In this case, Texas enacted Senate Bill 4 (S.B. 4) in 2023 to address a significant increase in illegal immigration across its southern border. The law criminalizes certain acts of unlawful entry and reentry, tracking federal immigration statutes, and allows for state judges to order the return of individuals found in violation. Before the law took effect, two nonprofit organizations that provide legal services to immigrants and El Paso County filed suit, seeking to have S.B. 4 declared unlawful and its enforcement enjoined. The nonprofits claimed the law would frustrate their missions and require them to divert resources, while El Paso County alleged it would incur increased costs and suffer a loss of public trust.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction, finding that S.B. 4 was likely preempted by federal law and that the plaintiffs had standing to sue, based on the alleged frustration of their missions, resource diversion, and reputational harm. Texas appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. A divided panel initially affirmed the injunction, heavily relying on Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman to find organizational standing. However, the Supreme Court subsequently decided FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, which narrowed the circumstances under which organizations can claim standing based on resource diversion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, held that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing. The court concluded that voluntarily incurring costs, merely adjusting to new laws, or alleging reputational harm do not constitute cognizable injuries. As a result, the Fifth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction, declining to address the merits of the preemption claim. View "USA v. State of Texas" on Justia Law

A Montana ballot initiative, known as BI-9, sought to amend the state constitution by creating a new section that would define and limit the powers of “artificial persons,” such as corporations and other entities, by prohibiting them from spending money or anything of value to influence electoral outcomes. The initiative arose after a previous attempt (BI-4) by the same proponents was rejected for violating the state’s constitutional separate-vote requirement. The Montana Attorney General again found BI-9 legally insufficient, determining that it combined multiple unrelated constitutional changes in a single proposal and therefore violated Article XIV, Section 11, of the Montana Constitution.After the Attorney General’s finding, the proponents petitioned the Supreme Court of the State of Montana for declaratory judgment, challenging the Attorney General’s assessment. The Attorney General argued that BI-9 not only added new material to the constitution but also limited the powers of artificial persons, affected a wide range of entities beyond corporations, and implicitly amended other constitutional provisions, all of which, in his view, required separate votes.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the initiative and disagreed with the Attorney General’s conclusions. The Court held that BI-9 constituted a single constitutional amendment under Article XIV, Section 11, because the proposal’s various components were closely related and did not amount to “logrolling” or voter deception. The Court distinguished the current proposal from prior rejected initiatives and found that the specification of affected entities and the consequences of political spending restrictions did not require separate votes. The Court reversed the Attorney General’s rejection of BI-9 and ordered him to prepare and forward a ballot statement to the Secretary of State. View "Transparent Election Initiative v. Knudsen" on Justia Law

An attorney whose license to practice law in Connecticut was suspended for one year sought reinstatement and, after delays in the consideration of her application, filed a complaint with the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities. She alleged that the delay by the standing committee responsible for reviewing her reinstatement was racially discriminatory. When the standing committee sought guidance from the Superior Court regarding how to proceed given her discrimination complaints, the attorney filed a second complaint alleging retaliation. The Commission investigated this second complaint, found reasonable cause, and certified it for a public hearing.The Judicial Branch, named as a respondent in the administrative proceedings, moved to dismiss the retaliation complaint, arguing that the Commission lacked subject matter jurisdiction, particularly because the underlying conduct implicated the core judicial function of regulating attorney admission. The Human Rights Referee denied the motion to dismiss, and the Judicial Branch appealed to the Superior Court under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act. The Superior Court concluded that the Commission’s assertion of jurisdiction over attorney reinstatement decisions violated the separation of powers doctrine, as such matters fall within the exclusive authority of the Judicial Branch, and ordered that the complaint be dismissed.On further appeal, the Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment. The Supreme Court held that the Superior Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal because the Judicial Branch had asserted a colorable claim of immunity from suit based on the separation of powers doctrine, which would be irretrievably lost absent immediate review. The Supreme Court further held that, under the circumstances, the Commission’s exercise of jurisdiction over complaints arising from attorney discipline or reinstatement proceedings would impermissibly interfere with the essential functions of the Judicial Branch, violating the separation of powers. The Court clarified, however, that its ruling does not shield the Judicial Branch from judicial review of discrimination claims arising from its regulation of the bar. View "State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities" on Justia Law

