34 results for 'cat:"Constitution" AND cat:"First Amendment"'.
Per curiam, with Justices Chutich and Procaccini taking no part, the Minnesota Supreme Court grants the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party chair's petition seeking decertification of the Legal Marijuana Now Party as a major Minnesota political party. The statute establishing that major parties meet requirements including the establishment of state central and executive committees and local conventions and committees does not violate the party's First Amendment associational rights, and Legal Marijuana Now has not satisfied all of the statutory requirements.
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: May 10, 2024, Case #: A24-0216, Categories: constitution, Elections, first Amendment
J. Carter denies the conservative law professor's motion to enforce a preliminary injunction against the New York Attorney General to prohibit enforcement of the Hateful Conduct Law, which requires social media networks to provide mechanism for reporting hateful conduct on their platforms. The professor failed to show the AG violated the injunction by sending investigative letters to six social media networks regarding the state's growing concern about antisemitism and Islamaphobia. The AG has other statutory authority to issue such letters, and there is no evidence the letters had any impact on the platforms' conduct.
Court: USDC Southern District of New York, Judge: Carter, Filed On: April 30, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv10195, NOS: Constitutionality of State Statutes - Other Suits, Categories: constitution, Restraining Order, first Amendment
J. Graham denies the ballot referendum petitioners' motion for a preliminary injunction, ruling that they cannot establish standing to bring First Amendment claims against the Ohio Attorney General. Their issue regarding delays in the ballot certification process cannot be traced to the actions of the Attorney General, but is actually a claim against the judicial branch of the government and its methods for certification of a ballot issue.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Graham, Filed On: April 25, 2024, Case #: 2:24cv1401, NOS: Constitutionality of State Statutes - Other Suits, Categories: constitution, Elections, first Amendment
J. Moore finds the lower court erroneously granted the village's motion for summary judgment on constitutional claims filed by the advertising company. The "public-service" exemption included in the village's ordinance on off-site billboards is a content-based restriction that requires the application of strict scrutiny. Therefore, because certain types of signs, including those that do not advertise a service or consumer good, are treated differently than those designed to provide information to the public at large, the regulation is unconstitutional and the case will be reinstated to allow the lower court to determine if that portion of the ordinance can be severed. Reversed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Moore, Filed On: April 19, 2024, Case #: 23-3623, Categories: constitution, Government, first Amendment
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Bybee finds that the district court improperly denied an individual's motion for preliminary injunctive relief in an action arising from two events, an abortion rally and an LGBTQ+ pride event, in which the individual, a devout Christian, sought to read Bible passages and was arrested for obstructing a police officer after he refused to move to a different location. The individual alleges that attendees at both events physically assaulted him, stole his Bibles and ripped them up. He further alleges that Seattle police opted to arrest the individual for obstructing rather than deal with the attendees who assaulted him. The individual established a likelihood of success on the merits of his First Amendment claim. Reversed.
Court: 9th Circuit, Judge: Bybee, Filed On: April 18, 2024, Case #: 23-35481, Categories: constitution, Assault, first Amendment
J. Martinez denies the school district's motion to dismiss a First Amendment claim in the former student's complaint alleging that the school district's assistant principal and vice principal coerced the former student into signing a "safety plan" that prevented him from speaking about sexual hazing by a journalism teacher. The former student sufficiently alleges that he participated in constitutionally protected speech, but it is up to a jury to ultimately decide if the former student's intended speech was constitutionally protected or if it falls under an exception, "such as representing a risk of substantial disruption to the school environment or others."
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Martinez, Filed On: March 26, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv1140, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: constitution, Education, first Amendment
J. Niemeyer finds the lower court properly granted judgment to the county. The gun store owners argued that pamphlets that the county requires to be given out with the purchase of each firearm violated the First Amendment. Still, the literature distributed pursuant to the ordinance was constitutionally permissible because it compelled commercial speech that was factual and uncontroversial and furthered a government interest. Affirmed.
Court: 4th Circuit, Judge: Niemeyer, Filed On: January 23, 2024, Case #: 23-1351, Categories: constitution, Firearms, first Amendment
J. Cole grants the Republican Senatorial Committee's motion to certify, ruling the question of whether coordinated party expenditure limits in the Federal Election Campaign Act violate the committee and candidate's First Amendment rights must be posed to the en banc Sixth Circuit. The committee and Senator J.D. Vance have altered fundraising operations under threat of enforcement, which grants them standing to challenge the restrictions, and while the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on the constitutionality of expenditure limits in Colorado II, the specific nature of the question at issue in this case warrants consideration by the appeals court regardless of binding precedent.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Cole, Filed On: January 19, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv639, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: constitution, Elections, first Amendment
J. Pitman adopts the magistrate’s report and recommendations, granting a motion for attorney fees and costs brought by an advocacy group dedicated to the separation of church and state after it sued Texas for removing the group’s display from the state capitol building. That display — installed under the “Capitol Exhibit Rule,” which allows anyone to “submit an exhibit for display at the Capitol” so long as it meets certain “undemanding requirements” — depicted “Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and the Statue of Liberty gathered around a manger containing the Bill of Rights,” and was taken down after Texas Governor Greg Abbott asked another official to “remove the display from the Capitol immediately.”
