Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

A prisoner in the Illinois Department of Corrections was issued two disciplinary tickets for alleged gang affiliation after a gang-related questionnaire, purportedly filled out by him, was found in another inmate’s belongings. The first ticket was dismissed after a hearing, but a second, nearly identical ticket was issued shortly thereafter, leading to his immediate placement in segregation. The second ticket included additional allegations, such as handwriting analysis and claims of self-admitted gang membership. The prisoner remained in segregation for three months under conditions he described as inhumane, including exposure to mold, mildew, insects, rust, and leaking sewage. He filed grievances challenging the process and the conditions, and the ticket was eventually expunged for failure to follow internal procedures, but only after he had served the segregation term.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that even if there were factual disputes about whether the prisoner was denied witnesses, he had not demonstrated that the conditions of segregation constituted an “atypical and significant hardship” sufficient to implicate a protected liberty interest under the Due Process Clause.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit assumed, without deciding, that the prisoner’s conditions in segregation established a liberty interest. However, the court held that, under its recent precedent in Adams v. Reagle, prisoners who do not face the loss of good-time credits or other sentence-lengthening punishments are entitled only to informal, nonadversarial due process. The court found that the prisoner received the required process: notice of the charges, an opportunity to respond, and an impartial decisionmaker. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Torres v Brookman" on Justia Law

In early October 2025, the President of the United States invoked his authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 to federalize and deploy members of the National Guard in Illinois, despite opposition from the state’s Governor. The President justified this action by citing the need to address violent assaults against federal immigration agents and property, particularly in the context of increased protests at an ICE facility in Broadview, Illinois, following the launch of “Operation Midway Blitz.” Although protests had grown in size and occasionally involved minor disruptions and isolated incidents of violence, state and local law enforcement consistently maintained control, and federal agencies reported continued success in their operations.The State of Illinois and the City of Chicago filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, challenging the federalization of the Guard. They argued that the statutory conditions for such action under § 12406 were not met, and that the move violated the Tenth Amendment and the Posse Comitatus Act. After an adversary hearing, the district court granted a temporary restraining order, finding insufficient evidence of rebellion or inability to execute federal law with regular forces, and enjoined the federalization and deployment of the Guard. The administration appealed and sought a stay of the order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s order, applying clear error review to factual findings and de novo review to statutory interpretation. The Seventh Circuit held that the President’s decision to federalize the National Guard under § 12406 is judicially reviewable and that, even granting substantial deference to the executive, the statutory predicates for federalization were not met on the current record. The court denied the administration’s motion for a stay pending appeal as to deployment, but continued to stay the portion of the order enjoining federalization. View "Illinois v. Trump" on Justia Law

Police responded to a 911 call in Marshfield, Wisconsin, reporting that Jaison Coleman had threatened to kill his wife, Lisa Coleman, and was still inside their home. Officer Jamie Kizer arrived and spoke with Lisa on the porch, asking about the safety of her children and the location of her husband. Lisa hesitated to answer questions about her children’s safety and initially declined to allow the officer inside. After a brief pause, Lisa returned to the doorway, and following further discussion, she agreed to let Officer Kizer and his colleagues enter the home. Once inside, Lisa directed the officers to the children’s location and indicated where Coleman might be. The officers found Coleman, conducted a protective pat down, and learned from the children that Coleman had threatened Lisa with a gun.Based on information obtained during their entry, the officers secured a warrant to search the home, which led to the discovery of several firearms. Coleman was indicted for unlawful possession of a firearm as a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He moved to suppress the firearms, arguing that Lisa had not consented to the officers’ entry. A magistrate judge found that Lisa had consented and recommended denial of the motion. The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and denied the suppression motion, also concluding that the officers did not exceed the scope of Lisa’s consent. Coleman pleaded guilty but reserved the right to appeal the suppression ruling.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s findings for clear error. The appellate court held that Lisa’s consent was voluntary and that the officers acted within the scope of her consent. The court affirmed Coleman’s conviction, finding no error in the district court’s rulings. View "United States v. Coleman" on Justia Law

