Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

Several parents, some acting on behalf of their children, challenged a presidential executive order issued in January 2025. The order declared that children born in the United States to parents who were unlawfully or temporarily present would not be considered “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and therefore would not be entitled to citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment or the Immigration and Nationality Act. The plaintiffs argued that this order violated both the Constitution and the INA, as it denied citizenship to children based solely on the immigration status of their parents at the time of birth.The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire reviewed the case and agreed with the plaintiffs. It provisionally certified a nationwide class of children affected by the order and issued a preliminary injunction, blocking enforcement of the executive order. The government appealed, and the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari before judgment from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.The Supreme Court held that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and are entitled to citizenship at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. The Court based its holding on the historical understanding of citizenship rooted in the English common law, the repudiation of Dred Scott v. Sandford, and the precedent established in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. The Court affirmed the judgment of the District Court, upholding birthright citizenship for these children. View "Trump v. Barbara" on Justia Law

A group of inmates incarcerated within Alabama’s state prison system filed a class action challenging the adequacy of mental health care provided by the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC). The plaintiffs, who suffer from serious mental illnesses, alleged that overcrowding, understaffing, and a series of systemic failures resulted in constitutionally deficient mental health services, contributing to a suicide rate far above the national average. Key alleged deficiencies included improper identification and classification of mental health needs, inadequate treatment plans, insufficient psychotherapy, lack of proper suicide risk management, improper use of segregation for mentally ill inmates, and the imposition of disciplinary sanctions for manifestations of mental illness.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama managed the litigation in multiple phases. After a seven-week bench trial, the court found the ADOC liable under the Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference to inmates’ serious mental health needs. The court then held extensive remedial proceedings, including further hearings and negotiations, and entered a comprehensive, system-wide remedial injunction. The court made detailed factual findings and, to comply with the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), issued particularized findings that the relief ordered was necessary, narrowly drawn, and the least intrusive means to remedy the constitutional violations. The court also adopted a monitoring plan to ensure compliance, involving external experts and a transition to internal oversight.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s liability findings and most aspects of the remedial and monitoring orders, holding that system-wide relief was appropriate given the systemic nature of the violations. However, the appellate court reversed certain remedial provisions where it found the relief exceeded what was necessary to correct the constitutional violations, particularly with respect to suicide-proofing cells and some staffing requirements, and as applied to a women’s facility where violations were not established. The case was remanded for modification in those limited respects. View "Braggs v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

A utility company, Southern California Gas (SoCalGas), entered into a 2022 franchise agreement with the City of Los Angeles, allowing it to install, maintain, and operate its natural gas system under city streets. In exchange, SoCalGas agreed to pay the City a franchise fee equal to 5.5% of its gross receipts from natural gas sales within the City. Of this, 3.5% was passed to SoCalGas customers as a surcharge, which was later approved by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The franchise agreement was adopted after extensive, arm’s-length negotiations and CPUC review.A putative class action was filed by a customer, alleging that the surcharge component of the franchise fee constituted an unlawful tax under article XIII C of the California Constitution because it was not submitted for voter approval. The plaintiff argued the fee should have been apportioned between charges for physical use of city property and charges for the general business privilege, with the latter portion requiring voter approval. The Superior Court for Los Angeles County granted summary judgment for the City, finding the franchise fee, including the surcharge, exempt from voter approval as a charge for the use of local government property under section 1, subdivision (e)(4) of article XIII C.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The Court held that the franchise fee, including the portion passed through as a surcharge, was not a tax within the meaning of article XIII C, section 1, subdivision (e)(4), because it was compensation for the use of city property and not subject to voter approval. The Court further held that the fee did not need to be apportioned or shown to be reasonably related to the value of the franchise, but found that, even if such a requirement existed, the City met it through bona fide negotiations. View "Nguyen v. City of L.A." on Justia Law

