Federal appeals court upheld Arizona's alcohol regulation scheme, including an exception that applied to small-volume wine producers. The scheme was neutral in impact, as it did not favor Arizona wine producers or retailers over non-Arizona producers and sellers.
(Updated June 2010)

Federal appeals court upheld the constitutionality of an Oklahoma law that prohibits employers from prohibiting their employees from keeping firearms stored in their locked vehicles on company property. The law regulates company property but is not a taking that requires compensation, nor a violation of due process.
(Updated June 2010)

California Supreme Court held that an ordinance issued by the City of Los Angeles for the L.A. Airport that prohibits people from soliciting for donations at the airport is valid.
(Updated June 2010)

The Alabama high court was asked by the Alabama legislature to give an opinion about the likely constitutionality of a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would require certain construction projects to be performed only by Alabama companies or companies that only hired Alabama residents. The court opined that the Commerce Clause would be violated.
(Updated April 2010)

Colorado high court held that in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case, provisions in the Colorado Constitution that prohibited spending by corporations and labor organizations on behalf of political candidates and issues are in violation of the First Amendment.
(Updated April 2010)

Appeals court held that evidence gathered by California police, based on a warrant issued by an Ohio state judge, violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. The court had no right to issue a warrant that would be enforced outside of the jurisdiction of the court.
(Updated February 2010)

A church group that claims that God hates homosexuality was within its First Amendment rights to picket the funeral of a Marine killed in Iraq and publish hateful statements about him and his family on its website.
(Updated November 2009)

Colorado appeals court held that a city ordinance that required businesses to obtain permission of the city manager, and a permit, before posting signs violated the First Amendment. While a city may have some regulations regarding signs, such rules must be clear and have a specific purpose, not serve as a restriction on protected speech.
(Updated November 2009)

Montana supreme court struck down a state law that held that a person could not be over age 34 when hired as a fire fighter. The law had no rational basis in protecting the public or the fire fighters, so was a violation of equal protection rights under the state constitution.
(Updated November 2009)

Appeals court held that a newspaper did not have a First Amendment right of access to see materials related to wiretaps used by investigators in a criminal matter. The courts must balance the public right of access to such materials against the government’s need to protect them.
(Updated September 2009)

Federal court held that a city could prohibit the ownership of certain breeds of dogs in the city. There was a rational basis for the regulation, so it does not violate constitutional rights.
(Updated September 2009)

Appeals court upheld the constitutionality of a federal statute making it a crime for a convicted felon to possess body armor, such as a bullet-proof vest. The vests are sold in interstate commerce, so under the Commerce Clause, Congress may regulate their usage and impose criminal penalties for violations of the law.
(Updated September 2009)

Appeals court upheld the constitutionality of a Tennessee law designed to regulate the business practices of scrap metal dealers to help limit sale of stolen metal. The law does not violate the Commerce Clause as it did not favor in-state firms. The law did not impose an uncompensated taking; it was a regulation evenly applied to all businesses.
(Updated August 2009)

Appeals court held that homeowners who claimed their homes were destroyed by a forest fire because of the Forest Service policy to let forest fires run their natural course rather than suppress fires, had no claim against the government for an uncompensated taking of property.
(Updated August 2009)

Appeals court held that the district court must accept a challenge to a local ordinance that prohibits the operation of chain restaurants in a town. Since the ordinance discriminates against interstate commerce, an elevated scrutiny of the ordinance is in order.
(Updated May 2009)

Iowa high court held that to subject rental apartment buildings to higher commercial tax rates than apply to owner-occupied condos does not violate equal protection because while the property may be similar, the ownership is different.
(Updated May 2009)

New Jersey high court held that a town ordinance prohibiting inflatable signs except in one category violated the First Amendment. By allowing one category of speech, the rule favored certain content, which is prohibited. By banning such signs otherwise, there was a sweeping restriction on a medium of expression that went too far.
(Updated April 2009)

Indiana appeals court upheld the constitutionality of the state’s Right to Farm Act that limits the right to sue farm operators for nuisance. The act does not inflict a taking that must be compensated.
(Updated February 2009)

Illinois appeals court held that to bring a substantive due process claim under the 14th Amendment, a plaintiff must plead both the violation of a substantive liberty interest and an action by a government official that shocks the conscience.
(Updated February 2009)

Appeals court held that the portion of an Indiana law regulating out-of-state shipment of wine that requires proof of age of the buyer is constitutional as it is minimal burden; the part of the law that effectively prohibits out-of-state buyers from buying directly from a winery is an unconstitutional burden on commerce.
(Updated January 2009)

Illinois high court struck down a state law that made it a felony to own or operate a vehicle with a secret or hidden compartment in it. The law violated due process as citizens could be convicted regardless of the use of the compartment.
(Updated October 2008)

Appeals court held that the owner of an apartment building that mostly rented to Hispanic immigrant workers, could sue a city on their behalf, to protect their right to equal protection and due process, by raising a challenge to the constitutionality of an ordinance that was claimed to have been designed to discriminate against the tenants.
(Updated October 2008)

Supreme Court held that Maine could not adopt a comprehensive regulatory scheme over the delivery of tobacco products that imposed strict requirements on delivery companies. Federal law specifically preempted state regulation of such carriers.
(Updated September 2008)

Appeals court held that New York City and state had authority to condemn a large area for a mix of public and private development. Even though some condemned property was not blighted, it was needed to make the development a success.
(Updated July 2008)

Maine high court held that a new city ordinance imposing greater controls on a scrap metal facility was not preempted by a state law regulating scrap yards, and the ordinance did not violate any federal constitutional guarantees.
(Updated June 2008)