Amy Hadley’s home in South Bend, Indiana, was significantly damaged when law enforcement officers executed a search warrant in pursuit of a murder suspect they believed was inside her residence. The officers, acting on information that the suspect had accessed his Facebook account from Hadley’s IP address, obtained a warrant and forcefully entered the home, causing extensive property damage, including the use of tear gas and destruction of personal items. Hadley, who had no connection to the suspect, was denied compensation by both the City of South Bend and St. Joseph County for the $16,000 in damages.After her request for compensation was denied, Hadley filed suit in Indiana state court, seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of her Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, specifically invoking the Takings Clause. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that Seventh Circuit precedent, particularly Johnson v. Manitowoc County, foreclosed her claim. The district court agreed and dismissed the complaint, finding that the Takings Clause did not entitle her to compensation for property damage resulting from the execution of a lawful search warrant.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that, under its precedent in Johnson v. Manitowoc County, the Fifth Amendment does not require the government to compensate property owners for damage caused by law enforcement executing a valid search warrant. The court declined to overrule Johnson and found that Hadley’s arguments did not warrant revisiting the established rule. View "Hadley v. City of South Bend" on Justia Law

Patrick Jones Jr. was hired as a probationary deputy sheriff by the Lake County Sheriff’s Office and sent to a police training academy. During his training, Jones obtained a document from his girlfriend, believing it to be a study guide, and offered to share it with classmates. The document was actually a cheat sheet for a prior version of the Illinois state law enforcement exam. After an investigation by the training institute, which concluded Jones likely did not understand the document’s true nature, the Sheriff’s Office nonetheless terminated his employment. The termination letter, authored by Undersheriff Lawrence Oliver, cited Jones’s conduct as violating the office’s code of conduct and was distributed internally and to the office’s Merit Commission. Jones later struggled to find new law enforcement employment, attributing this difficulty to the termination letter.Jones filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, alleging that the termination letter was defamatory and that it deprived him of occupational liberty in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment for the Sheriff’s Office and Undersheriff Oliver, finding that Jones failed to show it was virtually impossible for him to find new employment and that the statements in the letter were either true or opinion, and that Oliver was entitled to absolute immunity under Illinois law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that the Sheriff’s Office was not a proper defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because Jones did not allege a policy or custom as required for municipal liability. The court further held that Jones’s occupational liberty claim failed because there was no evidence that Undersheriff Oliver publicly disclosed the termination letter. Finally, the court held that Undersheriff Oliver was entitled to absolute immunity under Illinois law for statements made within the scope of his official duties. View "Jones v. Lake County Sheriff's Office" on Justia Law

John Seiwert, who had a long history of daily heroin and crack cocaine use, was found in possession of firearms at his home in Illinois shortly after his father’s death. Law enforcement, investigating Seiwert’s drug dealer, observed frequent contact between the two and recovered firearms and drug paraphernalia from Seiwert’s residence. Seiwert admitted to using crack cocaine just hours before police arrived and to being a daily user for twenty years. He was charged with two counts of possessing a firearm as an unlawful user of, or addict to, a controlled substance under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3).The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied Seiwert’s pretrial motions to dismiss the indictment, which argued that § 922(g)(3) was unconstitutionally vague and violated the Second Amendment, both before and after the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen. At trial, the government presented evidence of Seiwert’s drug use and firearm possession, and the jury convicted him on both counts. The district court denied Seiwert’s post-trial motions and sentenced him to concurrent terms of imprisonment and supervised release.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed Seiwert’s arguments that § 922(g)(3) violated the Second Amendment, was unconstitutionally vague, and that the evidence was insufficient. The court held that, under the Bruen framework, § 922(g)(3) does not violate the Second Amendment as applied to Seiwert, finding it analogous to historical laws disarming the intoxicated and mentally ill. The court also found that its prior decision in United States v. Cook foreclosed Seiwert’s vagueness challenge, and that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the conviction. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "USA v Seiwert" on Justia Law

The case concerns a defendant who was arrested at a gas station mini-mart after officers, investigating an earlier robbery, observed him enter a single-occupancy restroom marked “Out of Order.” The defendant did not lock the door. Officers entered the restroom shortly after and found him standing on the handicap bars, reaching into the ceiling. A firearm was recovered from the ceiling area, and a subsequent search of the defendant revealed cash and various controlled substances. The government conceded that the officers lacked probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe the defendant had committed a crime at the time they entered the restroom.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence, finding he lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the out-of-order restroom. The court also found sufficient evidence to convict him of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance following a bench trial. The defendant appealed, challenging the denial of the suppression motion, the sufficiency of the evidence for the firearm conviction, and sought to preserve a constitutional challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the defendant did not have a subjective or objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the unlocked, out-of-order restroom, so the officers’ entry did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. The court also found that sufficient evidence supported the conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, based on constructive possession. Finally, the court held that the defendant waived his constitutional challenge to § 922(g) by failing to present any legal argument on appeal. View "United States v. Scott" on Justia Law

