Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Four employees of the University of Puerto Rico sought to stop the deduction of union dues from their paychecks after the Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees, Council 31, which held that public sector employees could not be compelled to pay union dues without consent. Despite their requests, the University and the union continued to deduct dues for nearly three years. The employees then brought suit against the University’s president and the union, alleging violations of their First Amendment rights and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico largely granted summary judgment to the University president and the union, finding no constitutional violation. However, the court ordered the union to reimburse the employees for dues deducted after their resignations but denied interest and did not grant declaratory or injunctive relief. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the employees’ Puerto Rico law claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit was asked only to direct the district court to issue declaratory judgments stating that the past and potential future deductions were unconstitutional. The First Circuit dismissed the appeal as moot. It held that a declaration regarding past conduct would be merely advisory because the deductions had already ceased and a judgment ordering reimbursement was in place. The court also found the request for prospective relief moot, as the University and union had admitted their error, stopped the deductions, and adopted new policies to comply with Janus. The court concluded there was no substantial controversy remaining and that the voluntary cessation doctrine did not apply under these facts. The appeal was therefore dismissed as moot. View "Ramos-Ramos v. Jordan-Conde" on Justia Law

A White police officer employed by the Atlanta Police Department alleged that he was denied a promotion to Captain in December 2014 and was later removed from a flexible work schedule after he reported alleged misconduct by superiors. The officer had previously reported in 2008 that Black supervisors were allegedly treating White officers less favorably, which resulted in tension but was not shown to have been communicated to the ultimate decisionmaker for promotions. In 2015, after reporting possible ticket-fixing by his superiors to internal and federal authorities, the officer was required to work a fixed schedule, which impacted his ability to work a second job and fulfill childcare obligations.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed or granted summary judgment on most of the officer’s claims, including those under Title VII for racial discrimination and retaliation, and under the Georgia Whistleblower Act. The court found no evidence that the Police Chief, who was the sole decisionmaker for promotions, was aware of the officer’s 2008 discrimination complaint, and further held that the officer had not experienced an adverse employment action as required by the statutes. At trial, the jury found for the City on the Title VII discrimination claim, concluding the officer had not been denied a promotion.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed most of the district court’s rulings, including summary judgment for the City on the Title VII and Whistleblower Act claims and the jury verdict on the discrimination claim. However, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment for the Chief and another supervisor on the First Amendment retaliation claim, holding that revoking the officer’s flexible schedule constituted a material adverse action sufficient to support such a claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings on this First Amendment issue. View "Joyner v. City of Atlanta" on Justia Law

The case concerns a defendant who was released from custody on the express condition that he appear at a scheduled adjudicatory hearing related to an unrelated felony. He failed to appear at the specified time and place, leading the State to charge him with the felony offense of Bail Jumping under Montana law. The defendant was arrested about ten weeks after missing the hearing. He pled not guilty and subsequently moved to dismiss the charge, arguing both that the statute was unconstitutionally vague—particularly regarding the requirement that his failure to appear be “without lawful excuse”—and that the State had failed to allege sufficient facts to establish probable cause, since it did not affirmatively show he lacked a lawful excuse.The Twentieth Judicial District Court of Montana denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The defendant then entered a plea agreement, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion. He admitted to the facts constituting the offense, including that he did not have a lawful excuse for missing the hearing.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether Montana’s bail-jumping statute is unconstitutionally vague and whether the State must allege facts negating the existence of a lawful excuse to establish probable cause. The Supreme Court held that the statute provides fair notice and sufficient guidelines to defendants and law enforcement, and is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to the defendant’s conduct. The Court also held that the State is not required to allege or prove the absence of a lawful excuse in its charging documents; rather, the existence of a lawful excuse is an affirmative defense for which the defendant carries the initial burden of production. The Court affirmed the judgment of the District Court. View "State v. Trombley" on Justia Law

