Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

A group of nonprofit associations representing non-residential property owners in New Castle County, Delaware, challenged a temporary state law enacted in response to a recent county-wide property reassessment. The reassessment, ordered by the Delaware Court of Chancery in a prior case, updated decades-old property valuations to reflect current fair market values, resulting in significant tax increases for many residential homeowners and shifting the overall tax burden toward residential properties. In reaction to public outcry, the Delaware General Assembly passed House Bill 242 (HB242), which authorized school districts in New Castle County to implement a one-year split-rate property tax system for the 2025-2026 tax year, imposing higher rates on non-residential properties and lower rates on residential ones.After the reassessment, school boards set new tax rates and issued tax warrants, and the County mailed revised tax bills. The plaintiffs filed suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the State, county officials, and school boards, arguing that HB242 and its implementation were unconstitutional and violated state law on several grounds, including the Uniformity Clause of the Delaware Constitution, statutory requirements for tax referenda, fair market value assessment, due process, and HB242’s own revenue neutrality provision.The Court of Chancery reviewed the plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory claims. It held that HB242’s temporary split-rate system did not violate the Uniformity Clause, as reasonable classification between residential and non-residential properties is permitted. The court found that HB242 did not constitute a retroactive personal income tax, nor did it violate due process, given the availability of post-deprivation remedies for property reclassification. Statutory claims regarding referenda, fair market value, and revenue neutrality were also rejected, as HB242’s specific provisions and timing superseded general statutory requirements. Judgment was entered for the defendants on all counts. View "Newark Property Association v. State" on Justia Law

The dispute centers on a Delaware law, House Bill 242 (HB242), which permits New Castle County school districts to set different property tax rates for residential and non-residential properties for the 2025-2026 school year. This legislation was enacted after a county-wide property reassessment revealed a significant shift in the tax base, resulting in higher taxes for residential properties. In response to public concern, HB242 allowed school districts to implement a split-rate system, reducing residential rates and increasing non-residential rates, with the stipulation that non-residential rates could not exceed twice the residential rate and that total projected revenue could not surpass the amount projected under the original tax warrant. Subsequent corrections to property classifications led to a net increase in projected tax revenue.The plaintiffs, four property-related associations, challenged HB242 in the Court of Chancery, arguing that it violated the Uniformity Clause of the Delaware Constitution and a “revenue neutrality” requirement in the statute. The Court of Chancery rejected these claims, finding that the General Assembly has the authority to create reasonable property classifications for tax purposes and that the statute’s use of “projected” rather than “actual” revenue allowed for adjustments due to classification corrections.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Delaware reviewed the constitutionality of HB242 and the statutory interpretation issues de novo. The Court held that the Uniformity Clause does not prohibit reasonable legislative classifications of property for taxation, provided tax rates are uniform within each class. The Court also determined that HB242’s revenue limitation applies to projected, not actual, revenue, and that corrections to property classifications do not violate the statute. The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the judgment of the Court of Chancery. View "Newark Property Association v. State" on Justia Law

New South Media Group, LLC, along with other plaintiffs, sought to construct four types of signs—flags, artwork, political messages, and event notices—on private property in Rainbow City, Alabama. The city denied their permit applications, determining that the proposed signs were billboards, which are prohibited under Section 214 of the city’s sign ordinance. The plaintiffs believed their signs qualified for exemptions under Section 213, but the city’s definition of “billboard” encompassed their proposed signs. After receiving the denial, New South requested variances, which were also denied by the city’s zoning board.Following these denials, New South appealed in state court and brought federal and state constitutional challenges, which were dismissed in state court and then refiled in federal court. In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, New South alleged that several city sign regulations violated the First Amendment and the Alabama Constitution by imposing content-based restrictions, lacking time limits for permit decisions, and granting unbridled discretion to city officials. The district court granted summary judgment to Rainbow City, finding that New South lacked standing because the injury—the denial of the applications—was caused by the unchallenged billboard prohibition, not the provisions New South contested.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The Eleventh Circuit held that New South lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the non-billboard regulations because the injury was not traceable to those provisions and a favorable decision would not redress the harm caused by the billboard prohibition. The court affirmed the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Rainbow City and dismissing the case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. View "New South Media Group, LLC v. City of Rainbow City" on Justia Law

