Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

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 In September 2025, the General Assembly passed House Bill 1 (“HB 1”), which repealed the 2022 congressional districts and established new ones, even though no new census had been certified.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

The petitioner was convicted of first-degree intentional homicide and related charges after a shooting at the Luna Lounge in Appleton, Wisconsin. Video evidence showed several people fleeing the scene, including the petitioner’s brother. Police interviewed three eyewitnesses—Watou Lee, Mikey Thao, and Ryan Thao—shortly after the incident. These witnesses described the shooter but did not explicitly identify the petitioner. However, police later received statements from other witnesses implicating the petitioner. The State did not disclose the initial interviews with Watou, Mikey, and Ryan to the defense and eventually destroyed the recordings, citing the witnesses’ fears for their safety. The defense only learned of the destroyed interviews after the witnesses were reinterviewed and those statements were provided. The petitioner moved to dismiss the charges or, alternatively, to bar the witnesses’ testimony, arguing violations of his due process rights under Brady v. Maryland and the principles set forth in California v. Trombetta and Arizona v. Youngblood.The Wisconsin Circuit Court denied the Brady claim but agreed the destruction of evidence violated due process, barring the State from calling the three witnesses at trial, though permitting the defense to do so. The petitioner did not object to this remedy and ultimately did not call the witnesses. He was convicted by a jury, and his conviction and denial of post-conviction relief were affirmed by the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, with the Wisconsin Supreme Court declining review.On federal habeas review, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied relief, holding that the state appellate court did not act contrary to or unreasonably apply clearly established federal law. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the state court’s application of Brady, Trombetta, and Youngblood was not objectively unreasonable and that the selected remedy did not violate clearly established federal law. View "Lee v Mlodzik" on Justia Law

During the inauguration of Vermont’s governor, a group of protesters, including Shela Linton, staged a sit-in at the state capitol to advocate for universal healthcare. When the building closed, police instructed the protesters to leave or face arrest for trespassing. Some complied, while others, including Linton, refused. Sergeant Jacob Zorn approached Linton, who remained seated and passively resisted. After multiple warnings, Zorn used a rear wristlock to lift Linton to her feet, causing her to exclaim in pain. Linton alleged that this action resulted in physical and psychological injuries.Linton filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983, claiming Zorn’s use of force violated her Fourth Amendment rights. The United States District Court for the District of Vermont granted summary judgment to Zorn, holding he was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that his actions constituted excessive force in these circumstances. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, relying on its earlier decision in Amnesty America v. West Hartford, reasoning that the use of a rear wristlock on a passively resisting protester was clearly established as excessive force. The Second Circuit remanded the case for a jury trial.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that Zorn was entitled to qualified immunity. The Court determined that Amnesty America did not clearly establish, with the requisite specificity, that Zorn’s conduct—using a wristlock after repeated warnings—violated the Fourth Amendment. The Court emphasized that qualified immunity protects officials unless prior precedent places the constitutional question beyond debate and found that no case had clearly held such conduct unlawful in similar circumstances. Accordingly, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the judgment of the Second Circuit. View "Zorn v. Linton" on Justia Law

Daniel and Shatina Grady were arrested by police during a late-night shooting investigation outside a Michigan residence owned by their daughter. The Gradys lived nearby and approached the scene, filming officers and questioning their authority as they crossed into a perimeter that officers had established around the house suspected to contain the shooter. Despite receiving repeated commands to step back, the Gradys refused and continued to challenge the officers verbally. After warnings, the officers arrested them for interfering with the investigation, which led to a physical struggle.The Gradys were prosecuted in Michigan state court for assaulting, resisting, or obstructing the officers and damaging a police cruiser but were acquitted by a jury. While those charges were pending, the Gradys filed a civil suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, raising several claims, including First Amendment retaliation. The district court found that the officers had probable cause to arrest the Gradys for failing to comply with lawful orders but allowed the First Amendment claim to proceed under the exception recognized in Nieves v. Bartlett. The district court concluded that the Gradys presented evidence that other bystanders, who had not criticized the police and were not arrested, were similarly situated.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to the officers. The appellate court held that the other bystanders cited by the Gradys were not similarly situated because they did not enter the established perimeter or defy police orders. The court further found that the Gradys did not provide other objective evidence to satisfy the Nieves exception. As a result, the presence of probable cause defeated the Gradys’ First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Grady v. Cratsenburg" on Justia Law

