Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

A sitting district court judge in Kentucky faced potential discipline from the state Judicial Conduct Commission (JCC) after making statements to a newspaper during her reelection campaign. The statements concerned her prior suspension for inappropriate comments about an attorney accused of diverting funds from her husband’s law firm. The JCC claimed her remarks to the newspaper were false or misleading, implicated her opponent, and downplayed the seriousness of her misconduct. The Commission sent her a proposed agreed public reprimand order, which she refused to sign. Believing the JCC’s actions chilled her speech and threatened enforcement under three specific judicial conduct rules, the judge sued JCC officials, alleging violations of her First Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky partially granted and partially denied the judge’s claims. It granted her summary judgment and a permanent injunction on her as-applied challenge to Rule 4.1(A)(11), which prohibits judicial candidates from knowingly making false statements of material fact, finding the JCC’s enforcement against her statements unconstitutional. However, the district court denied her as-applied challenges to Rules 1.2 and 2.4(B), which address judicial independence and the influence of personal relationships, as well as her facial challenges to all three rules.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found the judge had standing to sue and that the district court properly granted her an injunction under Rule 4.1(A)(11). However, the appellate court held that the district court erred in denying her as-applied challenges to Rules 1.2 and 2.4(B), as the JCC’s enforcement was not supported by evidence of false statements. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the injunction as to Rule 4.1(A)(11), reversed as to Rules 1.2 and 2.4(B), and remanded for entry of a permanent injunction against enforcement of all three rules as applied to the judge’s statements. View "Dutton v. Shaffer" on Justia Law

Two individuals challenged the Puerto Rican electoral commission and its acting president, arguing that restrictions on early and absentee voting during the 2020 general election unlawfully burdened the right to vote for citizens over sixty, especially considering the COVID-19 pandemic. In August 2020, they brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking relief on constitutional grounds. The district court promptly issued a preliminary injunction, then a permanent injunction, allowing voters over sixty to vote early by mail. After judgment, the plaintiffs were awarded nearly $65,000 in attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.While the fee motion was pending, Puerto Rico’s government was in the process of debt restructuring under Title III of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA). The restructuring plan, confirmed in January 2022, discharged claims against Puerto Rico arising before the plan’s effective date unless creditors filed proof of claim by a set deadline. Defendants argued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico that the attorneys’ fees award was subject to the plan’s discharge and enjoined from collection, because the plaintiffs had not filed a timely administrative expense claim. The district court rejected this, finding the fee award unrelated to the bankruptcy case.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit concluded that the claim for attorneys’ fees, though arising from post-petition litigation, related to events before the plan’s effective date. The court held that because the plaintiffs had actual knowledge of the restructuring proceedings but did not file a timely proof of claim, their fee claim was discharged under the confirmed plan and enjoined from collection. The First Circuit reversed the district court’s order, holding that the discharge injunction applied to the attorneys’ fee award. View "Ocasio v. Comision Estatal de Elecciones" on Justia Law

The case involves Michael Donnell Lee, who was charged with murder and related offenses following the shooting death of Aaron James Grant. After his arrest, Lee underwent a custodial interrogation by Detective Charles Sendling of the Atlanta Police Department, during which Lee made incriminating statements. Prior to making these statements, Lee invoked his rights to counsel and to remain silent after being read his Miranda rights. The detective, after a brief pause and some procedural activity, re-engaged Lee in conversation, during which Lee ultimately agreed to talk and then made several incriminating statements during the ensuing interview.Before trial, the State moved to admit Lee’s statements, but the Superior Court of Fulton County excluded them, ruling that they were inadmissible under Miranda v. Arizona and Edwards v. Arizona because Lee had invoked his constitutional rights and had not reinitiated communication with the police. The trial court also found the statements to be involuntary as a matter of due process, citing Lee’s limited education and potential intellectual disability, and the detective’s conduct during the interrogation.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the State’s interlocutory appeal. It agreed with the lower court that Lee did not reinitiate communication after invoking his rights, and that the detective’s subsequent interrogation was improper under Miranda and Edwards. The court clarified that Lee’s follow-up questions were mere clarifying inquiries and not an indication of a desire to discuss the investigation. However, the Supreme Court of Georgia disagreed with the trial court’s finding that the statements were involuntary under due process principles, finding no evidence of coercive police activity. The court affirmed the suppression of Lee’s statements for the prosecution’s case-in-chief but reversed their exclusion for impeachment purposes if Lee testifies. View "STATE v. LEE" on Justia Law

