Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A U.S. citizen of Pakistani descent was denied boarding an international flight in 2019 and subsequently learned, after following the Department of Homeland Security’s redress process, that he was listed on the federal government’s No Fly List. He then sought to challenge his inclusion both on the No Fly List and the broader Terrorist Watchlist, which contains the names of individuals reasonably suspected of terrorism. Placement on the No Fly List is dependent on inclusion in the Terrorist Watchlist. The individual alleged ongoing travel and immigration-related harms due to his watchlist designations.He filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, raising constitutional and statutory claims and seeking removal from both lists. The district court concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the No Fly List claims due to the statutory requirement that such challenges proceed in the circuit court under 49 U.S.C. § 46110, and transferred those claims accordingly. The district court retained the Terrorist Watchlist claims under general federal question jurisdiction. After further briefing, the district court dismissed the remaining Terrorist Watchlist claims for lack of Article III standing, finding it could not redress the alleged injuries because removing the plaintiff from the Terrorist Watchlist would necessarily set aside the TSA Administrator’s order keeping him on the No Fly List—an action reserved for the circuit court.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed. The court held that while the plaintiff suffered concrete injuries from his inclusion on the Terrorist Watchlist, the district court lacked authority to redress those injuries because any effective remedy would encroach on the circuit court’s exclusive jurisdiction to review and set aside TSA No Fly List orders under § 46110. Thus, the district court properly dismissed the case for lack of standing. View "Khalid v. Blanche" on Justia Law

A group of students, their parents or guardians, and local school boards from several low-wealth and urban school districts in North Carolina brought suit against the State and the State Board of Education in 1994. They claimed that the State’s method of funding education deprived students in their districts of their constitutional right to the opportunity for a sound basic education, focusing on perceived inadequacies in the implementation and funding of the Basic Education Program (BEP) as it then existed. The plaintiffs did not allege that the statewide education system was unconstitutional on its face, but rather that it was unconstitutional as applied to their specific districts due to disparities in resource allocation.After various procedural developments, including intervention by additional parties and the dismissal of some claims, the case reached the Supreme Court of North Carolina, which previously clarified that the right at issue belonged only to students, not school boards. The Supreme Court held in Leandro v. State that the constitution guarantees every child the opportunity for a sound basic education, and remanded the case for as-applied determinations regarding whether that right was denied in the named districts. In Hoke County Board of Education v. State, the Supreme Court affirmed a trial court finding that at-risk students in Hoke County had been deprived of their right, but otherwise found the statewide education system generally constitutional as then structured. The Supreme Court remanded for further as-applied proceedings in the other named districts, but no further trials occurred.Over time, the case’s subject matter shifted, and the trial court, with the parties’ acquiescence, began addressing a statewide, facial challenge to the current education system, including ordering the implementation of a statewide remedial plan without a new or amended complaint raising such a claim. The Supreme Court of North Carolina, reviewing an order entered on 17 April 2023, held that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a facial challenge to the statewide education system, since no party had properly invoked jurisdiction over such a claim by amending the pleadings or following the statutory procedure. The Court vacated the trial court’s order and dismissed the action with prejudice, concluding that any orders entered after 24 July 2017, when the litigation’s nature changed, were void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Hoke Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. State" on Justia Law

A group of anonymous individuals from Franklin and Delaware counties challenged two firearm-related ordinances enacted by the Columbus City Council in December 2022 and February 2023. The ordinances imposed restrictions on magazine capacity and required safe storage of firearms, among other provisions. The challengers argued that these ordinances violated Ohio’s firearm regulation preemption law and state constitutional protections for the right to keep and bear arms.The challengers filed suit in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of certain provisions of the ordinances. After a hearing, the trial court granted the preliminary injunction, thereby barring the city from enforcing the contested provisions. The City of Columbus, along with city officials, appealed the trial court’s order to the Fifth District Court of Appeals. The challengers moved to dismiss the appeal, contending that the preliminary injunction was not a final, appealable order under Ohio law. The Fifth District agreed, dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case to determine whether state and municipal governments may immediately appeal orders that preliminarily enjoin enforcement of their laws. The Supreme Court of Ohio held that under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4), such a preliminary injunction constitutes a final order because it inflicts irreparable harm on the sovereign interests of the government, which cannot be remedied by appeal after a final judgment. Therefore, the order is immediately appealable. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the Fifth District’s dismissal and remanded the case for consideration of the merits of the city’s appeal. View "Doe v. Columbus" on Justia Law