A public agency adopted an ordinance to increase water service rates after following procedural steps, such as conducting a cost-of-service analysis, notifying the public, and holding hearings as required by Proposition 218 of the California Constitution. After adopting the new rates, the agency initiated a validation action in court to confirm the validity of the ordinance, providing notice to interested parties by publication in a local newspaper, as authorized by statute. No one responded to contest the action within the required time, so the court entered default judgment upholding the ordinance.Subsequently, an individual who had previously submitted administrative claims to the agency challenging the rates filed a class action and mandamus lawsuit seeking refunds and declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging violations of Proposition 218 and constitutional rights. The agency responded with a demurrer, arguing that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the prior validation judgment and the statutory scheme requiring such challenges be brought through validation procedures. The Marin County Superior Court agreed, sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend and finding that the plaintiff's opportunity to challenge the rates had been foreclosed by the unchallenged validation judgment.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court held that under Government Code section 53759 and the related validation statutes, any legal challenge to ordinances adopting water service fees must be brought through specified validation proceedings, including constitutional claims. Since the plaintiff neither intervened in the agency's validation action nor filed a timely reverse validation action, her claims were barred. The court also found that due process was satisfied by the published notice required by statute, and that mandamus proceedings are not exempt from these requirements. The appellate court affirmed the judgment in favor of the agency. View "Hiller v. Marin Municipal Water Dist." on Justia Law

Several researchers at the University of California received multi-year federal grants from agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, and the National Endowment for the Humanities. In April 2025, these agencies terminated the research grants by issuing form letters, citing shifts in agency priorities and referencing multiple Executive Orders issued by the President, some of which explicitly aimed to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and related initiatives from the federal government. The affected researchers alleged these terminations resulted in lost funding, harm to their reputations, and disruption to their projects, with no ready alternative sources of support.The researchers filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, asserting constitutional and statutory claims, including violations of the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The district court provisionally certified two classes: one consisting of researchers whose grants were terminated by form letter without grant-specific explanation (the Form Termination Class), and another whose grants were terminated specifically due to the DEI Executive Orders (the DEI Termination Class). The district court granted a preliminary injunction, ordering the reinstatement of the grants for both classes. The government appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the plaintiffs had established Article III standing. It reversed the preliminary injunction for the Form Termination Class, concluding that the district court likely lacked jurisdiction over their APA claim because the claim was essentially contractual and thus barred by the Tucker Act. However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction for the DEI Termination Class, finding that the class was likely to succeed on its First Amendment claim because the grant terminations were based on viewpoint discrimination. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "THAKUR V. TRUMP" on Justia Law

Two individuals were arrested by the Bentonville Police Department in Arkansas and appeared before a state district court judge two days and one day after their respective arrests. During these initial hearings, the judge set bail amounts for each individual without providing them with legal representation. Only after setting bail did the judge determine that they were indigent and appoint counsel for future proceedings. Both individuals remained incarcerated for several weeks before ultimately pleading guilty and being sentenced to time served.Following their experiences, these individuals, acting on behalf of a class of similarly situated pretrial detainees, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. They alleged that the judge’s practice of setting bail without first appointing counsel violated their rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief requiring that indigent defendants be provided with counsel at the start of their initial bail hearings. The district court denied motions to dismiss, certified the class, and ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The district court held that the plaintiffs’ right to counsel attached at the initial hearing and that the bail-setting constituted a critical stage, thus granting declaratory and injunctive relief against the judge.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The Eighth Circuit held that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because they failed to show an ongoing or imminent injury that could be redressed by the prospective relief sought. The court found that the possibility of facing the same situation again was too speculative and that the requested relief would not redress any past harm already suffered. As a result, the Eighth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of standing. View "Farella v. Anglin" on Justia Law

Two individuals purchased Florida prepaid college tuition savings plans for their daughters in 2004 and 2006. The plans promised to cover tuition at Florida public colleges or transfer an equivalent amount to non-Florida colleges if the beneficiary chose to attend elsewhere. In 2007, the Florida Legislature authorized a new “tuition differential” fee, exempting holders of existing plans from paying that fee at Florida colleges. The Florida Prepaid College Board amended the plan contracts to specify that this new fee was not covered for out-of-state schools. Over a decade later, when both daughters chose to attend out-of-state colleges, the Board declined to transfer an amount equivalent to the tuition differential fee.The purchasers filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against members of the Board, alleging that the Board’s refusal violated the Contracts and Takings Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the Board from applying the statutory exemption and contract amendments to beneficiaries attending non-Florida schools. The Board moved to dismiss, arguing it was protected by sovereign immunity. A magistrate judge recommended denying the motion, reasoning the relief sought was prospective. However, the district court disagreed, ruling that the relief requested was essentially a demand for a refund, thus barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the suit was barred by sovereign immunity because the relief sought would require specific performance of a contract with the state, which is not permitted under Ex parte Young and related Supreme Court precedent. However, the appellate court vacated the district court’s dismissal with prejudice and remanded with instructions to dismiss without prejudice, as the dismissal was for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Lavina v. Florida Prepaid College Board" on Justia Law

