Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
23-3453
|
Spirit of Aloha Temple v. County of Maui
Nonprofit church's claim that County of Maui substantially burdened its exercise of religion in denying special use permit was a legal question for court, not jury, to decide. |
Constitutional Law |
|
S. Mendoza | Mar. 31, 2025 |
24-2275
|
Pizzuto v. Tewalt
District court properly granted death row inmate's discovery requests regarding the protocol, manufacturing, and origin of Idaho's execution drugs. |
Prisoners' Rights, Constitutional Law |
|
M. Bennett | Mar. 24, 2025 |
24-4023
|
Coleman v. Newson
District court did not err in holding the State of California in contempt for repeatedly failing to comply with its mandate to provide adequate mental health care for prisoners. |
Prisoners' Rights, Constitutional Law |
|
M. Smith | Mar. 20, 2025 |
23-2807
|
Roe v. Critchfield
Because student's facial challenge to Idaho's anti-transgender school bathroom bill was deemed unlikely to succeed on the merits, preliminary injunction was properly denied. |
Constitutional Law, Civil Procedure |
|
M. Christen | Mar. 21, 2025 |
23-55805
|
Duncan v. Bonta
Law banning possession of large-capacity magazines, the accessory of choice for most mass shooters, did not violate Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms. |
Constitutional Law |
|
S. Graber | Mar. 21, 2025 |
A169597
|
People v. Batten
Statute that treated inmates serving life sentences for murder differently depending on whether they were paroled before or after July 2020 did not violate equal protection. |
Criminal Law and Procedure, Constitutional Law |
|
T. Brown | Mar. 19, 2025 |
21-16756
|
Yukutake v. Lopez
State law requiring in-person inspection of handguns within five days of acquiring them violated the Second Amendment because it had no relevantly similar historical example of firearm regulation. |
Constitutional Law |
|
D. Collins | Mar. 17, 2025 |
23-4363
|
Kumar v. Koester
Plaintiff's claim that their injury was self-censorship of nondiscriminatory religious conduct out of fear that it could be misinterpreted as discriminatory was insufficient to evidence Free Exercise and other constitutional claim injuries for Article III standing. |
Constitutional Law, Civil Procedure |
|
R. Tallman | Mar. 13, 2025 |
23-2545
|
Jensen v. Brown
Complaint alleging a First Amendment retaliation claim from a community college professor voicing concerns about a curriculum policy change was properly pleaded. |
Constitutional Law |
|
M. Berzon | Mar. 11, 2025 |
23-4310
|
Hartzell v. Marana Unified School Dist.
Summary judgment on First Amendment retaliation claim was not appropriate where jury could have concluded school district banned parent from school property for criticizing administrator rather than alleged disruptive conduct. |
Constitutional Law |
|
M. Smith | Mar. 6, 2025 |
23-902
|
U.S. v. Bowers
Defendant could not invoke the jury provision in Article III of the Constitution during a supervised release revocation hearing. |
Criminal Law and Procedure, Constitutional Law |
|
A. De Alba | Mar. 5, 2025 |
23-16148
|
Day v. Henry
Statutes requiring retailers wishing to ship liquor directly to consumers maintain a physical location managed by a resident were not discriminatory because it applied equally to in-state and out-of-state companies. |
Constitutional Law |
|
M. Smith | Mar. 5, 2025 |
23-35560
|
Cedar Park Assembly of God v. Kreidler
Washington church failed to establish constitutional standing when challenging the state's Reproductive Parity Act's requirements with respect to providing health insurance for employees. |
Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law |
|
S. Graber | Mar. 7, 2025 |
22-7466
|
Glossip v. Oklahoma
Where the prosecution violated its constitutional obligation to correct false testimony under *Napue v. Illinois*, death row defendant was entitled to a new trial. |
Criminal Law and Procedure, Constitutional Law |
|
S. Sotomayor | Feb. 26, 2025 |
24-3188; 24-3559; 24-4029
|
Mi Familia Vota v. Petersen
Though some provisions of Arizona laws requiring heightened proof of citizenship documentation to vote were legal, many violated voter suppression laws. |
Constitutional Law |
|
R. Gould | Feb. 26, 2025 |
B335039
|
People v. Richardson
