Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

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

In this case, the petitioner was arrested after an incident in which he was accused of firing a gun into a neighbor’s trailer. Law enforcement recovered evidence at the scene and, following his arrest, the petitioner gave a written statement after being advised of his rights. He was indicted on two counts: shooting into a dwelling and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Due to a series of administrative errors, judicial conflicts, and continuances, the petitioner remained incarcerated for over three years before trial. During this period, a key defense witness died. The petitioner repeatedly asserted his right to a speedy trial through pro se motions.The Circuit Court of Tishomingo County, Mississippi, applied the four-factor test from Barker v. Wingo to the petitioner’s speedy trial claim. The court found a violation as to the first count (shooting into a dwelling) but not the second (firearm possession), and dismissed only the first count. The petitioner was tried and convicted on the remaining count and sentenced as a habitual offender. The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the speedy trial right could be analyzed and remedied on a count-by-count basis in a multi-count indictment. The Mississippi Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court denied further review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case on habeas corpus. The court held that, under clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court, when a speedy trial violation is found, the only permissible remedy is dismissal of the entire indictment, not just the affected count. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the Mississippi appellate court’s approach was an unreasonable application of federal law. The judgment of the district court was reversed, and the case was remanded with instructions to grant the writ of habeas corpus. View "Berryman v. Huffman" on Justia Law

Early one morning, law enforcement officers went to the home of an individual whose son was suspected of assault and possibly being armed. The officers approached the house from different sides, announced their presence, and knocked on the front and side doors. The resident, believing his son was at the door, opened the back door—where no officer had knocked—and walked back inside without seeing or speaking to any officer. An officer then entered the home through the open back door without a warrant or exigent circumstances, only announcing his presence after passing through the kitchen. The resident, who was in his bedroom, was confronted, tased, handcuffed, and detained outside for a period of time.The resident filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, alleging unlawful entry and unlawful seizure (including excessive force) in violation of the Fourth Amendment. After discovery, the officer moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The district court denied summary judgment on both the unlawful entry and unlawful seizure claims, finding that material factual disputes precluded qualified immunity. The officer appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that, construing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a reasonable jury could find that the officer entered the home without consent, in violation of clearly established Fourth Amendment law. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of summary judgment on the unlawful entry claim. However, the court found that the unlawful seizure and excessive force claims were entirely derivative of the unlawful entry claim, and therefore vacated the denial of summary judgment on those claims, remanding for the district court to treat them as subsumed within the unlawful entry claim. View "Dukes v. Gregory" on Justia Law

In 2023, the New York Legislature enacted the Even Year Election Law (EYEL), which consolidated certain county and town elections with even-year state and federal elections. The law amended various statutes to move local elections to even-numbered years and adjusted the terms of office for officials elected in odd-numbered years. Several counties and towns with charter provisions setting local elections in odd years, along with individual voters, challenged the EYEL, arguing that it violated the home rule provisions of article IX of the New York State Constitution and other constitutional rights.The Supreme Court, Onondaga County, consolidated the complaints and denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss. It declared the EYEL unconstitutional, holding that counties have a constitutional right to set their own terms of office and that the EYEL was neither a valid general law nor a valid special law under article IX. The court enjoined enforcement of the EYEL. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed, finding that the EYEL did not violate the New York or United States Constitutions. The Appellate Division held that the EYEL was a general law, applied rationally to similarly situated counties, and served the legitimate state interest of increasing voter turnout.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order. The Court held that article IX does not expressly or implicitly limit the Legislature’s authority to mandate the timing of local elections. The EYEL was found to be a valid general law, and the constitutional “bill of rights” for local governments did not bar the Legislature from enacting such a statute. The Court also dismissed the individual voter plaintiffs’ claims, finding any alleged injury minor compared to the State’s substantial interest. The order was affirmed without costs. View "County of Onondaga v State of New York" on Justia Law