The case concerns the suspension of a driver’s license by the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) after the driver, stopped for erratic driving and suspected of being under the influence of alcohol, refused a chemical test when properly advised of the consequences. At the administrative hearing regarding his suspension, the DMV’s hearing officer introduced evidence, asked clarifying questions, and ruled on objections, all while stating she was acting as a neutral factfinder rather than as an advocate for the DMV. The driver argued that the hearing officer’s dual roles violated his due process rights by making her both a prosecutor and adjudicator.After the DMV sustained the license suspension, the driver petitioned the Superior Court of Alameda County for a writ of mandate, claiming that the hearing officer functioned as both advocate and judge, creating an unconstitutional risk of bias. The trial court denied the petition, finding that the DMV’s current policy required hearing officers to act only as neutral decisionmakers and that no due process violation occurred.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the denial. The court clarified that due process requires an impartial adjudicator but does not prohibit the same person from developing the evidence and making a decision in an administrative setting, so long as there is no disqualifying interest or extraordinary evidence of bias. The court held that the DMV’s current structure does not violate due process, as hearing officers are presumed impartial and their actions in presenting evidence do not turn them into advocates. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed. The court expressly declined to follow recent decisions adopting an “appearance of bias” standard and reinforced that only an actual, constitutionally intolerable risk of bias triggers a due process violation. View "Chi v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was convicted in Oregon in 2001 of attempted unlawful sexual penetration in the first degree and sexual abuse in the second degree. After completing his sentence, including probation, in 2014, he moved to Montana in 2016 and registered as a sexual offender as required by law. In 2023, the Montana Department of Justice attempted to verify his address, but the verification was returned undeliverable. The defendant left a voicemail reporting a new address but did not update his registration in person, as required by the current statute.The State of Montana charged the defendant in 2024 with failure to register as a sexual offender, expressly citing the 2023 version of the Sexual or Violent Offender Registration Act (SVORA) in its charging documents. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that retroactive application of the 2023 SVORA to his pre-2007 conviction violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Montana Constitution. The Second Judicial District Court agreed and dismissed the charge, concluding that applying the 2023 SVORA retroactively was unconstitutional.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the District Court’s dismissal de novo. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the State charged the defendant under the 2023 SVORA—and this Court has previously held that the post-2007 version of SVORA is punitive and cannot be applied retroactively to convictions predating its enactment—the prosecution could not stand. The Court emphasized that the State could not rely on older versions of SVORA not cited in the charging documents and did not address arguments regarding restoration of rights, limiting its decision to the ex post facto violation. The order of dismissal was affirmed. View "State v. Pratt" on Justia Law

Several individuals and two organizations challenged a Missouri law enacted in 2022, House Bill No. 1878 (HB 1878), which amended the state’s voting requirements by mandating that voters present specific forms of photo identification or cast a provisional ballot under certain conditions. The organizations—the Missouri State Conference of the NAACP and the League of Women Voters of Missouri—along with the individuals, claimed that these provisions unconstitutionally burdened the right to vote and violated equal protection guarantees.Their petition for declaratory and injunctive relief was filed in the Circuit Court of Cole County. After a bench trial, the circuit court found that none of the individual plaintiffs had shown an actual or threatened injury, as each had either successfully voted since the law’s enactment or their alleged difficulties were speculative. The court also determined that the organizations had not established standing, either through a diversion of resources or by identifying any specific member adversely affected by the law. Despite these findings, the circuit court proceeded to rule on the merits, concluding the law was constitutional.The Supreme Court of Missouri, which has exclusive jurisdiction in cases involving the validity of state statutes, reviewed the matter. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s determination that the appellants lacked standing—meaning none of the plaintiffs demonstrated a concrete, personal stake in the outcome. The Supreme Court held that, because there was no justiciable controversy before the court, the circuit court erred by reaching and deciding the merits of the constitutional claims. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed that portion of the judgment addressing the merits of the constitutional challenge. The case was thus resolved solely on the issue of standing. View "Missouri State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People vs. State" on Justia Law

In 2022, Missouri enacted new legislation that imposed several restrictions on activities related to voter registration and absentee ballot applications. The law prohibited the payment or compensation of individuals for soliciting voter registration applications unless they were government employees, required anyone who solicited more than ten voter registration applications to register with the state, and mandated that solicitors be at least eighteen years old and registered Missouri voters. Additionally, the law completely banned the solicitation of voters to obtain absentee ballot applications. These provisions affected organizations whose work involves encouraging and assisting individuals in registering to vote and informing them about absentee voting.The Circuit Court of Cole County reviewed a lawsuit brought by two civic organizations challenging these provisions as unconstitutional. The organizations argued the restrictions violated rights to free speech, association, and due process under the Missouri Constitution. The court issued a preliminary injunction, and after trial, permanently enjoined enforcement of the provisions, finding them to be facially unconstitutional restrictions on core political speech, overbroad, content- and viewpoint-based, and unconstitutionally vague. The court concluded the state had not shown the provisions were narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the circuit court’s judgment. The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the statutory provisions imposed facially unconstitutional restrictions on core political speech protected by article I, section 8 of the Missouri Constitution. The Court found the provisions neither served a compelling state interest nor were narrowly tailored, and instead captured substantial amounts of protected speech unrelated to any compelling interest. The judgment declaring the provisions unconstitutional was affirmed. View "State vs. League of Women Voters" on Justia Law