Appeals court held that the wife of a police officer had no claim for a violation of her constitutional right to privacy when her photograph and other information was released after her conviction of a traffic offense.
(Updated April 2008)

Montana high court held that a state constitutional right to a clean environment did not create a cause of action against a mining operation alleged to have caused environmental damage. Unless tort and statutory remedies are shown to be inadequate to address a problem, the constitutional right need not come into play.
(Updated March 2008)

Federal appeals court held that a ban by the state of Illinois on the slaughter of horses to produce horse meat does not violate the Commerce Clause, nor is it preempted by federal regulation of meat production.
(Updated March 2008)

Appeals court held that in the District of Columbia there is no recovery for the loss of business value that occurs when property is taken by eminent domain. The business owner receives the value of the property taken, but not damages for the loss of business.
(Updated March 2008)

Court held that Congress preempted state regulation of airlines, including regulation of deceptive advertising, by the Airline Deregulation Act. Since Congress barred state control, attempts by a state to regulate airline activity violates the Commerce Clause.
(Updated February 2008)

Appeals court affirmed that the states violate the Supremacy Clause when they place restrictions on the prices of patented drugs. Congress intended for patents to provide special privilege for the inventors and the states may not interfere with that.
(Updated December 2007)

Colorado high court held that a property owner, whose property was blocked from view by new construction along a highway, had no right to change in property value due to the change in visibility. The only compensation due is for property taken for construction purposes.
(Updated November 2007)

Appeals court held that a city did not violate commercial free speech rights by restricting billboards. The regulation was content neutral, it simply restricted the location in which some commercial speech may appear.
(Updated October 2007)

Appeals court held that a town ordinance that no vehicles with for sale signs on them could be parked on the streets of the town was unconstitutional as it was too sweeping of a restriction on commercial speech.
(Updated October 2007)

New Jersey high court held that a town violated the state constitution by planning to force property owners to sell their land for redevelopment. The owners had clear title and preferred the land be left vacant; as such it did not contribute blight, so could not be forced into development.
(Updated September 2007)

Appeals court held that the state of California could force members of an industry to contribute to a common fund to subsidize industry advertising. Since the practice was overseen by the state, it was not subject to First Amendment claims against forced contribution to speech.
(Updated September 2007)

A city has the right to limit the location in which adult-oriented businesses are located. Eliminating 96% of the land in a city from consideration is not an improper restriction on free speech under the First Amendment since options are still available for business operator.
(Updated June 2007)

The Georgia high court held that it violated the Commerce Clause for a county in Georgia to refuse all trash not generated within the county to be transported across or disposed of within the county.
(Updated May 2007)

Supreme Court held it a violation of due process for a jury to impose a large punitive damage award in a suit against a cigarette maker held responsible for the death of a smoker. Applying punitive damages for injuries suffered by persons not a party to the suit is improper.
(Updated March 2007)

Alaska high court held that a city had an interest in protecting the character of its historic district by an ordinance that prohibited person-to-person solicitations on the street. The regulation did not violate the First Amendment, as other avenues of solicitation were possible.
(Updated February 2007)

Appeals court affirmed that a near blanket restriction on portable commercial advertising signs was unconstitutional. The city has a legitimate interest in traffic safety and aesthetics, but regulations of advertising must be reasonable in achieving such interests.
(Updated January 2007)

Appeals court held that just because Congress, through the Federal Aviation Administration, controls use of the airspace by aircraft, there is no evidence that Congress intended to prohibit state and local governments from putting limits on aerial advertising, such as towing signs behind airplanes.
(Updated December 2006)

Indiana high court held that a city housing code did not violate the Fourth Amendment by not including a warrant procedure for city inspections of rental units. Landlords do not occupy the rental units. Consequently, they have no privacy interest to be protected and therefore have no right to insist on warrants.
(Updated August 2006)

Minnesota high court held that a public utility had the power of eminent domain to use a quick-take process to get title to land previously leased from the property holder. A dispute over the lease threatened the ability of the company to reliably distribute electric power.
(Updated August 2006)

Utah high court held that a state statute that gives the state a claim on half of punitive damage awards is an unconstitutional taking of private property without compensation.
(Updated August 2006)

Iowa high court held that it violated due process for a city ordinance to allow city officials to decide when vehicles where junk and would be taken with no opportunity for the property owners to contest the decision.
(Updated August 2006)

Appeals court held that the state of Iowa could prohibit the placement of newspaper vending machines at highway rest stops in the interest of public safety. The restriction was not aimed at publications of any particular content or viewpoint.
(Updated July 2006)

Oregon high court upheld a measure that was passed in an election by the voters. The measure requires the state and local governments to compensate landowners if land use controls are imposed that cause significant damage to land value. Voters did not violate the federal or state constitution by imposing this requirement.
(Updated July 2006)

Oklahoma supreme court held that it is a violation of the state constitution for governments in Oklahoma to use their power of eminent domain to take private property that will be used for private purposes. Claims of benefits from economic development are not sufficient justification.
(Updated July 2006)

Appeals court upheld a regulation by the Federal Trade Commission that imposes limits on fund raising calls made to residences by professional telefunders working for non-profit organizations.
(Updated February 2006)

Minnesota appeals court held a state statute unconstitutional for setting different length of times in statutes of repose for parties likely to be in the same litigation. Such differential treatment violates due process.
(Updated November 2005)

Supreme Court held that a city has the right to use its powers of eminent domain to take property to be used for private economic development. So long as the city has participated in the planning and believes that it is in the public good for creating jobs and tax revenues, the action is constitutional.
(Updated August 2005)