Justia Alabama Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A group of individuals who had received traffic citations under a local ordinance enacted by the City of Tuskegee permitting automated photographic enforcement of traffic laws brought suit against the City, certain city officials, and JENOPTIK, the company involved in the installation and operation of the enforcement devices. The plaintiffs challenged the validity of the ordinance, raised constitutional concerns, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well as damages, including tort claims for negligence, invasion of privacy, and fraud. The City later enacted resolutions cancelling outstanding citations, refunding fines, and ultimately suspending enforcement of the ordinance.The case was initially filed in the Macon Circuit Court. The City and JENOPTIK moved to dismiss, arguing lack of a justiciable controversy, mootness, lack of standing, and other grounds, including lack of personal jurisdiction over JENOPTIK. The trial court denied these motions to dismiss, treating them as motions under Rule 12 and excluding extraneous materials, but did not provide detailed reasoning.On review, the Supreme Court of Alabama held that because the plaintiffs either paid the fines or failed to contest the citations under the administrative procedures provided in the ordinance, and because the City subsequently nullified the citations and provided for reimbursement, their claims challenging the legality of the ordinance were moot. The Court directed the trial court to dismiss those claims. However, the Supreme Court denied the petitions insofar as they sought dismissal of the plaintiffs’ tort claims, holding that the City and JENOPTIK did not demonstrate a clear right to mandamus relief on those claims at this stage. The Court likewise declined to dismiss the tort claims against JENOPTIK for lack of personal jurisdiction based on the current record. View "In re: Busby v. City of Tuskegee" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, a trade association and a vape shop operator, filed suit challenging an Alabama law regulating electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), which includes e-cigarettes and vapes. The law, effective June 1, 2025, established strict requirements for the sale of ENDS, including a product directory listing only approved products, mandates that products be manufactured in the United States or have federal FDA marketing authorization, and imposed significant penalties for violations. The plaintiffs claimed these regulations would cause them immediate and irreparable harm, including loss of profits, employees, and potential closure of their businesses due to prohibitions and penalties outlined in the law.The Montgomery Circuit Court initially granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) in favor of the plaintiffs, finding they would suffer irreparable harm and had no adequate remedy at law because the State defendants were protected by sovereign immunity. After a hearing, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction but extended the TRO pending appeal. The State defendants appealed, challenging the plaintiffs’ standing, while the plaintiffs cross-appealed the denial of the preliminary injunction.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed both appeals. It held that the plaintiffs had standing, as they faced concrete, particularized, and actual harm directly resulting from the enforcement of the Alabama law. However, the Court found the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claims, including implied preemption and dormant Commerce Clause challenges. The Court determined that the Alabama Act was not preempted by federal law and served legitimate state interests related to health and safety. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the trial court's denial of the preliminary injunction. View "Spencer v. Vapor Technology Association" on Justia Law

A married couple who had served as foster parents were indicted for capital murder in connection with the death of an infant, E.E., who had been placed in their care by the Marshall County Department of Human Resources due to his medical needs and his parents’ inability to care for him. The child, who required a feeding tube and frequent hospitalization, died while in their custody. In July 2024, a Blount County grand jury indicted both individuals for capital murder, and they were denied bail by the Blount Circuit Court after evidentiary hearings.The petitioners each moved for bail, arguing that the State had the burden to present evidence sufficient to show they were not entitled to bail. The State countered that, in capital cases, the indictment itself creates a presumption of guilt for purposes of bail, and the burden shifts to the defendants to overcome this presumption. The Blount Circuit Court agreed with the State, denied bail, and found that the evidence did not overcome the presumption arising from the indictment. The Court of Criminal Appeals subsequently denied habeas petitions challenging the denial of bail.Upon review, the Supreme Court of Alabama reaffirmed the longstanding “presumption rule,” which holds that, in capital cases, an indictment creates a presumption of guilt for purposes of bail, and the defendant must overcome this presumption by presenting sufficient evidence. The Court declined to overturn this rule, citing stare decisis and legislative acquiescence, especially in light of recent constitutional and statutory amendments. The Court held that the trial court did not err in denying bail because the petitioners had not overcome the presumption of guilt, and it denied both petitions for writs of habeas corpus. View "State of Alabama v. Grimes" on Justia Law