A cannabis cultivation business was licensed to operate in Vermont but became the subject of regulatory action after laboratory testing detected myclobutanil, a prohibited pesticide, in its products. The business had previously entered into a corrective action plan with the regulatory board following similar violations in 2023, agreeing to remediation, penalties, and compliance measures. In 2024, after further detections of myclobutanil in both retail and on-site samples, the regulatory board issued a notice of violation with immediate effect, including a stop-sale order for all of the business’s products, a recall requirement, and a proposed license revocation.The business contested the notice and requested a hearing before the Cannabis Control Board. At the hearing, it raised several arguments, including challenges to the Board’s authority under the Vermont Constitution, claims of bias by the Board chair, and alleged due process violations. The Board chair denied a motion for recusal, and after hearing testimony and reviewing evidence, the Board found that the business had violated its corrective action plan and used unauthorized pesticides. The Board dismissed one violation as duplicative but upheld others, ultimately revoking the business’s license. The business appealed to an appellate officer, who affirmed the Board’s decision.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case, applying a standard that precludes reweighing factual findings unless clearly erroneous or affected by legal error. The Court held that the Board acted within its statutory authority in issuing a stop-sale order for all products, that the Board’s interpretation of its regulations was reasonable, and that the business failed to preserve or adequately brief its constitutional and evidentiary arguments. The Court also found no due process violation regarding the impartiality of the Board chair, as the business did not make an evidentiary record to support its claims. The Supreme Court affirmed the revocation of the business’s license. View "In re Holland Cannabis, LLC" on Justia Law

Police responded to a domestic disturbance at a home shared by the defendant, his partner, and their children. During the incident, officers found a rifle in the living room. The defendant admitted ownership of the firearm and acknowledged he was on probation. Several months earlier, he had pled guilty to misdemeanor domestic battery, a conviction that, under Kansas law, prohibited him from possessing a firearm for five years. The defendant was charged with felony criminal use of a weapon for knowingly possessing a firearm within five years of his domestic violence conviction.In the Sedgwick District Court, the defendant moved to dismiss the charge, arguing that the statute prohibiting firearm possession by those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses violated the Second Amendment. The district court denied the motion, and the defendant was convicted by a jury. On appeal, the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the statute was constitutional and that sufficient evidence supported the verdict.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reviewed the case to address the Second Amendment challenge. The court held that the Kansas statute, which temporarily disarms individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses, is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court reasoned that early American laws, such as surety and “going armed” laws, allowed for the disarmament of individuals who posed a threat of violence, and that a recent conviction for domestic violence is sufficient to establish such a threat. The court concluded that the statute imposes a narrow, temporary restriction and is constitutional both on its face and as applied. The Supreme Court of Kansas affirmed the decisions of both the Court of Appeals and the district court. View "State v. McCray " on Justia Law

A two-year-old child, M.B., was placed with foster parents who are members of an Old Order Amish community shortly after his birth. The foster parents had previously adopted M.B.’s three biological sisters, who also reside in their home. Concerns were raised by M.B.’s guardian ad litem regarding the suitability of this placement, primarily because the Amish foster parents would limit M.B.’s formal education to eighth grade, consistent with their religious beliefs. Additional concerns included the lack of regular pediatric care, limited vaccination, restricted exposure to technology, and the potential for racial non-acceptance within the Amish community, as M.B. is biracial.The Circuit Court of Kanawha County reviewed a motion by the guardian ad litem to remove M.B. from the foster home. The court considered evidence and testimony, including the foster father’s statements about education, medical care, and community acceptance. The court also reviewed a special commissioner’s report, which acknowledged the loving and stable environment provided by the foster parents but noted potential limitations related to education, healthcare, and cultural exposure. Ultimately, the circuit court denied the motion to remove M.B., finding that the foster home was stable, loving, and in the child’s best interests, and that the court could not discriminate against the family based on religion or lifestyle.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the circuit court’s decision. The court held that the Foster Child Bill of Rights does not mandate removal from a placement solely because one or more statutory rights may be limited, but instead requires a best-interest-of-the-child analysis considering all relevant factors. The court found that the circuit court’s findings were supported by the record and that M.B.’s placement with the Amish foster parents did not violate his statutory or constitutional rights. View "In re M.B." on Justia Law

