Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

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

A high school social studies teacher with a history of disciplinary issues was terminated after posting inflammatory messages on her Facebook account, which was followed primarily by former students. The posts, made during nationwide protests following the killing of George Floyd, included comments and memes that were perceived as racially insensitive and vulgar. Although the teacher had set her account to private and did not accept friend requests from current students, the posts quickly circulated within the school community, prompting complaints from students, parents, staff, and widespread media attention. The school district cited her prior suspensions for similar conduct, the disruption caused by her posts, and her failure to appreciate the impact of her comments as reasons for her dismissal.After her termination, the teacher requested a review hearing before the Illinois State Board of Education, where she argued that her Facebook posts were protected by the First Amendment. The hearing officer applied the Pickering balancing test and found that her dismissal did not violate her constitutional rights. Subsequently, the teacher filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against the school district and associated individuals under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a First Amendment violation. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that she was collaterally estopped from bringing her claim and, alternatively, that her claim failed on the merits.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Seventh Circuit held that the teacher failed to present sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to find in her favor on her First Amendment claim. Applying the Pickering balancing test, the court concluded that the school district’s interest in addressing actual and potential disruption outweighed the teacher’s interest in free expression, and her posts were not entitled to First Amendment protection. View "Hedgepeth v Britton" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, an Illinois prisoner, was involved in a physical altercation with several correctional officers at Stateville Correctional Center. Following the incident, he was transferred to Pontiac Correctional Center, where he received medical treatment. He was issued a disciplinary ticket for a major infraction, which led to an adjustment committee hearing at Pontiac. At the hearing, he was allowed to present his side but was not permitted to call witnesses or view video evidence. The committee recommended several disciplinary measures, including three months of solitary confinement in conditions the plaintiff later described as appalling, with unsanitary and unsafe features.The plaintiff filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, alleging that the disciplinary committee members and the warden violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by imposing solitary confinement without sufficient procedural protections. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff had not established a protected liberty interest, had not shown inadequate procedures, and that they were entitled to qualified immunity. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that three months in segregation, even with harsh conditions, did not amount to a deprivation of a liberty interest protected by due process.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit disagreed with the district court’s conclusion regarding the liberty interest, holding that the plaintiff’s evidence of three months in unusually harsh and unsanitary solitary confinement raised a genuine issue of material fact about deprivation of a protected liberty interest. However, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment for the defendants, holding that they were entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time of the plaintiff’s confinement. The court clarified that, going forward, short terms of solitary confinement combined with comparably harsh conditions will suffice to show a protected liberty interest requiring procedural protections. View "Jackson v. Anastacio" on Justia Law

A high school student sought to establish a pro-life student club at her public high school. The school promptly approved the club after she followed the required procedures, including securing a faculty sponsor and submitting a club questionnaire. The student actively promoted the club at the school’s activities fair, wearing pro-life apparel and displaying related signs. The dispute arose when the student submitted flyers containing political slogans and images for posting on school walls. Administrators instructed her to revise the flyers to comply with the school’s neutral content policy, which limited flyers to the club’s name and meeting details and excluded political content. Instead of revising the flyers, the student and her mother approached another administrator to seek approval, which led the principal to suspend the club’s status for the semester, citing concerns that the club was no longer student-led and that established procedures had been violated. The student was allowed to reapply, and the club was later reinstated.The student and her parents filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, alleging violations of the First Amendment and the Equal Access Act, claiming that the rejection of the flyers and the club’s suspension were motivated by hostility to her pro-life views. The district court granted summary judgment to the school district and officials, finding no constitutional or statutory violations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Seventh Circuit held that the school’s restriction on political content in student club flyers was a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral policy related to legitimate pedagogical concerns under Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. The court also found that the temporary suspension of the club was based on neutral, conduct-related reasons and not on the student’s viewpoint. The court further held that there was no violation of the Equal Access Act and that the plaintiffs had not preserved a separate claim regarding the flyers under that statute. View "E.D. v Noblesville School District" on Justia Law

