Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Anthony Browne was convicted in Iowa in 1991 of willful injury causing serious injury, a Class C forcible felony, and criminal gang participation, a Class D felony. After completing his sentence in 1998 and maintaining a law-abiding life, Browne sought to possess firearms for hunting, target shooting, and home defense. Iowa law prohibits felons, especially those convicted of forcible felonies, from possessing firearms or obtaining a permit to acquire a handgun, and does not allow restoration of firearms rights for such individuals except through a gubernatorial pardon.Browne filed suit in state court against the Governor of Iowa and the Sheriff of Johnson County, arguing that the statutory prohibition on restoration of firearms rights for forcible felons violates the Second Amendment as applied to him. The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. Browne requested a declaratory judgment that the statute is unconstitutional, and injunctions against enforcement and denial of a handgun permit without an individualized determination of dangerousness. The district court dismissed Browne’s federal claim for failure to state a claim, finding the statute constitutional, and remanded his state constitutional claim to state court.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The appellate court held that Browne had standing because applying for restoration or a permit would be futile under current law. On the merits, the court affirmed the district court’s dismissal, holding that Iowa’s lifetime prohibition on firearm possession by forcible felons, subject to the possibility of a gubernatorial pardon, is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation and does not violate the Second Amendment. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Browne v. Reynolds" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a Nebraska resident, received Medicaid benefits administered by the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (NDHHS). In April 2024, she was sent a notice stating her Medicaid eligibility was ending due to income exceeding program standards. The notice informed her of her rights to request a conference or appeal and outlined the process for a fair hearing. She did not appeal the termination, and her coverage ended on May 1, 2024. Subsequently, she filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of herself and similarly situated individuals, alleging that the termination notices failed to meet due process requirements and seeking class certification, declaratory and injunctive relief, including reinstatement of benefits until proper notice was provided.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska considered only her individual claims, as she did not challenge the court’s decision to exclude class claims on appeal. The district court denied her request for a temporary restraining order, finding she was unlikely to succeed because her claims sought retroactive relief barred by sovereign immunity and because the notices likely satisfied due process. The court then dismissed her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding she had not alleged an ongoing violation of federal law and was not seeking prospective relief, as required to invoke the Ex parte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Eighth Circuit held that the plaintiff’s alleged due process violation was a discrete past event—the issuance of the notice and termination of benefits—not an ongoing violation. The court further held that the relief sought was retrospective, not prospective, and thus barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The court concluded that the Ex parte Young exception did not apply, and affirmed the dismissal. View "Filyaw v. Corsi" on Justia Law

A certified nurse midwife in Nebraska sought to provide home birth services but was prevented from doing so by state law. The Nebraska Certified Nurse Midwifery Practice Act requires midwives to work under a supervising physician through a practice agreement and prohibits them from attending home births outside authorized medical facilities. The midwife alleged that these restrictions forced her to turn away women seeking home births and sued state officials, claiming the law violated her constitutional rights and the rights of her prospective patients.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska dismissed the midwife’s claims. The court found that she failed to state a claim for violation of her own rights under the Due Process Clause and lacked standing to assert claims on behalf of her prospective patients. The district court concluded that the statutory requirements were rationally related to legitimate state interests in health and safety and that the midwife did not have a sufficiently close relationship with prospective patients nor could she show that those patients were hindered from bringing their own suits.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The appellate court held that the Nebraska law regulating midwifery is subject to rational basis review and that the legislature could rationally believe the restrictions serve legitimate interests in public health and safety. The court also held that the midwife lacked third-party standing to assert the rights of prospective patients because she did not have a close relationship with them and they were not hindered from bringing their own claims. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, upholding the dismissal of all claims. View "Swanson v. Hilgers" on Justia Law