A resident of University Heights, Ohio, who practices Orthodox Judaism, sought to use his home for group prayer sessions due to religious obligations and restrictions on travel during the Sabbath. After inviting neighbors to participate in these gatherings, a neighbor complained to city officials, prompting the city’s law director to send a cease-and-desist letter, warning that using the home as a place of religious assembly violated local zoning laws. The resident then applied for a special use permit to operate a house of worship but withdrew his application before the city’s Planning Commission could reach a decision, stating he did not wish to operate a house of worship as defined by the ordinance. Despite withdrawing, he later filed a federal lawsuit against the city and several officials, alleging violations of federal and state law, including constitutional and statutory claims.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted summary judgment for the city and its officials. The court found that the plaintiff’s claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and the Ohio Constitution were unripe because there was no final decision by the relevant local authorities regarding the application of the zoning ordinance to his property. The court also rejected his Fourth Amendment and Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act) claims on the merits and declined supplemental jurisdiction over a state public records claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The court held that most of the plaintiff’s claims were unripe because he withdrew his application before any final decision was made by the city’s zoning authorities, and thus there was no concrete dispute for federal review. The court also held that his facial challenges to the ordinance were forfeited and, in any event, failed as a matter of law. The court further concluded that the Fourth Amendment and FACE Act claims failed on the merits and found no abuse of discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim. View "Daniel Grand v. City of University Heights, Ohio" on Justia Law

A trade association representing the dietary supplement industry challenged a New York law that prohibits the sale of dietary supplements marketed for weight loss or muscle building to individuals under eighteen. The law was enacted in response to concerns about health risks to minors from such supplements. The statute defines covered products based on how they are labeled or marketed, and authorizes the Attorney General to seek injunctions against violators. The association argued that the law violates the First Amendment, is unconstitutionally vague, and is preempted by federal law.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the association’s motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the association was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its claims, had not shown irreparable harm, and that the balance of equities and public interest weighed against granting relief. The District Court later dismissed the vagueness and preemption claims but allowed the First Amendment claim to proceed.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of a preliminary injunction. The Second Circuit held that the law satisfies intermediate scrutiny under the Central Hudson test for commercial speech, finding that New York has a substantial interest in protecting minors’ health, that the law directly advances that interest, and that it is not more extensive than necessary. The court also concluded that the age verification requirement does not unconstitutionally compel speech, that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, and that it is not preempted by federal law. The court further found that the association failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the public interest favored an injunction. The order denying the preliminary injunction was affirmed. View "Council for Responsible Nutrition v. James" on Justia Law

Susan Boggs and Fouad Rachid reside in a home owned by Fouad, Inc., located in Olmsted Township near the Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport. Boggs alleges that increased air traffic and airport operations, particularly following a runway expansion project, have caused significant noise, vibrations, and emissions, rendering the property unsuitable for residential use and amounting to a governmental taking. Boggs declined Cleveland’s offer to purchase an avigation easement and subsequently filed a mandamus action against the City of Cleveland, seeking to compel the city to initiate appropriation proceedings to determine compensation for the alleged taking.The case was initially removed to federal court, where Boggs pursued administrative remedies with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), but her claims were rejected. After further federal litigation, the district court granted summary judgment to Cleveland on federal claims and remanded the state-law claims to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. In state court, both parties moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment to Cleveland, finding that Boggs lacked standing because Cleveland, as a municipality, lacked authority to appropriate property outside its boundaries. The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Boggs’s injury was not redressable since Cleveland could not be compelled to initiate appropriation proceedings for property outside its jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and reversed the judgment of the Eighth District Court of Appeals. The court held that under Article I, Section 19 of the Ohio Constitution, a landowner whose property has been taken by a foreign municipality has standing to pursue a mandamus action to force the municipality to institute appropriation proceedings for compensation, regardless of whether the property is located within the municipality’s boundaries. The case was remanded for further proceedings, including consideration of the statute-of-limitations issue. View "State ex rel. Boggs v. Cleveland" on Justia Law

After being involved in a head-on collision during a snowstorm, the appellant was detained by police on suspicion of driving while impaired. Law enforcement obtained a search warrant authorizing a blood test, but not a urine test. The appellant refused to submit to both the blood test (for which there was a warrant) and a urine test (for which there was not). He was subsequently charged with first-degree test refusal. The appellant moved to suppress evidence of his refusals and to dismiss the charge, arguing that the statutes required refusal of both tests to sustain a conviction and that, because there was no warrant for a urine test, his prosecution violated the Fourth Amendment.The District Court denied the appellant’s motion, concluding that the relevant statutes did not require warrants for both blood and urine tests to prosecute for test refusal. The appellant waived his right to a jury trial, and the District Court found him guilty of first-degree test refusal based on stipulated facts. On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the statutory language required only refusal of the test authorized by the warrant and that there was no requirement for law enforcement to obtain warrants for both types of tests.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that when a warrant authorizes only one type of chemical test—either blood or urine—a person’s refusal to submit to that specific test is sufficient for a conviction under Minn. Stat. §§ 169A.20, subd. 2(2), and 171.177, subd. 2. The Court further held that a conviction for refusing a warranted chemical test does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed, though on different grounds. View "State of Minnesota vs. Lueck" on Justia Law