A group of business and industry associations challenged the Montana Attorney General’s March 6, 2026 determination that Proposed Ballot Measure No. 10 was legally sufficient to proceed in the initiative process. Ballot Measure No. 10 sought to amend state law by defining “artificial persons” and excluding “political spending power” from the rights granted to such entities. The challengers argued that the measure was facially unconstitutional because it restricted political speech, was vague, and improperly conditioned benefits on the waiver of constitutional rights.The challenge was brought directly to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana under its original jurisdiction. The Attorney General had performed only a procedural review, declining to address the measure’s substantive constitutionality due to a prior order by the First Judicial District Court in Ellingson v. State, which had enjoined the statutory provision that would have allowed such substantive review. The petitioners requested the Supreme Court to require the Attorney General to review the measure’s constitutionality and to reverse his finding of legal sufficiency.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana held that the Attorney General does not have authority to consider the substantive constitutionality of proposed ballot initiatives during legal sufficiency review under current law and precedent. The Court reaffirmed that pre-election constitutional challenges to initiatives are generally disfavored, as the people have a constitutional right to use the initiative process. Because Ballot Measure No. 10 had not yet qualified for the ballot, the Court declined to address the merits of the constitutional arguments, finding such review would be advisory. The Court denied and dismissed the petition, and also denied as moot motions to intervene and to file amicus briefs. View "Montana Mining Assn. v. Knudsen" on Justia Law

Several individuals and two organizations challenged a Missouri law enacted in 2022, House Bill No. 1878 (HB 1878), which amended the state’s voting requirements by mandating that voters present specific forms of photo identification or cast a provisional ballot under certain conditions. The organizations—the Missouri State Conference of the NAACP and the League of Women Voters of Missouri—along with the individuals, claimed that these provisions unconstitutionally burdened the right to vote and violated equal protection guarantees.Their petition for declaratory and injunctive relief was filed in the Circuit Court of Cole County. After a bench trial, the circuit court found that none of the individual plaintiffs had shown an actual or threatened injury, as each had either successfully voted since the law’s enactment or their alleged difficulties were speculative. The court also determined that the organizations had not established standing, either through a diversion of resources or by identifying any specific member adversely affected by the law. Despite these findings, the circuit court proceeded to rule on the merits, concluding the law was constitutional.The Supreme Court of Missouri, which has exclusive jurisdiction in cases involving the validity of state statutes, reviewed the matter. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s determination that the appellants lacked standing—meaning none of the plaintiffs demonstrated a concrete, personal stake in the outcome. The Supreme Court held that, because there was no justiciable controversy before the court, the circuit court erred by reaching and deciding the merits of the constitutional claims. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed that portion of the judgment addressing the merits of the constitutional challenge. The case was thus resolved solely on the issue of standing. View "Missouri State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People vs. State" 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

The plaintiff filed a putative class action against the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, challenging the Massachusetts Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. He alleged that the Act’s provisions regarding payment of interest on unclaimed property resulted in an uncompensated taking of his private property for public use. The plaintiff’s complaint included evidence that the state held property in his name, but did not explain his connection to the listed address or further describe the property. He had not filed a claim to recover the property through the statutory process.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiff lacked standing to seek injunctive or declaratory relief since he did not demonstrate any future harm, and that the Commonwealth had not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity. The district court also concluded that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for relief under the Takings Clause, reasoning in part that the statute provides a mechanism for reclaiming the property in full and that any taking resulted from the plaintiff’s own neglect. The district court did not address the ripeness argument raised by the Treasurer.Upon review, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that if the plaintiff’s challenge was to the statutory interest rate, his claim was not ripe, as he had not yet made a claim for the property or been denied interest. Alternatively, if the claim was that a taking had already occurred when the state took possession, he lacked standing to seek prospective relief because any injury was in the past and not ongoing. The court thus affirmed the dismissal for lack of Article III jurisdiction. View "Narrigan v. Goldberg" on Justia Law