Court: USDC Western District of Texas , Judge: Pitman, Filed On: January 12, 2024, Case #: 1:16cv233, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: constitution, Government, first Amendment
J. Boasberg refuses, in part, to dismiss a group’s constitutional claims challenging the transit authority’s content-based rejection of its ads criticizing government-funded animal experimentation. The group has adequately stated a First Amendment claim regarding the transit authority's guideline that states advertisements "intended to influence members of the public regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions are prohibited."
Court: USDC District of Columbia, Judge: Boasberg, Filed On: January 5, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv1866, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: constitution, first Amendment
J. Bolden grants the state government officials' motion to dismiss, ruling the vaccination requirement for all preschool and kindergarten children is facially neutral and does not violate the religious school's First Amendment or Free Exercise rights, while the state's interest in preventing the spread of disease and ensuring the health of all students is compelling.
Court: USDC Connecticut, Judge: Bolden, Filed On: December 1, 2023, Case #: 3:23cv304, NOS: Constitutionality of State Statutes - Other Suits, Categories: constitution, Education, first Amendment
J. Hamilton finds that the lower court improperly dismissed the anti-hunting activists' pre-enforcement challenge to Wisconsin's "hunter harassment law" which makes it a crime to harass hunters in various ways. There is no way to read the law as requiring an activist physically interfere with a hunter to violate the law, raising serious First Amendment issues. To suffice for standing, the activists need only "arguably" be affected by the challenged statute. Reversed.
Court: 7th Circuit, Judge: Hamilton, Filed On: November 13, 2023, Case #: 21-1042, Categories: Civil Procedure, constitution, first Amendment
J. Smith finds the district court improperly dismissed this free speech suit brought by a Louisiana State Bar member who says the bar unconstitutionally collected membership fees while engaging in political advocacy unrelated to law and legal services. Though the bar argues the speech was insignificant, and certain complained-of speech does pass the germaneness test, its positions on LGBT issues, the state Equal Pay Act, a high school curriculum and other speech unrelated to legal practice violate the First Amendment right to association. Reversed in part.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Smith , Filed On: November 13, 2023, Case #: 22-30564, Categories: Administrative Law, constitution, first Amendment
J. Hoyt grants a preliminary injunction to a strip club on its constitutional challenges to the state comptroller’s $10 Sexually Oriented Business Fee, which requires inspections, audits and that businesses keep a record of how many customers are admitted to the establishment on a daily basis. The club has shown it is likely to succeed on the merits of its First and Fourteenth Amendment claims, and it will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction.
Court: USDC Southern District of Texas, Judge: Hoyt, Filed On: November 9, 2023, Case #: 4:23cv3131, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, constitution, first Amendment
J. Torresen denies in part a town’s motion to dismiss a town resident's lawsuit against it for allegedly violating his First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The town claims that the lawsuit violates their Eleventh Amendment protections as state officials but its unclear if the town’s State Trooper is being sued just in his official capacity or in his individual capacity, and if its the latter, then the Eleventh Amendment doesn’t apply.
Court: USDC Maine, Judge: Torresen, Filed On: September 29, 2023, Case #: 1:23cv50, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: constitution, Government, first Amendment
J. Duffin finds partially in favor of the police officers in a pro se lawsuit from a citizen bringing multiple constitutional claims related to the search of a residence where he was arrested after refusing to reveal himself and exit the residence while the officers were investigating a previous battery report. The citizen's First Amendment retaliation claim blaming his arrest on a prior lawsuit he filed against other police officers, Fourth Amendment unlawful entry claim over the officers' lack of a warrant and Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claim all fail and are dismissed. Summary judgment is granted to the officers on those claims but not the citizen's Fourth Amendment unlawful seizure claim, as there are factual disputes over whether the citizen was still detained while being transported to the hospital for self-reported chest pains after reasonable suspicion had ended, and the officers have not proven they are entitled to qualified immunity.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge: Duffin, Filed On: September 28, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv911, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: constitution, first Amendment, Police Misconduct
J. Albright grants a preliminary injunction to a group of booksellers and publishers who sued Texas over a new law restricting children's access to so-called "sexually explicit" books. While the state no doubt has a strong interest in protecting children from "obscene content," this new law imposes "a web of unconstitutionally vague requirements," including by "abdicating its responsibility" to regulate obscenity and instead placing the burden on third parties like booksellers. Texas is temporarily barred from attempting to enforce the bill, HB 900.
Court: USDC Western District of Texas , Judge: Albright, Filed On: September 18, 2023, Case #: 1:23cv858, NOS: Constitutionality of State Statutes - Other Suits, Categories: Civil Rights, constitution, first Amendment
J. Meyer grants the sex offender's motion for summary judgment, ruling the Connecticut law requiring released sex offenders to disclose all email addresses and other forms of online communication to the state police violates the First Amendment and does not advance a compelling government interest. Although the state has an interest in deterring sex offenders from using the internet to commit additional crimes, requiring disclosure of all internet-based forms of communications prevents released offenders from speaking freely and anonymously on the internet, while the state failed to provide any evidence the law has been used to prevent or detect crimes in the 15 years since its passage; therefore, the state will be permanently enjoined from enforcing the law against him.