Marcus D. Evans, an inmate at the Varner Supermax Unit in Arkansas, was placed in full restraints to attend a prison program. After returning to his cell, officers removed his hand restraints but refused to remove his leg restraints, despite his repeated requests. Evans remained in leg restraints for approximately 15 hours, during which he experienced pain, had difficulty sleeping, and was forced to cut off his clothing to shower. Medical records indicated he reported significant pain but showed no serious physical injury. Evans alleged that the officers’ refusal to remove the restraints was intentional and stemmed from prior altercations and threats.Evans filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, asserting an excessive force claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the officers. The officers moved for summary judgment, arguing qualified immunity. A magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment, finding that while a jury could find a constitutional violation, the right was not clearly established. The district court declined to adopt this recommendation, holding that existing precedent clearly established that prolonged restraints without penological justification could constitute excessive force, and denied qualified immunity.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the denial of qualified immunity de novo. The court held that the officers’ refusal to remove the leg restraints constituted a use of force, and that Evans’s pain and discomfort, even absent serious injury, were sufficient to support an excessive force claim. The court further found that existing case law clearly established that subjecting an inmate to prolonged restraints without penological justification could violate the Eighth Amendment. Therefore, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to the officers. View "Evans v. Smith" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a former police officer in Dermott, Arkansas, alleged that he was forced to resign in retaliation for reporting a fellow officer’s excessive use of force. The incident in question involved the other officer grabbing an arrestee by the neck while the arrestee was restrained. Subsequently, the officer accused the plaintiff of taking money from a parolee, which the parolee confirmed in a statement. The police chief referred the matter to a prosecutor, who initiated a state police investigation. During this period, the plaintiff’s employment status became unclear, with conflicting statements about whether he was fired or resigned. The plaintiff ultimately resigned after a job offer from another police department was rescinded due to the ongoing investigation. He was later charged with abuse of office and witness bribery, but the charges were dismissed when the parolee could not be located.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims. The court found that the plaintiff had voluntarily resigned and had not suffered an adverse employment action, which was necessary for his First Amendment retaliation claim. The court also determined that the plaintiff was not “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment for his malicious prosecution claim, as a summons to appear in court did not constitute a seizure. The court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and found that they failed on the merits, including claims under the Arkansas Whistle Blower Act, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and defamation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Eighth Circuit held that the plaintiff’s voluntary resignation did not amount to an adverse employment action, and that he was not seized under the Fourth Amendment. The court also agreed that the state law claims failed as a matter of law. View "Brown v. City of Dermott Arkansas" on Justia Law

Anthony Schmitt, a Christian volunteer, taught a program called “The Quest for Authentic Manhood” at the Minnesota Correctional Facility from 2012 until 2020, when all religious programming was suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Quest program, which is based on biblical teachings about manhood, was popular among inmates and had been offered voluntarily. In 2023, after religious programming resumed, the Minnesota Department of Corrections (MDOC) decided to discontinue Quest, citing concerns that its content conflicted with the department’s diversity, equity, and inclusivity values. The MDOC specifically objected to the program’s biblical perspective on masculinity, its treatment of sexual orientation, and its portrayal of gender roles.Schmitt filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that the MDOC’s decision violated his First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion, and constituted a denominational preference in violation of the Establishment Clause. He sought a preliminary injunction to reinstate the Quest program. The district court denied the motion, applying the standard from Turner v. Safley, and found that the MDOC’s decision was rationally related to legitimate penological interests, was neutral, and did not violate Schmitt’s constitutional rights.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the denial of the preliminary injunction. The court held that, even assuming the Turner standard applied, the MDOC’s action was not neutral because it targeted Schmitt’s religious viewpoint. The court found that Schmitt was likely to succeed on the merits of his First Amendment claims and that the other factors for a preliminary injunction also favored him. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction and remanded with instructions to reinstate the Quest program pending further proceedings. View "Schmitt v. Rebertus" on Justia Law