In this case, the owners of a residential property in Fayetteville, Arkansas, sought to rent their home as a short-term rental when not in residence. The City of Fayetteville had enacted an ordinance regulating short-term rentals, requiring a license for all such properties and a conditional-use permit for certain types in residential zones. The ordinance also imposed a cap on the number of these rentals. After applying for a conditional-use permit, the property owners’ application was denied by the Fayetteville Planning Commission, which found the proposed rental incompatible with the neighborhood due to the number of similar rentals nearby.Following the denial, the property owners attempted to appeal to the Fayetteville City Council, but their appeal was not sponsored by the required number of council members. They then filed an administrative appeal in the Washington County Circuit Court, along with claims for declaratory and constitutional relief. They also sought a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the ordinance while their case was pending. The City moved for summary judgment, arguing the administrative appeal was untimely. The circuit court denied the preliminary injunction and dismissed the administrative appeal for lack of jurisdiction, but left the constitutional claims pending.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed only the denial of the preliminary injunction, as the dismissal of the administrative appeal was not properly before it due to the absence of a final, appealable order. The court held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction, finding no irreparable harm and no likelihood of success on the merits at this stage. The denial of the preliminary injunction was affirmed, and the appeal of the administrative dismissal was dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. View "HAUSE v. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS; THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION" on Justia Law

Atravius Weeks was indicted for first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree domestic abuse murder, and second-degree intentional murder after he confessed to shooting and killing Cortney Henry in Dakota County, Minnesota. The incident occurred in June 2021, and Weeks was apprehended shortly after the crime. At trial, Weeks raised concerns about the racial composition of the jury panel, noting that Black individuals were underrepresented compared to the county’s population. He argued that the jury pool did not reflect a fair cross-section of the community, as required by the Constitution.The Dakota County District Court denied Weeks’s request for a new jury panel and, after a jury found him guilty on all counts, entered convictions for all three murder charges. Weeks’s direct appeal was stayed to allow him to file a postconviction petition, which included an expert affidavit suggesting that the use of voter registration and driver’s license lists for jury selection systematically underrepresents Black people. The district court summarily denied the postconviction petition, finding that Weeks failed to show systematic exclusion of Black jurors under the three-prong test from State v. Williams, and cited prior Minnesota cases holding that the jury selection process does not systematically exclude people of color.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the district court abused its discretion by summarily denying the postconviction petition. The Supreme Court found that, when the facts alleged are viewed in the light most favorable to Weeks, the record does not conclusively show he is entitled to no relief, and genuine issues of material fact remain regarding systematic exclusion. The Court also held that the district court violated Minnesota Statutes section 609.04 by entering convictions for both first-degree domestic abuse murder and second-degree intentional murder in addition to first-degree premeditated murder. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing and ordered the vacation of the lesser murder convictions. View "State of Minnesota vs. Weeks" on Justia Law

A flight attendant employed by an airline and represented by a labor union was terminated after sending graphic anti-abortion images and messages to the union president and posting similar content on social media. The employee, a pro-life Christian and vocal opponent of the union, had previously resigned her union membership but remained subject to union fees. The union’s leadership had participated in the Women’s March, which the employee viewed as union-sponsored support for abortion, prompting her messages. The airline investigated and concluded that while some content was offensive, only certain images violated company policy. The employee was terminated for violating social media, bullying, and harassment policies.Following termination, the employee filed a grievance, which the union represented. The airline offered reinstatement contingent on a last-chance agreement, which the employee declined, leading to arbitration. The arbitrator found just cause for termination. The employee then sued both the airline and the union in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, alleging violations of Title VII and the Railway Labor Act (RLA), among other claims. The district court dismissed some claims, allowed others to proceed, and after a jury trial, found in favor of the employee on several Title VII and RLA claims. The court awarded reinstatement, backpay, and issued a broad permanent injunction against the airline and union, later holding the airline in contempt for its compliance with the judgment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the judgment for the employee on her belief-based Title VII and RLA retaliation claims against the airline, remanding with instructions to enter judgment for the airline on those claims. The court affirmed the judgment against the airline on practice-based Title VII claims and affirmed all claims against the union. The court vacated the permanent injunction and contempt sanction, remanding for further proceedings, and granted the employee’s motion to remand appellate attorney’s fees to the district court. View "Carter v. Transport Workers Union of America Local 556" on Justia Law