A mother, Cassie S., was subject to a child protection proceeding after concerns were raised about her medical decision-making for her child, who had a complex medical history. Despite multiple recommendations from medical providers to remove the child’s tracheostomy and gastrostomy tube, the mother insisted on maintaining these interventions and sought further procedures. After a New York hospital visit revealed no medical basis for these interventions and the mother refused to allow further evaluation, the hospital reported suspected medical abuse to Maine’s Department of Health and Human Services, which then petitioned for a child protection order.The District Court in Portland initially struggled to serve the mother and obtain necessary medical records, in part because of the mother’s resistance. The court denied her request for appointed counsel after finding she was not indigent, but she eventually retained private counsel for the hearing. The court granted a continuance of the jeopardy hearing beyond the statutory 120-day deadline due to delays attributed to the mother and the complexity of the case. Following a hearing, the court found the child was in jeopardy, placed the child in the Department’s custody, and required steps toward demedicalization and psychological evaluation for the mother. The court also issued a broad order restricting the mother from discussing the case publicly. The mother’s motion for relief from judgment based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel was denied without a hearing.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the finding of jeopardy and the denial of the mother’s Rule 60(b) motion, holding that she was not entitled to appointed counsel, the continuance was justified for good cause, there was no error requiring recusal, and any negative inference regarding missing witnesses was harmless. The Court vacated the speech restriction order as overly broad and remanded for it to be narrowed and time-limited. View "In re Child of Cassie S." on Justia Law

The case centers on a series of lawsuits initiated by an individual against the City of Athens, Tennessee, its officials, and employees, stemming from events related to the City’s annual fireworks show. In 2022, due to COVID-19 precautions, attendance at the show was restricted to City employees and their families. The plaintiff, objecting to the exclusion of the general public, attended the event in protest and began filming, which led to confrontations with City employees and ultimately police involvement. Subsequent disputes, including statements made by City officials regarding settlement negotiations and the cancellation of future fireworks shows, prompted the plaintiff to file multiple lawsuits alleging defamation and First Amendment retaliation.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee reviewed the plaintiff’s claims in several cases. It granted summary judgment or dismissed the actions for failure to state a claim, rejected motions to recuse the assigned judges, and, in each case, awarded sanctions and attorneys’ fees to the defendants. The plaintiff and his attorney appealed the sanctions and recusal orders, but not the merits of the underlying claims, which had already been dismissed or affirmed in previous appeals or were unreviewable due to procedural defects. Prior appellate proceedings, including one in which the appeal was dismissed for failure to prosecute, precluded reconsideration of the underlying merits.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed only the sanctions and recusal orders. Applying abuse of discretion and de novo review where appropriate, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the district court properly denied recusal and correctly imposed sanctions. The appellate court found the plaintiff’s claims were frivolous, often barred by immunity or privilege, and part of a pattern of harassing litigation. The court affirmed the district court’s awards of attorneys’ fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-20-113, as well as the denial of the recusal motions. View "Whiting v. City of Athens" on Justia Law

Four individuals alleged that they owned funds subject to Ohio’s unclaimed property regime and that their funds were set to escheat, or transfer, to the state as of January 1, 2026, due to recent amendments to Ohio’s Unclaimed Funds Act. The Act requires holders of unclaimed funds to remit those funds to the state after a period of dormancy, with additional amendments providing that funds held for ten years or more would escheat to the state, although owners would still have ten additional years to claim an equivalent amount, with interest, less expenses.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against state officials responsible for implementing the Act. They argued that the statutory regime violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and various Ohio laws. The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent the escheatment of their funds, claiming they received insufficient notice and would suffer irreparable harm. The district court denied the request, finding that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated irreparable harm, particularly since they could still claim the funds from the state after escheatment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial for abuse of discretion. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the plaintiffs had not shown irreparable harm because they retained a statutory avenue to recover their funds with interest after escheatment and could seek a monetary judgment if their constitutional claims succeeded. The court further determined that the plaintiffs either had actual notice of their funds or failed to identify specific property at risk, so no likelihood of irreparable harm was shown. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction. View "Bleick v. Maxfield" on Justia Law