A group of prisoners in Illinois sued the state’s Department of Corrections, alleging that they were provided with inadequate medical and dental care, which they claimed violated the Eighth Amendment. The class was certified, and the parties reached a settlement that led to the entry of a consent decree. This decree required the Department to prepare an implementation plan, with oversight and recommendations from an independent monitor, to address the systemic deficiencies identified. Over time, disagreements arose regarding the adequacy and specificity of the Department’s proposals, and the monitor’s recommendations were largely adopted by the court after finding the Department in contempt for noncompliance.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, approved and amended the consent decree, eventually adopting the implementation plan as part of it. The Department then filed several motions under Rule 60(b) to modify the consent decree, including requests to remove stipulations about compliance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and to excise or terminate the implementation plan. The court denied these requests, but did acknowledge changed circumstances and amended the decree to clarify that the implementation plan would only be enforceable if the court made findings required by the PLRA. The court also extended the term of the consent decree due to the Department’s lack of substantial compliance.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found it lacked jurisdiction to review some orders, such as the denial of the motion to strike the stipulation and the extension of the decree, as these did not substantially alter the parties’ legal relationship. The court affirmed the lower court’s decisions regarding the implementation plan, holding that its terms are not enforceable unless and until the district court makes the factual findings required by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the PLRA. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Lippert v Hughes" on Justia Law

A group of parolees who had been detained challenged the procedures used by the Missouri Department of Corrections for revoking parole, arguing that these procedures violated their due process rights. The plaintiffs brought a class action suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of all adult parolees in Missouri who currently face or will face parole revocation proceedings. The district court issued an order in 2020 requiring the Department to implement certain changes. After further proceedings, the plaintiffs sought and were awarded attorneys’ fees for their partial success and for monitoring the Department’s compliance.The Missouri Department of Corrections appealed the district court’s fee awards, arguing that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) limited the attorneys’ fees that could be awarded. The district court had repeatedly rejected the Department’s argument, finding that the PLRA’s fee cap did not apply because the certified class included parolees who were not detained and because some of the relief benefited non-detained parolees. The district court issued its final judgment in January 2025 and permanently enjoined the Department while awarding additional attorneys’ fees.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit considered whether the PLRA’s attorneys’ fee cap under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d) applied to the class action. The Eighth Circuit held that the fee cap does apply because the certified class consisted of individuals who are, or will be, detained during parole revocation proceedings and thus fall under the statutory definition of “prisoner.” The court also found that the PLRA’s fee cap section is not limited to actions challenging prison conditions. The Eighth Circuit vacated the fee awards and remanded the case for the district court to recalculate the fee awards in accordance with the PLRA’s limitations. View "Gasca v. Precythe" on Justia Law

A class of inmates at the Louisiana State Penitentiary alleged that the prison’s medical care was constitutionally inadequate and that the facility failed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The lawsuit began in 2015, and evidence was introduced at trial in 2018. In 2021, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana issued a lengthy opinion finding systemic Eighth Amendment violations and ADA/RA noncompliance. While prison officials began making improvements ahead of a scheduled remedial trial, the district court later issued a Remedial Opinion and Order, prescribing detailed institutional changes and appointing special masters to oversee compliance.The district court’s Remedial Order required the state to bear the costs of three special masters, directed broad institutional reforms, and did not expressly adhere to the limitations imposed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The court entered final judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, retaining jurisdiction only for compliance procedures. After entry of judgment, the defendants appealed. During the appeal, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stayed the Remedial Order. The Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, subsequently reviewed whether it had appellate jurisdiction and the validity of the district court’s orders.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that it had appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or, alternatively, § 1292(a)(1). The Fifth Circuit found that the district court’s Remedial Order violated the PLRA by failing to apply the statutory needs-narrowness-intrusiveness standard, improperly appointing multiple special masters, and requiring the state to pay their fees. The Fifth Circuit also concluded that the district court erred by disregarding ongoing improvements to prison medical care and by misapplying the standards for injunctive relief under the Eighth Amendment and the ADA/RA. The court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Parker v. Hooper" on Justia Law