The plaintiff alleged that he was sexually abused by a priest while attending a summer camp in the mid-1970s, which was managed by the defendants. At the time of the alleged abuse, New Hampshire law required minors to bring personal actions within two years after reaching the age of majority. The plaintiff, born in 1966, did not file his complaint before the limitations period expired in 1986. Decades later, the legislature amended the relevant statute, RSA 508:4-g, first to extend and then, in 2020, to remove the statute of limitations for personal actions based on sexual assault. The plaintiff filed his complaint in 2023, seeking to take advantage of the amended law.The Superior Court (Leonard, J.) dismissed the complaint, holding that the claim was time-barred because the statute of limitations had expired in 1986. The court further ruled that applying the 2020 amendment to revive the plaintiff’s claim would violate Part I, Article 23 of the New Hampshire Constitution, which prohibits retrospective laws. The plaintiff’s motion to reconsider was denied, and he appealed.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case de novo. It assumed, without deciding, that the legislature intended the 2020 amendment to apply retroactively, but held that doing so would be unconstitutional. The court reaffirmed longstanding precedent that a defendant acquires a vested right to a statute of limitations defense once the limitations period has expired, and that this right cannot be abrogated by subsequent legislation. The court declined to overrule this precedent or to adopt a balancing test weighing the plaintiff’s right to recover against the defendants’ vested right. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed the dismissal, holding that the constitutional prohibition against retrospective laws precludes application of the amended statute to revive the plaintiff’s time-barred claim. View "Ball v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Manchester" on Justia Law

In this case, a group consisting of an alumni association and several descendants of Serranus Clinton Hastings challenged the enactment of Assembly Bill 1936, which changed the name of “Hastings College of the Law” to “College of the Law, San Francisco” and eliminated a statutory requirement that a seat on the College’s board of directors be reserved for an heir or representative of S.C. Hastings. The plaintiffs argued that the original 1878 Act establishing the College constituted a binding contract between the State and S.C. Hastings and his descendants, and that the new legislation violated constitutional protections, including the Contract Clauses, the prohibition on bills of attainder and ex post facto laws, and the California Constitution’s provision regarding collegiate freedom.The Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco sustained the defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the 1878 Act was a contract rather than an exercise of legislative power. The court also determined that Assembly Bill 1936 did not constitute a bill of attainder or ex post facto law, and that the changes to the College’s name and governance did not violate the California Constitution, particularly since the College’s board had requested the name change.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the State could not contract away its sovereign authority to manage a public institution, including the power to change the College’s name or governance structure. The court further concluded that Assembly Bill 1936 was not punitive and did not violate constitutional prohibitions on bills of attainder or ex post facto laws. The court also found no violation of the California Constitution’s collegiate freedom provision, as the changes were initiated by the College’s board. The judgment in favor of the State and College defendants was affirmed. View "Hastings College Conservation Committee v. State" on Justia Law

Two inmates in Virginia, each serving sentences for attempted aggravated murder, were initially informed by the Department of Corrections that they would be released in July 2022 due to a new state law expanding sentence credits for good behavior. This law, H.B. 5148, allowed certain inmates to earn more credits and thus reduce their incarceration time. However, after a change in the Attorney General’s office, the new Attorney General issued an advisory opinion stating that inmates convicted of inchoate offenses related to aggravated murder were not eligible for the enhanced credits. As a result, the Department reversed its earlier decision and kept the inmates incarcerated for an additional year, until the Supreme Court of Virginia later clarified that such inmates were indeed eligible for the credits and ordered their release.The inmates then filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They alleged that the Attorney General and the Director of Corrections violated their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by acting with deliberate indifference to their over-incarceration. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding that both officials had acted reasonably in interpreting an unsettled question of state law and that their conduct did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference or conscience-shocking behavior.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Fourth Circuit held that the officials’ actions did not constitute deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment, nor did they shock the conscience under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court emphasized that federal courts should not hold state officials personally liable for reasonable legal interpretations of unsettled state law, especially when those interpretations are made in good faith and with conventional legal reasoning. View "Swart v. Miyares" on Justia Law