A group of fourteen taxpayers, all out-of-state owners, operators, or lessees of multifamily housing developments in the City of Tuscaloosa, challenged a city ordinance that amended the business-license fee structure. The ordinance, effective April 2022, imposed a 3% business-license fee on rents received from student-oriented housing developments (SOHDs) with more than 200 bedrooms, while other rental properties remained subject to a 1% fee. The SOHD designation is determined by the city’s zoning officer based on a non-exhaustive list of characteristics and factors. The taxpayers alleged that the ordinance unfairly targeted out-of-state owners and was vague in its application.The taxpayers filed suit in the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court, seeking a declaration that the ordinance was invalid and a refund of taxes paid. They raised claims under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, the dormant Commerce Clause, and argued that the ordinance was essentially a zoning ordinance adopted without following statutory notice requirements. The trial court granted the City’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), finding the complaint insufficient to state a claim.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed whether the complaint alleged sufficient facts to survive dismissal. The court held that the taxpayers’ claims under the Equal Protection Clause, Due Process Clause (vagueness), and dormant Commerce Clause were sufficiently pleaded to withstand a motion to dismiss, as the allegations, if proven, could entitle the taxpayers to relief. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the claim that the ordinance was a zoning ordinance subject to statutory notice requirements, finding the ordinance did not regulate property use in the manner of zoning laws. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Campus Crest at Tuscaloosa LLC v. City of Tuscaloosa" on Justia Law

A minor, Iyana Crenshaw, was injured while working at Sonic Drive In of Greenville, Inc. Her father, Derrick Crenshaw, filed a negligence lawsuit against Sonic, alleging that the injury was caused by Sonic's negligence. The complaint did not seek workers' compensation benefits but solely pursued a negligence claim.The Butler Circuit Court dismissed the negligence action, concluding that the exclusive-remedy provisions of the Alabama Workers' Compensation Act barred the claim. Crenshaw did not dispute that Iyana's injury was subject to the Act but argued that the Act itself was unconstitutional under Article I, § 13, of the Alabama Constitution of 2022. The attorney general and Sonic defended the constitutionality of the Act, and the circuit court rejected Crenshaw's constitutional challenges, leading to the dismissal of the negligence action.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the Alabama Workers' Compensation Act does not violate Article I, § 13, of the Alabama Constitution. The court applied both the vested-rights approach and the common-law-rights approach to determine the constitutionality of the Act. Under the vested-rights approach, the Act did not deprive Crenshaw of a vested right in a cause of action. Under the common-law-rights approach, the court concluded that the Act was a valid exercise of the legislature's police power, as it eradicated or ameliorated a perceived social evil. Therefore, the Act's exclusive-remedy provisions were upheld, and the dismissal of the negligence action was affirmed. View "Crenshaw v. Sonic Drive In of Greenville, Inc." on Justia Law

The Tuscaloosa City Council passed an ordinance limiting the maximum occupancy of certain restaurants, affecting a sports bar owned by CMB Holdings Group. The ordinance required establishments with restaurant liquor licenses to maintain occupancy limits based on their configuration as restaurants, not as bars or entertainment venues. This change reduced the sports bar's maximum occupancy from 519 to 287, negatively impacting its revenue. CMB Holdings Group sued the City of Tuscaloosa, the mayor, city council members, and the fire marshal, alleging racial discrimination and other claims.The Tuscaloosa Circuit Court dismissed most of CMB's claims, including those for money damages against the City and personal-capacity claims against the mayor and councilors due to legislative immunity. The court also dismissed claims for procedural and substantive due process, equal protection, and others, leaving only claims for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Alabama Constitution's Contracts Clause. CMB requested the court to alter or amend its judgment or certify it as final for appeal purposes. The court denied the request to alter or amend but granted the Rule 54(b) certification, allowing CMB to appeal the dismissed claims.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case and determined that the Rule 54(b) certification was improper. The court found that the adjudicated and unadjudicated claims were closely intertwined, particularly regarding whether the ordinance affected vested rights or mere privileges and whether it served a legitimate public interest. The court concluded that separate adjudication could lead to inconsistent results and dismissed the appeal for lack of a final judgment. View "CMB Holdings Groupv. City of Tuscaloosa" on Justia Law

