverse employment action and a violation of clearly established equal protection rights, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ricci v. DeStefano, which prohibits invalidating a selection process based on race. The defendants argued that the plaintiff suffered no adverse employment action since a white male was ultimately selected and asserted that the plaintiff had no entitlement to the promotion.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed only the denial of qualified immunity. The appellate court held that, accepting the allegations as true, the complaint sufficiently alleged that the defendants’ actions violated the plaintiff’s clearly established right to equal protection by reopening the hiring process for racial reasons and denying him promotion. The court also found the complaint adequately alleged personal involvement by each defendant. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order denying qualified immunity and left the underlying claims to be resolved in further proceedings. View "Sack v. City of St. Louis" on Justia Law

Eric Flannery owns and operates The Big Board, a bar and restaurant in Washington, D.C. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the District imposed masking and proof-of-vaccination requirements for restaurants and bars. Flannery publicly criticized these policies, and The Big Board refused to comply. After the mandates were lifted, Advisory Neighborhood Commission 6C (ANC 6C) formally opposed renewal of The Big Board’s liquor license, citing concerns such as impact on property values and public safety. Flannery and The Big Board attempted to resolve the protest but received little cooperation. Investigators found no evidence supporting ANC 6C’s stated concerns. Ultimately, ANC 6C withdrew its protest after an unproductive mediation session.Flannery and The Big Board sued ANC 6C commissioners in their personal capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging First Amendment retaliation for Flannery's public criticism and the restaurant's noncompliance. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the complaint, holding that The Big Board’s refusal to comply with the mandates was not expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment and that the complaint failed to plausibly allege a causal link between Flannery’s protected speech and ANC 6C’s protest.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the appeal de novo. The court agreed with the district court that The Big Board’s noncompliance was not inherently expressive conduct under the First Amendment. However, it found that the complaint plausibly alleged that Flannery’s public criticism—protected speech—was a but-for cause of ANC 6C’s protest, based on statements by a commissioner and lack of evidence supporting the protest’s grounds. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. View "Flannery v. Eckenwiler" on Justia Law

Police officers conducted a nighttime traffic stop of a car because its license plate lights were out. As they approached, one officer observed what he believed, based on his training and experience, to be a smoked-down marijuana “blunt” on the front passenger seat. The officers asked the driver, Barnes, about the object, and he handed it to them. Upon further inspection, the officers could not confirm it contained marijuana, and the item was never tested; Barnes was not charged with marijuana possession. The officers then asked Barnes to exit the vehicle and, after obtaining his verbal consent, conducted a full search of his person, finding methamphetamine in his zipped pocket. A subsequent search of his car revealed a scale with white residue.In the Johnson District Court, Barnes moved to suppress the drug evidence, arguing that his consent to the search was coerced, that the search exceeded any consent given, and that the plain view exception did not justify the seizure of the object from his car. The district court denied the motion, finding the officers had reasonable suspicion upon seeing what appeared to be a marijuana blunt and that Barnes’ consent was valid. After a bench trial on stipulated facts, Barnes was found guilty of possession of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia.On appeal, the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress, concluding both the search of Barnes’ person and the seizure from the vehicle were justified under the consent and plain view exceptions.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reviewed the case and held that the officers had probable cause to seize the object under the plain view exception, as its incriminating character was immediately apparent. The court also found that Barnes’ consent to search was voluntary and that the search did not exceed its scope. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and the district court. View "State v. Barnes " on Justia Law

Dr. Lesley Williams, a second-year anesthesiology resident at Augusta University, experienced a traumatic assault and was subsequently diagnosed with PTSD. She requested modified duties and accommodations, but the residency program placed her in observer roles and required fitness-for-duty evaluations. Williams filed complaints regarding denial of academic credit and alleged discrimination based on sex and disability. Faculty raised concerns about her professionalism, clinical judgment, and exam conduct. Williams was suspended and ultimately terminated from the residency program after loss of clinical privileges, but an ad hoc committee initially recommended reinstatement with zero tolerance for further unprofessional behavior. Following further faculty concerns, Williams was again suspended and terminated.Williams appealed her termination through Augusta University’s internal procedures. The ad hoc committee found her clinical evaluations were generally adequate, but noted serious concerns about exam misconduct. Dean Hess ordered her reinstatement with strict conditions, but after additional negative evaluations and faculty meetings, Williams was suspended and terminated for patient safety reasons. She appealed to the University President and the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, both of whom upheld her termination.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Board of Regents on Williams’s claims, which included sex discrimination, retaliation, disability discrimination, whistleblower retaliation, denial of procedural due process, and breach of contract. The Eleventh Circuit held that Williams failed to establish the required elements for each claim, including the lack of similarly situated comparators, absence of evidence supporting discriminatory or retaliatory intent, and insufficient support for procedural or contractual violations. The court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on all claims. View "Williams v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia" on Justia Law