Marion Thomas was stopped by Chicago police officers after failing to signal a turn. During the stop, officers reported smelling marijuana coming from his vehicle. After Thomas partially rolled down his window and refused to comply with several commands, officers opened his door and removed him from the car. Thomas was handcuffed and his car was searched, revealing a marijuana cigarette and a tray. Thomas claimed the items did not belong to him and experienced a medical issue, after which he was taken to the hospital. He was cited for the traffic violation and marijuana possession.Following his arrest, Thomas filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the officers and the City of Chicago, alleging illegal search, illegal seizure, false arrest under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and malicious prosecution under state law. Some claims and defendants were dismissed at summary judgment. At trial, the jury found for the defendants. Thomas moved for a new trial, arguing that the jury instructions were erroneous, that an officer gave misleading testimony, and that a question about his criminal record was prejudicial. The district court denied his motion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the challenged jury instructions accurately stated the law, including the principle that probable cause to arrest for any crime defeats a false arrest claim. The court found no abuse of discretion regarding the officer’s testimony about a marijuana “grinder,” as there was no evidence of fraud or prejudice. The court also determined that the question about Thomas’s criminal record did not prejudice the jury, since the objection was sustained and no answer was given. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Thomas v McAuliffe" on Justia Law

A California-based company that produces lab-grown chicken sought to distribute and sell its product in Florida. After the company received federal approval from the USDA and FDA to market its lab-grown chicken, Florida enacted SB 1084, a law banning the manufacture, sale, and distribution of all lab-grown meat within the state. The company had previously held tasting events and developed business relationships in Florida but had no plans to manufacture its product there.Following the enactment of SB 1084, the company filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida against state officials, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The company argued that the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) preempted Florida’s ban, claiming the state’s law imposed “additional or different” ingredient or facilities requirements in violation of the PPIA. The district court denied the company’s motion for a preliminary injunction, finding the company unlikely to succeed on its preemption claims because SB 1084 did not regulate the company’s ingredients, premises, facilities, or operations. The court also addressed standing and procedural questions, ultimately dismissing the preemption claims after the company amended its complaint.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether the filing of an amended complaint or the district court’s dismissal order rendered the appeal moot and whether the company could challenge the Florida law as preempted. The Eleventh Circuit held the appeal was not moot and that the company could bring a preemption action in equity. However, the court concluded the company was unlikely to succeed on the merits. The court held that Florida’s ban did not impose ingredient or facilities requirements preempted by the PPIA, as it simply banned the product’s sale and manufacture. Therefore, the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction was affirmed. View "Upside Foods Inc v. Commissioner, Florida Department of Agriculture" on Justia Law

A Mexican national attempted to enter the United States in 2003 using fraudulent documents and was removed under an expedited order. After re-entering the country illegally, he was discovered in 2024 and his prior removal order was reinstated. During the reinstatement proceedings, he expressed fear of returning to Mexico and received a reasonable-fear interview, but the asylum officer determined he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture. The immigration judge reviewed and affirmed this negative reasonable-fear determination, meaning he was not eligible for further proceedings to seek withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).After the immigration judge’s decision, the individual filed a petition for review with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He did not challenge the original expedited removal order or the reinstated removal order, but instead sought review solely of the denial of CAT relief. The government did not argue that the petition was untimely, but the court requested additional briefing after the Supreme Court’s decision in Riley v. Bondi, which addressed jurisdiction over such petitions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review a petition challenging only an order denying CAT relief when the petitioner did not also seek review of a final order of removal. The court concluded that, under current statutes and Supreme Court precedent, only final orders of removal are reviewable, and an order denying CAT relief does not qualify as a final order of removal nor does it merge into such an order. The court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction and denied the petitioner’s request to amend his petition to add a nominal challenge to the removal order, as any such challenge would be baseless and futile. View "NAVARRETE V. BONDI" on Justia Law

Intuit, Inc., the seller of TurboTax tax-preparation software, advertised its “Free Edition” as available at no cost for “simple tax returns.” However, the majority of taxpayers did not qualify due to various exclusions, and those individuals were prompted during the tax preparation process to upgrade to paid products. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought an administrative complaint in 2022, alleging that these advertisements were deceptive under Section 5 of the FTC Act. After an initial federal court suit for a preliminary injunction was denied, the FTC pursued the matter through its internal adjudicative process instead.An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that Intuit’s advertisements were likely to mislead a significant minority of consumers. The FTC Commissioners affirmed this decision, issuing a broad cease-and-desist order that barred Intuit from advertising “any goods or services” as free unless it met stringent requirements. This order was not limited to tax-preparation products. Intuit petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for review, asserting, among other arguments, that the FTC’s adjudication of deceptive advertising claims through an ALJ, rather than an Article III court, was unconstitutional.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that deceptive advertising claims under Section 5 of the FTC Act are akin to traditional actions at law or equity, such as fraud and deceit, and thus involve private rights. According to recent Supreme Court precedent in SEC v. Jarkesy, such claims must be adjudicated in Article III courts, not by agency ALJs. The Fifth Circuit granted Intuit’s petition, vacated the FTC’s order, and remanded the case to the agency for further proceedings consistent with its holding. View "Intuit v. Federal Trade Commission" on Justia Law