A firefighter in Forrest City, Arkansas, was terminated after posting a provocative anti-abortion image on his personal Facebook page. The image, intended to express his pro-life views, was interpreted by some as racially insensitive, particularly because it included the caption “I can’t breathe!”—a phrase associated with protests following George Floyd’s death. After complaints from a retired fire supervisor and others, the firefighter deleted the post. However, the mayor placed him on administrative leave and, following a brief investigation, fired him, citing the public outcry and concerns about the city’s ability to provide public services. The firefighter, who had served over four years without prior incident, learned of his termination through a press release.The firefighter filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, alleging First Amendment retaliation against the mayor in both his individual and official capacities, and against the city for an alleged unwritten policy allowing officials to censor employee speech. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, holding that the mayor was entitled to qualified immunity and that there was no evidence of an unwritten policy justifying the official-capacity and policy-based claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the firefighter’s Facebook post addressed a matter of public concern and was made as a private citizen. The court found insufficient evidence of actual or reasonably predicted disruption to the fire department’s operations to justify summary judgment for the defendants. The court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the First Amendment retaliation claims against the mayor and the city, affirmed the dismissal of the unbridled-discretion claim, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Melton v. City of Forrest City, Arkansas" on Justia Law

Arkansas enacted a law in 2021 that prohibits healthcare professionals from providing or referring minors for gender transition procedures, which include certain medical and surgical interventions intended to alter a minor’s physical characteristics to those of a different sex. Four minors, their parents, and two healthcare professionals challenged the law, arguing it violated their constitutional rights. The law was passed over the governor’s veto and defined violations as unprofessional conduct subject to disciplinary action.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas initially granted a preliminary injunction, and a panel of the Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding a likelihood of success on the Equal Protection claim. After a bench trial, the district court permanently enjoined enforcement of the law, holding that it violated the Equal Protection Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the First Amendment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the law does not classify based on sex or transgender status, but rather on age and medical procedure, and is therefore subject to rational basis review. The court found that the state’s interest in protecting the health and safety of minors provided a rational basis for the law. The court also concluded that there is no deeply rooted constitutional right for parents to obtain gender transition procedures for their children over a state prohibition. Regarding the First Amendment, the court determined that the law’s restriction on referrals regulates professional conduct with only incidental effects on speech and survives intermediate scrutiny. The permanent injunction was reversed and the case remanded. View "Brandt v. Griffin" on Justia Law

Three residents and taxpayers of a Minnesota school district challenged a provision in the collective bargaining agreement between the district and its teachers’ union. The agreement allowed teachers to take up to 100 days per year of paid leave to work for the union, with the union reimbursing the district for the cost of substitute teachers but not for the full salaries and benefits of the teachers on leave. The residents objected to the alleged political and campaign activities conducted by teachers during this leave and filed suit, claiming violations of the First Amendment, the Minnesota Constitution, and state labor law.Previously, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed the case, finding that the residents lacked Article III standing. On an earlier appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the residents had adequately alleged municipal taxpayer standing at the motion to dismiss stage and remanded the case. On remand, the district court again granted summary judgment for lack of standing, concluding that the residents had not shown a sufficient injury in fact. The residents appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and held that two of the residents, as current municipal taxpayers, had Article III standing because they demonstrated that district funds were expended solely due to the challenged union leave policy. The court found that the expenditure of funds, even if partially reimbursed, constituted a direct injury to municipal taxpayers. The court also held that the intermingling of local, state, and federal funds in the district’s general fund did not defeat standing. The judgment of the district court was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Huizenga v. ISD No. 11" on Justia Law

Officer Mason Roth shot and killed Bobby Jo Klum, who was walking through a residential neighborhood with a gun to his head, evading arrest, and ignoring officer commands to drop the weapon. Klum’s spouse and mother sued Officer Roth and the City of Davenport under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of Klum’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure. The district court granted qualified immunity to Officer Roth and concluded the City of Davenport was not liable under Monell v. Department of Social Services.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa granted summary judgment to Officer Roth and the City of Davenport on all claims. The court concluded that Klum’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure was not violated and that Klum did not possess a clearly established right against seizure by deadly force under the circumstances. Plaintiffs appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity as to their excessive force claim against Officer Roth and the City of Davenport.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that any right was not clearly established at the time, and therefore, Officer Roth was entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that the totality of the circumstances, including Klum’s non-compliance, evasion, and proximity to bystanders, justified the use of deadly force. The court also upheld the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the Monell claim, concluding that Plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine issue as to whether the City of Davenport had a policy that directly caused the use of deadly force. View "Klum v. City of Davenport" on Justia Law