The dispute arose when the Missouri General Assembly passed House Bill 1 (HB 1) in September 2025, which would repeal the 2022 congressional districts and establish new ones. Organizers opposed to HB 1 submitted a referendum petition to the Secretary of State, meeting both the signature and timing requirements set by the Missouri Constitution. The Secretary of State, however, issued a Certificate of Insufficiency, asserting that the Missouri Constitution does not authorize a referendum on congressional redistricting acts passed by the General Assembly, and directed that the petition not be placed on the November 2026 ballot.After this, Richard von Glahn, a proponent of the referendum, filed suit in the Cole County Circuit Court seeking to overturn the Secretary’s decision and prevent implementation of HB 1. The circuit court upheld the Secretary’s determination. Von Glahn appealed, and the Supreme Court of Missouri en banc granted discretionary transfer to address the important legal issue presented.The Supreme Court of Missouri en banc held that the Missouri Constitution’s article III, section 49, plainly authorizes the people to approve or reject by referendum “any act of the general assembly,” including congressional redistricting legislation. The Court found that none of the exceptions in article III, section 52(a) applied to HB 1 and rejected arguments that redistricting laws are exempt from referendum. The Court reversed the circuit court’s judgment, ordered the Secretary to certify the petition as sufficient, place it on the November 2026 ballot, and enjoined use of the HB 1 districts unless and until approved by voters. The congressional districts established in 2022 remain in effect for the 2026 election unless HB 1 is approved and takes effect thereafter. View "von Glahn vs. Hoskins" on Justia Law

Michael Ramirez purchased a house in Texas City, Texas, intending to remodel and resell it. After a fire caused substantial but repairable damage, the City declared the property substandard and, following an inspection, determined it posed a clear and imminent danger. The City sent notice to Ramirez, halted the permit process pending an engineer’s report (which Ramirez never obtained), and the house remained unrepaired for over a year, with Ramirez storing valuable personal property inside. In May 2023, the City demolished the house without further notice. Ramirez then sued, claiming violations of state and federal constitutional rights, including procedural due process and takings, and sought damages for the house, expected profits, personal property, and attorney’s fees.Upon removal to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Ramirez repeatedly requested a jury trial in various filings. The parties signed a joint case management plan acknowledging a jury demand. The district court initially scheduled a jury trial but, shortly before trial, ordered a bench trial instead, finding the jury demand procedurally deficient. After the bench trial, the court held the City had violated Ramirez’s procedural due process rights but justified the demolition under nuisance abatement, awarding only nominal damages and denying attorney’s fees as Ramirez was not considered the prevailing party.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case, focusing on the denial of a jury trial and damages determinations. The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying Ramirez’s Rule 39(b) motion for a jury trial, as there were no strong or compelling reasons to do so and Ramirez’s repeated demands were sufficient. The court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings, including a jury trial and reconsideration of damages and fees. View "Ramirez v. City of Texas City" on Justia Law

A juvenile was charged with two counts of possession or transfer of machinegun conversion devices, known as Glock switches, which enable semiautomatic pistols to fire automatically. The charges were brought under federal statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(o) and 924(a)(2), after the government certified that the State of Mississippi lacked jurisdiction over the alleged conduct because, at the time, Mississippi did not have a law regulating possession or transfer of machineguns. The juvenile moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that the certification was inadequate and that the statute violated the Second Amendment, but both motions were denied.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi reviewed the case. After the motions were denied, the juvenile admitted to the charges, waiving appeal rights for all non-jurisdictional issues except his Second Amendment challenge. The district court adjudicated him delinquent and imposed a 19-month term of detention followed by supervised release until age 21.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit considered whether the district court had jurisdiction, whether the statute violated the Second Amendment, and whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms exceeded its authority in classifying Glock switches as machineguns. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court had jurisdiction because Mississippi lacked applicable law at the relevant time, the Second Amendment challenge was foreclosed by United States v. Wilson, 164 F.4th 380 (5th Cir. 2026), which upheld § 922(o) as constitutional, and the statutory challenge regarding ATF’s authority was waived under the terms of the appeal waiver. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Sealed Appellee v. Sealed Juvenile" on Justia Law