A United States citizen originally from Yemen filed family-based visa petitions (Form I-130) in 2002 on behalf of several relatives, including his stepdaughter. The immigration authorities sent a notice of intent to deny these petitions and a subsequent denial letter to the address provided on the petition. The petitioner did not respond, and the petitions were denied. Twenty years later, the petitioner sued, asserting that he never received the notices because the agency had mistakenly sent them to an address where he did not live, and that this lack of notice violated the Due Process Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act. He attached a redacted version of his petition to his complaint, omitting the address at issue.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, initially denied the government’s motion to dismiss, finding that the complaint plausibly supported the application of the discovery rule or equitable tolling and otherwise stated a claim. However, when the government moved for judgment on the pleadings and submitted an unredacted copy of the I-130 petition showing that the petitioner himself had listed the very address to which the notices were sent, the court found this document dispositive. The petitioner did not meaningfully contest the authenticity or content of the unredacted petition, failed to appear at the hearing, and did not object to the government’s supporting affidavit.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the unredacted I-130 petition conclusively refuted the petitioner’s factual claims. The court held that when a plaintiff’s own incorporated documents contradict the complaint’s allegations, those documents control. The court affirmed the district court’s entry of judgment for the government, finding that the due process and APA claims failed as a matter of law. View "Muthana v Mullin" on Justia Law

During the summer of 2025, protests erupted in Southern California in response to federal immigration raids. Protesters, legal observers, and journalists alleged that officers of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), including agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Federal Protective Services, and Customs and Border Protection, used crowd control weapons indiscriminately against them. Multiple individuals, including members of the press and protesters, suffered significant physical injuries during these events, even when they were complying with police orders or were not near disruptive protest activity.Several individual journalists, legal observers, protesters, and two press organizations filed suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. They alleged violations of their First Amendment rights, specifically the right to be free from retaliation for engaging in protected activities and the right of public access to protests. The district court issued a preliminary injunction to protect the rights of protesters, journalists, and legal observers, finding that the defendants’ conduct chilled First Amendment activity. The government appealed, arguing that the injunction was overly broad and legally unsound.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their First Amendment retaliation claims, that both individual and organizational plaintiffs had standing, and that the other requirements for a preliminary injunction were met. However, the court found that the scope of the injunction was overbroad because it extended relief to non-parties and included provisions not narrowly tailored to the specific harms alleged. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to issue a preliminary injunction but vacated and remanded the case for the district court to craft a narrower injunction consistent with its opinion. View "LOS ANGELES PRESS CLUB V. NOEM" on Justia Law

An incarcerated individual at Green Haven Correctional Facility was disciplined following an incident in which he was accused of assaulting correctional officers after a dispute involving his legal materials. The individual maintained that he was authorized to possess the materials and alleged he was physically assaulted by officers. He was charged with violent conduct and, after a disciplinary hearing, was sentenced to 270 days in the special housing unit (SHU), ultimately serving at least 180 days. At his disciplinary hearing, the individual was denied the opportunity to call certain witnesses and present documentary evidence, which he claimed violated his due process rights.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York reviewed the case after the individual, representing himself, brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several Department of Corrections officials. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, holding that the individual’s SHU confinement did not implicate a protected liberty interest under the standard set by Sandin v. Conner, and therefore no due process protections were required. The court did not address other arguments, including qualified immunity or personal involvement of certain defendants.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit disagreed with the district court. It held that the duration of the disciplinary confinement—whether measured as 180 days served, 270 days imposed, or longer—constitutes an atypical and significant hardship in relation to ordinary prison life. Therefore, the confinement implicated a protected liberty interest and triggered due process protections. The court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, leaving other issues for the district court to address. View "Vidal v. Venettozzi" on Justia Law

A group of anonymous individuals from Franklin and Delaware counties challenged two firearm-related ordinances enacted by the Columbus City Council in December 2022 and February 2023. The ordinances imposed restrictions on magazine capacity and required safe storage of firearms, among other provisions. The challengers argued that these ordinances violated Ohio’s firearm regulation preemption law and state constitutional protections for the right to keep and bear arms.The challengers filed suit in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of certain provisions of the ordinances. After a hearing, the trial court granted the preliminary injunction, thereby barring the city from enforcing the contested provisions. The City of Columbus, along with city officials, appealed the trial court’s order to the Fifth District Court of Appeals. The challengers moved to dismiss the appeal, contending that the preliminary injunction was not a final, appealable order under Ohio law. The Fifth District agreed, dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case to determine whether state and municipal governments may immediately appeal orders that preliminarily enjoin enforcement of their laws. The Supreme Court of Ohio held that under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4), such a preliminary injunction constitutes a final order because it inflicts irreparable harm on the sovereign interests of the government, which cannot be remedied by appeal after a final judgment. Therefore, the order is immediately appealable. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the Fifth District’s dismissal and remanded the case for consideration of the merits of the city’s appeal. View "Doe v. Columbus" on Justia Law