A man living with his partner and her two young children in Indiana was convicted of murdering the children and setting fire to their home. Prior to the incident, he exhibited suspicious behavior, including quitting his job, withdrawing his savings, and making threatening statements. On the night of the crime, he bound one child, gathered belongings, and fled the state. The children’s bodies were found after the house fire, and he was apprehended in Kentucky following a police chase. After being read his rights in the hospital, he gave a brief, largely uninformative statement to police.He was charged with two counts of murder and arson. At trial, the jury found him guilty and recommended the death penalty, which the judge imposed. During the trial, a juror brought a note and cookies from his wife, referencing the victims, but the court found this did not prejudice the jury after questioning them and dismissed the juror. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence. The defendant then sought postconviction relief in Indiana state court, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel, but the trial court denied relief, and the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed, with some justices partially dissenting on the prejudice issue.The defendant filed a federal habeas petition in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, raising over 30 claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel, juror bias, and evidentiary issues. The district court denied most claims as procedurally defaulted and found the rest without merit, also denying requests for stays and additional funding. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that most claims were procedurally defaulted, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying stays or funding, and the Indiana Supreme Court’s decisions were neither unreasonable applications of federal law nor based on unreasonable factual determinations. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief and related motions. View "Weisheit v Neal" on Justia Law

Edward Flynn was killed when a fleeing suspect, James Shirley, crashed into his car during a high-speed police pursuit. The incident began when Indianapolis police officers attempted to investigate a potentially stolen truck. Shirley, the suspect, backed into a patrol car and nearly struck two officers before fleeing. Multiple officers engaged in a pursuit that lasted about five and a half minutes, during which Shirley drove recklessly, including turning off his lights, running stop signs and red lights, and reaching high speeds. The chase ended when Shirley ran a red light and collided with Edward Flynn’s vehicle, resulting in Flynn’s death.Gayl Flynn, representing Edward’s estate, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against the City and five officers. She alleged violations of Edward’s Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights and claimed the City failed to properly train its officers, invoking Monell v. Department of Social Service of New York. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, applying the “intent to harm” standard for Fourteenth Amendment liability in emergency situations and finding no such intent by the officers.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed that the facts presented an emergency situation, making the “intent to harm” standard appropriate. The court found that the officers did not act with intent to harm and that the circumstances did not support a claim under a deliberate indifference standard. Because there was no underlying constitutional violation, the Monell claim against the City also failed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to all defendants. View "Flynn v Consolidated City of Indianapolis and Marion County" on Justia Law

Israel Isbell pleaded guilty in 2010 to receipt of child pornography and was sentenced to 180 months in prison followed by a lifetime of supervised release. As his prison term ended, Isbell violated several conditions of his supervised release, including unauthorized internet use and unsuccessful participation in sex offender and substance abuse treatment programs. These violations led to the revocation of his supervised release, an additional prison term, and a new term of supervised release with specific conditions.After a prior appeal resulted in a remand for resentencing on an unrelated issue, the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois resentenced Isbell to 16 months’ imprisonment and 8 years of supervised release. Isbell objected to three conditions: a requirement to participate in a computer and internet monitoring program, a provision regarding medical marijuana use during treatment, and a mandate for substance abuse treatment. The district court overruled his objections and imposed the conditions as proposed.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed Isbell’s challenges de novo. The court held that the computer monitoring condition was neither unconstitutionally vague nor overbroad, as its language and purpose provided sufficient notice and guidance. The court also found that the medical marijuana provision did not improperly delegate judicial authority to treatment providers, as it required Isbell to follow generally applicable program rules rather than allowing providers to determine the existence of the condition. Finally, the court determined that the written judgment requiring substance abuse treatment was consistent with the oral pronouncement and did not violate the non-delegation rule. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "USA v Isbell" on Justia Law

Indiana enacted a statute making it a misdemeanor for a person to knowingly or intentionally approach within 25 feet of a law enforcement officer who is lawfully engaged in official duties, after being ordered by the officer to stop approaching. Several media organizations and news outlets challenged this law, arguing that it is unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment because it allows police officers too much discretion in deciding when to issue a do-not-approach order, potentially leading to arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. The plaintiffs asserted that the law chills their newsgathering activities, as journalists often need to approach police officers in public spaces to report on events.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana denied the State’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing, finding that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged injury in fact. The district court then granted a preliminary injunction, concluding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their Fourteenth Amendment vagueness claim, would suffer irreparable harm without relief, and that the balance of harms and public interest favored an injunction. The court did not address the plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims. The State appealed the preliminary injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, arguing that the law was not unconstitutionally vague and that the plaintiffs lacked standing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs had standing and that the case was not moot, even though a second, narrower buffer law had been enacted. The court found that the original buffer law was unconstitutionally vague because it gave law enforcement officers unfettered discretion to decide when to issue a do-not-approach order, thus encouraging arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. The court remanded the case for the district court to reconsider the appropriate scope of the injunction in light of recent Supreme Court precedent limiting universal injunctions. View "Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press v. Rokita" on Justia Law