Court: USDC Connecticut, Judge: Meyer, Filed On: September 14, 2023, Case #: 3:19cv1240, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, constitution, first Amendment
J. Robinson finds the trial court properly denied the husband's motion to enforce the ketubah prenuptial agreement signed by he and his wife. Doing so would have required interpretations of Jewish law for the purposes of property division, which would have violated the Establishment Clause. Meanwhile, the award of $5,000 in monthly alimony payments for 15 years to the wife was supported by credible evidence, including the husband's employment as a rabbi in 2021 for a salary of $202,000, and was not unfair, given the couple's assets were divided equally and the husband received the marital residence. Affirmed.
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court, Judge: Robinson, Filed On: September 5, 2023, Case #: SC20664, Categories: constitution, Family Law, first Amendment
J. Quraishi partially grants the Bankers' Association's motion for attorney's fees in its successful suit seeking to overturn a state law which banned banks from making political contributions. The Association is a "prevailing party," having altered the parties' relationship in its favor in a "judicially sanctioned" manner. Its attorneys' hourly rates are reasonable, but certain hours billed are excessive and duplicative, and deductions are made accordingly. The Association's success, however, was "less than complete" since one of its counts was dismissed and it did not successfully obtain freedom for individual banks to make contributions under the law. The lodestar amount is therefore reduced. In total, the Attorney General is ordered to pay $1,217,634.65 in fees and $102,674.47 in costs.
Court: USDC New Jersey, Judge: Quraishi, Filed On: August 31, 2023, Case #: 3:18cv15725, NOS: Constitutionality of State Statutes - Other Suits, Categories: constitution, Attorney Fees, first Amendment
J. Ezra grants a preliminary injunction to a group of porn-industry insiders after they sued the interim Texas attorney general over a new state law that “restricts access to pornographic websites by requiring digital age verification methods and warnings about the alleged harms caused by pornography.” While the state “has a legitimate goal in protecting children from sexually explicit material online,” the law violates the First Amendment and Section 230 in a number of ways, including by requiring porn websites to publish speech that is “deeply controversial” and “unduly burdensome,” including “somewhat deceptive” claims about the alleged dangers of pornography.
Court: USDC Western District of Texas , Judge: Ezra, Filed On: August 31, 2023, Case #: 1:23cv917, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, constitution, first Amendment
J. Johnson grants the state Republican Party's motion to declare several campaign finance laws unconstitutional. The limit on contributions made by state political parties to county political parties is too far removed from the state's concern of "big-money" donors' support of individual candidates to sufficiently address the problem of quid pro quo corruption and, therefore, must be enjoined. Additionally, the law seeking to limit contributions from state parties to individual candidates is not "closely drawn" to address the corruption problem and sets limits drastically lower than similar ones upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, while the state has also failed to provide evidence regarding the cost of a typical campaign to support the limits.
Court: USDC New Mexico, Judge: Johnson, Filed On: August 17, 2023, Case #: 1:11cv900, NOS: Constitutionality of State Statutes - Other Suits, Categories: constitution, Elections, first Amendment
J. Boggs finds the lower court properly granted the city's motion for summary judgment on First Amendment claims brought by the advertising company. While the content-based exceptions in its billboard ordinance are an improper restraint on speech, they are severable from the ordinance as a whole. As a result, the height, size and setback requirements of the ordinance remain in effect, and because the advertising company's proposed billboards do not meet those requirements, it cannot prevail on its claims and is not entitled to a variance. Affirmed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Boggs, Filed On: August 10, 2023, Case #: 21-1544, Categories: constitution, first Amendment
J. Grasz finds a lower court properly dismissed three protesters' First Amendment retaliation claims against a City. The protesters argued that police officers violated their rights by spraying them in the face with pepper spray. However, the protestors failed to sufficiently show in court that there was a casual connection between the officers' use of pepper spray and their constitutional rights for freedom of expression. Affirmed.
Court: 8th Circuit, Judge: Grasz, Filed On: July 28, 2023, Case #: 22-1735, Categories: Civil Rights, constitution, first Amendment
J. Settle dismisses the Christian church's claim that SB 6219, a 2018 Washington State law that requires all health insurance plans that provide maternity coverage to provide substantially equivalent abortion coverage, violates its First Amendment rights because its religious beliefs are against facilitating abortion. Despite the church's arguments to the contrary, SB 6219 does not favor secular conduct because there is no evidence that it was enacted to target religion. Also, SB 6219 is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose, because it is meant to give Washingtonians better access to health benefits and provide essential primary care to women and teens.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Settle, Filed On: July 25, 2023, Case #: 3:19cv5181, NOS: Constitutionality of State Statutes - Other Suits, Categories: constitution, Insurance, first Amendment