A dispute arose between the Alabama-West Florida Conference ("the Conference") of the United Methodist Church, Inc. ("the UMC"), and 44 Methodist churches in the Conference ("the churches"). Amid disagreements within the UMC over issues of human sexuality, the churches sought to leave the UMC with their properties under a provision of the Book of Discipline, the governing law of the UMC. After the Conference denied the churches the ability to vote to disaffiliate under that provision, the churches asked the Montgomery Circuit Court to order the Conference to grant them that vote. The trial court dismissed the suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.The Montgomery Circuit Court held an emergency hearing and heard evidence. The next day, the court dismissed the suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because, according to the court, the relief that the churches requested was "ecclesiastical in nature and would require Court interference in matters of church autonomy," which would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The churches appealed that judgment.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's judgment. The churches argued that the trial court erred in dismissing their suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because, they said, the case presents only "civil and property issues." However, the Supreme Court of Alabama held that the churches' central claims turn entirely on the interpretation of the provision of the Book of Discipline and whether their efforts to leave the UMC were consistent with that church law. Under existing First Amendment law and the court's precedent, that interpretive issue constitutes an ecclesiastical question that courts do not have jurisdiction to decide. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Aldersgate United Methodist Church of Montgomery v. Alabama-West Florida Conference of the United Methodist Church, Inc." on Justia Law

This case stemmed from a cold-case murder that took place in 1981. An armed robber broke into a gas station where Russell Douglas was working, shot him several times, robbed the station, and fled. Douglas's murderer eluded capture. Then, some 30 years later, forensic scientists retested DNA evidence found at the crime scene and turned up a match to the respondent here, Nathaniel Dennis, who was serving a 600-year sentence in Virginia for an unrelated crime. In 2011, an Alabama grand jury indicted Dennis for the murder of Douglas, and he was transferred to Alabama to stand trial. In 2019, after a series of pretrial delays, Dennis was convicted of murder made capital because it was committed during a burglary. Dennis appealed, arguing that the delay between his indictment and trial violated his right to a speedy trial. The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed, holding that the over-eight-year period between 2011 and 2019 required the trial court to "presume" that the delay prejudiced Dennis's liberty interests -- even though Dennis had not put forward any affirmative evidence of prejudice and likely could not have done so because he was already serving a 600-year sentence in Virginia. The Alabama Supreme Court concluded this was error: the speedy-trial inquiry turns on how much delay has been caused by the government, not the bare amount of time between the indictment and trial. In this case, the portion of the delay caused by government negligence fell well short of the amount needed to justify a presumption of prejudice. Absent that presumption, Dennis' speedy-trial claim failed. The Court reversed the appellate court's judgment and remanded for consideration of the other arguments Dennis raised in his appeal. View "In re: Dennis v. Alabama)" on Justia Law

In 2019, the Alabama Legislature passed -- and Governor Kay Ivey signed -- House Bill 380 ("H.B. 380"), which became Act No. 2019-393, Ala. Acts 2019. As enacted, H.B. 380 amended various Code provisions, including § 15-22-21(a), Ala. Code 1975, creating the position of director of the Alabama Bureau of Pardons and Paroles ("the Bureau"), and § 15-22-20(b), Ala. Code 1975, addressing the nomination and appointment processes for the members of the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles ("the Board"). After H.B. 380 was enacted, Governor Ivey appointed Leigh Gwathney as chair of the Board pursuant to the new procedures set forth in § 15-22-20(b). In November 2020, the three-member Board convened and held a parole-consideration hearing for Angela Turner, an inmate who was serving a life sentence for murder. Following a review of Turner's file, the Board unanimously denied Turner's parole request. Around that same time, Governor Ivey appointed Cam Ward as the new director of the Bureau. In response to the Board's denial of parole, Turner filed suit against Governor Ivey, Ward, Gwathney, and the other members of the Parole Board, in which she sought a judgment declaring that Governor Ivey's appointment of Ward and Gwathney to their respective positions pursuant to the changes created by H.B. 380 violated the Alabama Constitution of 1901. She also, on behalf of the State of Alabama, petitioned for writs of quo warranto pursuant to § 6-6-591, Ala. Code 1975, alleging that Ward and Gwathney unlawfully held their respective positions. Finally, she alleged a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against all the defendants on the basis that she had been denied due process during her parole-consideration hearing. The circuit court dismissed Turner's claims with prejudice. Finding no reversible error in the circuit court's order, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed. View "Turner and the State of Alabama ex rel. Angela Turner v. Ivey, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Steven Dixon appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants the City of Auburn ("the City"); Ron Anders, in his official capacity as the mayor of the City; and Beth Witten, in her official capacity as an Auburn City Council member who served as mayor pro tempore of the City. The underlying action arose from a dispute between Dixon and defendants over Ordinance No. 3288, which amended the City's zoning ordinance to expressly regulate short-term rentals of residential property within the City's geographical limits. Dixon claimed that the adoption and enforcement of the short-term-rental ordinance violated his right to due process and also violated his right to equal protection as guaranteed by the Alabama Constitution. Finding that the trial court properly entered summary judgment in defendants' favor, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed. View "Dixon v. City of Auburn, et al." on Justia Law