Three Illinois residents who hold concealed carry licenses challenged a provision of the Illinois Firearm Concealed Carry Act that prohibits carrying loaded and accessible firearms on public transportation, such as buses and trains, with exceptions for unloaded and properly stored firearms. The plaintiffs argued that this restriction violated their Second Amendment rights, as they wished to carry firearms for self-defense while using public transit but refrained from doing so due to the law’s threat of arrest and prosecution.The case was first heard in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division. The district court found that the plaintiffs had standing, as they faced a credible threat of prosecution under the challenged statute. On the merits, the district court applied the Supreme Court’s test from New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen and concluded that the public transit firearm restriction was not sufficiently supported by the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, declaring the restriction unconstitutional as applied to them.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The Seventh Circuit held that Illinois’s restriction on carrying loaded and accessible firearms on public transportation is consistent with the Second Amendment, as it fits within a longstanding tradition of regulating firearms in sensitive and crowded, confined places. The court found that such regulations are analogous to historical restrictions in places like schools, legislative assemblies, and other crowded venues, and that the temporary disarmament required by the law is justified by public safety concerns unique to public transit. The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Schoenthal v. O'Neill Burke" on Justia Law

Lauren Richwine, through her business Death Done Differently, provides services as a “death doula,” assisting clients and their families with end-of-life planning, emotional support, and guidance on funeral arrangements. Richwine is not a licensed funeral director, and her website notes that her services are performed under the supervision of a licensed funeral director. In 2021, a complaint was filed with the Indiana Public Licensing Agency alleging that Richwine was practicing funeral services without a license. Following an investigation, the Indiana Attorney General sought a cease-and-desist order from the State Board of Funeral and Cemetery Service, which was approved. The order prohibited Richwine and her company from advertising or providing certain services related to funeral planning, community death care, and support with funeral homes.After the cease-and-desist order was issued, Richwine and Death Done Differently filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, arguing that enforcement of the Indiana statute against them would violate their First Amendment rights. The district court granted a preliminary injunction, enjoining enforcement of the statute against the plaintiffs. The defendants appealed, arguing that the plaintiffs had waived their rights by signing the cease-and-desist agreement and that federal abstention doctrine barred the suit. The district court rejected these arguments, finding no clear and unmistakable waiver of federal rights and no ongoing state proceeding that would justify abstention.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. The Seventh Circuit held that the Indiana statute, as applied to Richwine and Death Done Differently, burdens substantially more speech than necessary to further the state’s interests in public health, safety, and consumer protection. The court found that the statute’s restrictions on the plaintiffs’ speech and advertising likely violate the First Amendment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings. View "Richwine v. Matuszak" on Justia Law

Cordell Sanders, an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center, suffered from serious mental health issues and spent over eight years in segregation housing due to multiple disciplinary infractions. He received mental health services from various providers employed by Wexford Health Sources, the prison’s contracted healthcare provider. Sanders alleged that these providers were deliberately indifferent to his mental health needs, offering inadequate treatment and failing to advocate for him during disciplinary proceedings. He also claimed that Wexford maintained a widespread practice of denying mental health care until inmates were in crisis and failed to implement policies guiding provider participation in disciplinary hearings.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants. The court found that Sanders had not presented sufficient evidence to support his claims of deliberate indifference or to establish a Monell claim against Wexford. Sanders appealed this decision, arguing that the providers’ treatment was ineffective and that Wexford’s practices and lack of policy amounted to constitutional violations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment order de novo. The appellate court held that Sanders failed to provide evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the providers’ conduct constituted deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment. The court emphasized the lack of expert testimony regarding the effectiveness of Sanders’s treatment and found no substantial departure from professional standards. Regarding Wexford, the court concluded that Sanders did not demonstrate a widespread practice of denying care or that the absence of a more detailed policy caused constitutional harm. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for all defendants. View "Sanders v. Moss" on Justia Law