Laws prohibiting possession of firearms by convicted felons are not facially unconstitutional. |
Constitutional Law |
|
V. Viramontes | Feb. 21, 2025 |
23-991
|
U.S. v. Pheasant
Statute granting Secretary of the Interior broad discretion to adopt regulations regarding public lands was constitutional because Congress provided an intelligible principle to guide the Secretary's rulemaking. |
Constitutional Law, Administrative Agencies |
|
E. Miller | Feb. 20, 2025 |
A168924
|
Lovelace v. Superior Court (People)
Prosecutor's use of California Court Rule 4.421(c) "circumstances in aggravation" to pursue allegations of defendant's "similar prior conduct," was unconstitutional. |
Criminal Law and Procedure, Constitutional Law |
|
J. Streeter | Feb. 19, 2025 |
23-3052
|
K.J. v. Jackson
School officials who failed to give a student the opportunity to explain himself following a new charge in connection with a previous incident were not eligible for qualified immunity. |
Qualified Immunity, Constitutional Law |
|
R. Paez | Feb. 12, 2025 |
23-35365
|
Olson v. County of Grant
Officer's warrantless review of plaintiff's cell phone, which contained nude photos of plaintiff, was a Fourth Amendment violation because he had neither a warrant nor suspicion of criminal activity. |
Constitutional Law, Qualified Immunity |
|
M. McKeown | Feb. 11, 2025 |
21-56056
|
Huntsman v. Corporation of the President
Summary judgment on fraud claim against church was appropriate where there was no evidence the church had knowingly made any misrepresentations of fact regarding its use of members' tithing funds. |
Torts, Constitutional Law |
|
M. Friedland | Feb. 3, 2025 |
E080870
|
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Coachella Valley Water Dist.
Coachella Valley Water District's significantly discounted rates for commercial agricultural users were unlawful, and a refund remedy was constitutionally mandated. |
Constitutional Law, Water Rights |
|
M. Raphael | Feb. 3, 2025 |
24-2506
|
In re Grand Jury Subpoena
Attorney could not be ordered to provide privilege log of documents transferred to the attorney for seeking legal advice that would still have been privileged in the client's hands. |
Attorneys, Constitutional Law |
|
M. Friedland | Jan. 30, 2025 |
22-16729
|
Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice v. Mayes
Defense attorneys' facial challenge to Arizona's Victim Contact Limit failed when it only contested a particular application of the statute, which would not be substantially disproportionate to the unchallenged, lawful use of the statute. |
Constitutional Law |
|
A. Johnstone | Jan. 24, 2025 |
20-15948
|
Teter v. Lopez
Amendment of statute restricting possession of butterfly knives mooted Second Amendment challenge because new law did not burden the plaintiff's rights in the same fundamental way as the original version. |
Constitutional Law |
|
E. Miller | Jan. 23, 2025 |
24-656
|
TikTok Inc. v. Garland
The TikTok ban is content-neutral, subject to intermediate scrutiny, and does not violate the First Amendment. |
Constitutional Law |
|
P. Curiam (USSC) | Jan. 21, 2025 |
22-35271
|
Project Veritas v. Schmidt
Oregon's conversational privacy statute requiring that notice be given before oral conversations may be recorded does not violate the First Amendment. |
Constitutional Law |
|
M. Christen | Jan. 8, 2025 |
23-55088
|
Markel v. Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America
A mashgiach was considered a "minister" within the Union of Orthodox Jewish Organization of America, and therefore could not bring employment claims against the Organization. |
Employment Law, Constitutional Law |
|
R. Nelson | Dec. 31, 2024 |
23-15847
|
Thomas v. County of Humboldt
Property owners alleged plausible Eighth Amendment claim under Excessive Fines Clause where County's administrative penalties and fees pertaining to cannabis abatement were apparently punitive rather than remedial. |
Constitutional Law |
|
R. Paez | Dec. 31, 2024 |
21-56295
|
Moving Oxnard Forward Inc. v. Ascension
Where the record supported that City's measure to limit campaign contributions were not meant to avoid the appearance of *quid pro quo* corruption, it violated the First Amendment. |
Constitutional Law, Municipal Law |
|
D. Collins | Dec. 23, 2024 |