After the results of the 2020 United States census were certified to the governor of Missouri in August 2021, the Missouri General Assembly established new congressional districts in 2022, as required by the state constitution. In September 2025, the General Assembly passed House Bill 1 (“HB 1”), which repealed the 2022 congressional districts and established new ones, even though no new census had been certified. The governor signed HB 1 into law. A group of plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of HB 1, arguing that article III, section 45 of the Missouri Constitution restricts the General Assembly to one redistricting following each decennial census certification.The Circuit Court of Cole County heard the case on stipulated facts and rejected the plaintiffs’ claim, finding that HB 1 was a valid exercise of the General Assembly’s legislative authority. The circuit court declared that article III, section 45 does not prevent the General Assembly from redistricting more frequently than once per decade.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the constitutional question de novo. The Court held that article III, section 45 obligates the General Assembly to redistrict upon certification of the decennial census but does not expressly prohibit mid-decade or more frequent congressional redistricting. The Court explained that, absent express constitutional restraint, the General Assembly’s legislative power remains plenary. The Court also found that the word “when” in section 45 acts as a trigger for mandatory redistricting but does not serve as a limitation on the legislature’s authority to redistrict at other times.The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the circuit court’s judgment, upholding HB 1 as constitutional and concluding that article III, section 45 does not restrict the General Assembly’s power to conduct mid-decade congressional redistricting. View "Luther vs. Hoskins" on Justia Law

Law enforcement officers executed a search warrant for methamphetamine at a rural Wisconsin property, where they believed Ryan Steinhoff, suspected of violent criminal activity, was present. During the early morning search, Steinhoff was found in a camper and, after initially appearing to comply with police orders, was tackled by an officer. In the course of his restraint, Steinhoff sustained a head injury from a rifle barrel, which required stitches. Body-camera footage captured the incident, but it was unclear whether the head injury was caused intentionally or accidentally.Steinhoff filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, alleging that Detective Kowalczyk and Investigator Malovrh used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment to Captain Ramberg, as Steinhoff conceded no excessive force was used by him. The court denied summary judgment to Investigator Malovrh on the claim regarding kneeling during handcuffing, and a jury later found in Malovrh’s favor on that issue. The district court granted summary judgment and qualified immunity to Detective Kowalczyk regarding the tackle, finding no clearly established law prohibiting his actions. The court also granted summary judgment to Investigator Malovrh on the rifle strike, concluding no reasonable jury could find the strike intentional.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed qualified immunity for Detective Kowalczyk, holding that his actions during a high-risk drug raid did not violate clearly established law. However, the appellate court reversed summary judgment for Investigator Malovrh, finding factual disputes about whether the rifle strike was intentional. The court remanded for a jury to resolve those disputes, as a blow to the head with a rifle could constitute excessive force if intentional. View "Steinhoff v Malovrh" on Justia Law

In the early hours of January 24, 2022, the defendant fatally shot one individual and seriously injured another outside a nightclub in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. He did not dispute that he fired the shots, but claimed at trial that he acted in defense of his cousins, whom he believed were in imminent danger after a physical altercation. The incident was captured on video, which at certain points contradicted the defendant’s account. During the trial, the main factual dispute centered on whether the defendant’s use of force was justified under the defense of others doctrine.The case was tried in the Providence County Superior Court. The jury found the defendant guilty of second-degree murder, discharging a firearm during a violent crime resulting in death, and firearm possession offenses, but acquitted him of charges related to the shooting of the second individual. The trial justice sentenced the defendant to a lengthy period of incarceration. During the trial, improper questions from the prosecutor regarding the defendant’s post-arrest silence were objected to and sustained, with the trial justice issuing cautionary instructions to the jury and ultimately denying the defense’s motion for a mistrial.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed whether the trial justice erred in denying a mistrial after the prosecution impermissibly questioned the defendant about his exercise of the right to remain silent. The Supreme Court held that the prosecutor’s questions violated the defendant’s due process rights, as such use of post-arrest silence for impeachment is fundamentally unfair. The Court found that the cautionary instructions did not cure the prejudice resulting from these questions and concluded that a mistrial was warranted. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the conviction and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "State v. Baker" on Justia Law