An electric supplier was granted a license to operate in Connecticut in 2007. In 2014, the state’s utility authority began a proceeding to redesign the standard billing format for residential customers, ultimately deciding in 2023 to allocate the costs of this redesign among all licensed electric suppliers, including this supplier. Meanwhile, in 2021, the supplier entered into a settlement agreement with the authority’s enforcement office and other state entities, agreeing to leave the Connecticut market for six years in order to resolve various alleged violations. After the cost allocation decision was issued, the supplier moved to withdraw its license, asserting it had no further obligations to the state.The Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) denied the motion to withdraw the license without prejudice, instructing the supplier to pay the allocated assessment before the license could be relinquished. The supplier appealed to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New Britain, arguing that the denial was a final agency decision in a contested case or a declaratory ruling subject to judicial review. The Superior Court granted PURA’s motion to dismiss the appeal, finding that the denial was not a final decision in a contested case and that no declaratory ruling had been issued.On appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The Court held that the supplier had waived its argument that PURA’s denial was a declaratory ruling, since it had argued the opposite in the Superior Court. The Supreme Court further held that PURA’s denial of the motion to withdraw was not a final decision in a contested case because no statute required PURA to hold a hearing on such a motion. The Court also found that the assessment was not a civil penalty, so statutes requiring hearings before penalties did not apply. Thus, the trial court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was affirmed. View "Clearview Electric, Inc. v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority" on Justia Law

An administrative law judge (ALJ) at the International Trade Commission (ITC) issued a protective order during a dispute between Qualcomm and Apple, requiring recipients of confidential business information, including expert witness Gregory Sidak, to return or destroy that information after the case ended. However, the ALJ who issued the order had been appointed solely by the ITC chairman, not by the full commission as required by the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. The ITC later ratified the ALJ’s appointments but did not ratify past actions taken by those ALJs. Years after the underlying case ended, the ITC began investigating Sidak for allegedly violating the protective order’s requirements. Sidak participated in the investigation by exchanging letters and affidavits, but eventually sued, arguing that the protective order was void because it was issued by an unconstitutionally appointed ALJ and never ratified, and sought to enjoin the ITC from enforcing it against him.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia found in Sidak’s favor, holding that the protective order could not lawfully be used as the basis for the investigation or for imposing sanctions on him. It permanently enjoined the ITC from taking further action against Sidak based on the challenged order. The ITC appealed the district court’s decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that Sidak had standing, that the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction, and that Sidak had a right of action under the Constitution. The court further held that Sidak’s challenge was both timely and ripe, rejecting the ITC’s arguments that the claim was either too early or too late. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting permanent injunctive relief. View "J. Sidak v. United States International Trade Commission" on Justia Law

Three individuals, Barbara Moore, Vanessa Reed, and Christine Burrell, served as members of the Lipscomb City Council, each representing a different district. After a city council meeting in May 2025, the council rejected a proposed redistricting plan and resolved to keep district boundaries unchanged. However, in the August 2025 municipal election, the election was conducted using the rejected redistricting map. Despite this, the three council members were sworn into office for their respective districts under the original boundaries. Mayor Robin Sims, claiming the council members no longer met residency requirements due to the district lines used in the election, filed for a temporary restraining order (TRO), a permanent injunction, and a writ of quo warranto, seeking their removal from office.The Jefferson Circuit Court, Bessemer Division, issued the TRO, then granted the writ of quo warranto and the permanent injunction, finding that the council members did not meet the statutory residency requirements and declaring their seats vacant. The court denied the council members’ motion to dismiss and their subsequent postjudgment motion, holding that they were unlawfully occupying their seats. The court also denied their request to stay enforcement of its judgment pending appeal.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed whether the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the statutory requirement that an informant provide security for costs at the commencement of a quo warranto action was not satisfied. The bond posted was solely for the injunction, not for the quo warranto proceeding. Because this requirement is jurisdictional, the trial court’s judgment was void. The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the judgment and remanded the case with instructions for the trial court to vacate its judgment. View "Moore v. State of Alabama ex rel. Mayor Sims" on Justia Law

A property owner sought permission from San Luis Obispo County to construct single-family homes on several lots in Los Osos, an already developed coastal community. The County granted the permit, concluding the homes were an appropriate use under local zoning. However, the California Coastal Commission appealed the County’s decision to itself and denied the permit, asserting that it had appellate jurisdiction because the proposed development was situated in a sensitive coastal resource area (SCRA) under the County’s local coastal program (LCP), and because the site was designated for more than one principal permitted use.After the Commission's denial, the property owner filed a petition for a writ of administrative mandate in San Luis Obispo County Superior Court, contending the Commission lacked appellate jurisdiction on both grounds. The superior court sided with the Commission on the SCRA issue but rejected the Commission’s alternative jurisdictional basis. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the Commission properly exercised appellate jurisdiction based on the SCRA designation and did not address the alternative argument.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and clarified several important principles. It held that courts must exercise independent judgment—not deferential review—when determining the Commission’s appellate jurisdiction if the matter turns on legal interpretation of an LCP. The court further held that, where the Commission and a local government offer conflicting interpretations of an LCP, judicial deference to either is unwarranted when no interpretive advantage is clearly established. Examining the LCP, the court found that the proposed development was not in an SCRA as designated by the LCP. It also ruled the Commission does not have appellate jurisdiction solely because a site has multiple principal permitted uses; jurisdiction arises only if the proposed use is not among those principal permitted. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was reversed. View "Shear Development Co. v. Cal. Coastal Com." on Justia Law