The Montana legislature enacted a law, HB 937, and associated administrative rules that imposed new licensure and regulatory requirements specifically on abortion clinics, which were defined as facilities providing abortion-inducing drugs or performing surgical abortions to at least five patients per year. These requirements did not apply to clinics that provided identical medications and procedures exclusively for miscarriage management. Plaintiffs, including two clinics and a nurse practitioner, challenged the law and rules, arguing that they violated the equal protection and privacy rights guaranteed by the Montana Constitution. They asserted that these new requirements could force them to cease providing abortion care, thereby restricting their patients’ access to such services.After the plaintiffs filed their complaint, the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, initially granted a temporary restraining order and later a preliminary injunction, preventing enforcement of HB 937 and the associated rules. The District Court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their equal protection claim, that irreparable harm was likely absent an injunction, that the balance of equities favored the plaintiffs, and that an injunction was in the public interest. The court determined that the law treated similarly situated providers—those giving identical care for either miscarriage or abortion—differently solely based on the purpose of the treatment. The court applied strict scrutiny, finding that the state had not demonstrated a compelling interest or that the law was narrowly tailored.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court’s preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court held that HB 937 and the rules likely violate the Montana Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection by subjecting abortion providers to unique, burdensome licensing requirements not imposed on providers of identical miscarriage care, thus likely infringing on the fundamental right to privacy. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs met all four elements required for a preliminary injunction and affirmed the lower court’s order in its entirety. View "All Families v. State" on Justia Law

A group of business and industry associations challenged the Montana Attorney General’s March 6, 2026 determination that Proposed Ballot Measure No. 10 was legally sufficient to proceed in the initiative process. Ballot Measure No. 10 sought to amend state law by defining “artificial persons” and excluding “political spending power” from the rights granted to such entities. The challengers argued that the measure was facially unconstitutional because it restricted political speech, was vague, and improperly conditioned benefits on the waiver of constitutional rights.The challenge was brought directly to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana under its original jurisdiction. The Attorney General had performed only a procedural review, declining to address the measure’s substantive constitutionality due to a prior order by the First Judicial District Court in Ellingson v. State, which had enjoined the statutory provision that would have allowed such substantive review. The petitioners requested the Supreme Court to require the Attorney General to review the measure’s constitutionality and to reverse his finding of legal sufficiency.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana held that the Attorney General does not have authority to consider the substantive constitutionality of proposed ballot initiatives during legal sufficiency review under current law and precedent. The Court reaffirmed that pre-election constitutional challenges to initiatives are generally disfavored, as the people have a constitutional right to use the initiative process. Because Ballot Measure No. 10 had not yet qualified for the ballot, the Court declined to address the merits of the constitutional arguments, finding such review would be advisory. The Court denied and dismissed the petition, and also denied as moot motions to intervene and to file amicus briefs. View "Montana Mining Assn. v. Knudsen" on Justia Law

A Pennsylvania state prisoner with a history of opioid addiction participated in a prison Medication Assisted Treatment program, receiving Suboxone to help control his cravings. After prison officials twice accused him of possessing contraband and diverting his medication to other prisoners, he was removed from the treatment program. Instead of abruptly ending his medication, a prison doctor tapered his doses over a week to reduce withdrawal symptoms. The prisoner later suffered withdrawal effects and mental health challenges but was not reinstated in the program despite his requests. He claimed the diversion finding was unfair but did not allege personal animus or pretext by the officials involved.He filed a pro se lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against various prison officials and a doctor, alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and a state-law negligence claim. The District Court dismissed all claims, finding the federal claims inadequately pleaded and the state-law claim procedurally improper for lack of a certificate of merit under Pennsylvania law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the dismissal of the Eighth Amendment claim, holding that the complaint failed to allege deliberate indifference to medical needs as required by precedent; the officials’ actions were judged to be good-faith medical decisions, not constitutionally blameworthy conduct. The court also affirmed dismissal of the ADA claim, finding no plausible allegation that the prisoner was excluded from treatment “by reason of” his disability, but rather for diversion of medication. However, the court vacated the dismissal of the state-law negligence claim, as recent Supreme Court precedent abrogated the procedural requirement relied upon by the District Court, and remanded for further proceedings on that claim. View "DiFraia v. Ransom" on Justia Law