John Mercer was charged with two counts of driving while intoxicated (DWI) in Garland County, Arkansas, in 2017. He pled no contest to both charges in 2018. The Garland County District Court imposed fines, required alcohol education, and placed Mercer on at least six months of probation, which included a $25 monthly probation fee and conditions such as random drug and alcohol testing. Mercer made several probation-fee payments as a result. Mercer later filed a lawsuit, alleging that probation and associated fees in DWI cases are not authorized under Arkansas law and therefore constitute an illegal exaction. He also asserted federal and state due-process claims, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and repayment of the fees collected.The Garland County District Court moved to dismiss Mercer’s complaint in the Garland County Circuit Court, arguing that it was entitled to sovereign immunity under the Arkansas Constitution. The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss, rejecting the sovereign immunity defense. After further proceedings and amended complaints, the district court again sought dismissal, but the circuit court denied the motion. The district court then filed an interlocutory appeal to the Supreme Court of Arkansas, challenging the denial of sovereign immunity.The Supreme Court of Arkansas held that Mercer’s illegal-exaction claim may proceed because the Arkansas Constitution expressly authorizes such claims, overriding sovereign immunity. The court also held that Mercer’s federal due-process claim survives dismissal, as state sovereign immunity cannot categorically bar federal causes of action in state courts of general jurisdiction. However, the court ruled that Mercer’s Arkansas Civil Rights Act claim is barred by sovereign immunity, as there is no constitutional authorization for such suits against the state. The court affirmed the circuit court’s order in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "GARLAND COUNTY DISTRICT COURT v. MERCER" on Justia Law

Two business partners were traveling on Interstate 65 in Kentucky when their rental car hydroplaned during a heavy rainstorm, resulting in a crash that killed one partner and seriously injured the other. The decedent’s widow, on behalf of herself, her children, and her husband’s estate, along with the surviving partner, brought suit against the engineering firms responsible for the design of a highway-widening project completed years earlier. The plaintiffs alleged that the engineers negligently designed the widened highway, causing increased water pooling and a greater risk of hydroplaning in the area where the accident occurred.The Fayette Circuit Court granted summary judgment for the engineers, holding that they were immune from suit as contractors for a governmental entity and that the claims were preempted by federal law because the design complied with required state and federal standards. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that contractors do not automatically share the immunity of the state, that government approval of the design did not insulate the engineers from potential liability for negligent design, and that the state negligence and wrongful death claims were not preempted by federal law.The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the Court of Appeals. It held that private engineering firms hired by a state agency are not entitled to the Commonwealth’s sovereign or derivative immunity simply by virtue of their contract. The court also found that summary judgment was inappropriate on the ground of the engineers’ work being “mandated” by the government because there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the design was required or whether the engineers exercised independent judgment. Finally, the court held that Kentucky’s negligence and wrongful death claims were not preempted by federal law, as the state claims did not impose standards more stringent than those required by federal regulations. View "HMB PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, INC. V. IVES" on Justia Law

A nonprofit organization requested that a state commission produce all emails and text messages sent between certain commission members, agency officials, and two legislators from June 2020 onward, including those sent or received on private devices or accounts. The commission responded by producing hundreds of documents from its own records but did not produce communications held exclusively on the private cell phones or private email accounts of individual commission members, stating that these were not public records under the Open Records Act (ORA). The nonprofit organization then brought suit, alleging a willful violation of the ORA for the commission’s failure to provide these additional communications, arguing that commission members used their private accounts to conduct all commission business and that such communications should be disclosed.The Franklin Circuit Court granted summary judgment in part to both sides. The court determined that emails sent or received by commission members on their private email addresses concerning commission business were public records and ordered their disclosure, but found that text messages on private devices, while public records, were exempt from disclosure due to the impracticality and privacy concerns of retrieval. The court also found that the commission had not willfully violated the ORA. Both the commission and the nonprofit appealed, and the Kentucky Court of Appeals largely rejected the commission’s position, holding that both emails and texts on private devices were subject to disclosure and that the agency’s asserted burdens and privacy interests required more fact-specific analysis.The Supreme Court of Kentucky held that private records in the exclusive ownership and control of individual commission members and former members, kept on their personal devices or accounts, are not “public records” held by a “public agency” for purposes of the ORA and are not subject to disclosure. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions to dismiss the action and grant summary judgment to the commission. View "KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION V. KENTUCKY OPEN GOVERNMENT COALITION, INC." on Justia Law