Article I, Section 1:
Commonwealth Charter Academy Charter Sch. v. Spicka, 2025 WL 763419 (Pa. Commw. Ct. March 11, 2025), per Jubelirer, J., the Commonwealth Court held that disclosure of redacted community class registration forms did not violate students’ or parents’ rights to informational privacy under Article I, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The court found that the parents’ handwriting on the forms did not qualify for constitutional protection because handwriting, like a person’s voice or appearance, is regularly exposed to the public.
A.W. v. Department of Human Services, 2025 WL 1177990 (Pa. Commw. Ct.), per Wojick, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court held that the Child Protective Services Law’s lack of a pre-deprivation hearing, previously found unconstitutional as applied to teachers, does not violate due process when applied to non-teachers. Because Petitioners’ allegations of constitutional harm are contested, material issues of fact remain in dispute. Accordingly, the court denied the Petitioners’ Application for Summary Relief, without prejudice and set the case for discovery.
G. F. v. Pennsylvania Department of Human Services – A.3d -, 2025 WL 1151594 (Pa. Commww. Ct.), per McCullough, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court reaffirmed a recent holding that under the Child Protective Services Law, teachers must be afforded a pre-deprivation hearing that embraces the basic elements of procedural due process before their placement on the ChildLine and Abuse Registry. Because the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services knew of this requirement but nonetheless failed to comply, the court granted Petitioner’s Application for Summary Relief.
Commonwealth Charter Academy Charter School v. Spicka, – A.3d -, 2025 WL 1451808 (Pa. Commw. Ct.), per Cohn Jubelirer, R., the Commonwealth Court held that there is no right to informational privacy under Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution in unredacted portions of Community Class Registration Forms that feature parental handwriting. The court reasoned that such handwriting does not disclose sensitive personal information, but instead reflects an attribute of that parent already held out to the public. The court limited its holding narrowly to parental handwriting.
Article I, Section 7:
Armslist LLC v. Facebook, Inc., — A.3d –, 2025 WL 996712 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2025), per McLaughlin, J., the Superior Court held that Facebook and Instagram’s removal of Armslist’s accounts did not violate the Pennsylvania Constitution because the platforms are private actors and the plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient government coercion to convert their conduct into state action. The court rejected Armslist’s argument that either entity deleted its accounts due to political pressure from members of Congress and found that pressure from federal legislators did not transform the platforms’ private decisions into Commonwealth action.
Article I, Section 8:
United States v. Skouras, 2025 WL 19818 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 2, 2025), per Conner, J., the Middle District of Pennsylvania held that a search warrant for the defendant’s property was supported by probable cause and thus constitutional under both the federal and Pennsylvania constitutions where there were multiple citizen complaints and police observations of drug-related activity. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that Pennsylvania’s Medical Marijuana Act invalidated the use of marijuana odor as a basis for probable cause, emphasizing that federal precedent still permitted reliance on such observations.
Commonwealth v. Herlth, – A.3d -, 2025 WL 892715 (Pa. Super. Ct.), per Stabile, J., the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that under Article I, Section 8, the “plain view” doctrine does not apply to an otherwise innocent-appearing, closed showbox in the living room of a drug addict suffering from a medical emergency. Further, individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in closed containers within their home, and officers cannot search these items without legal cause.
Commonwealth v. Hoyle, – A.3d -, 2025 WL 1418486 (Pa. Super. Ct.), per Ford Elliott, the Superior Court held that information obtained through one’s ETB Access card does not violate Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. The court reasoned that through the “third-party doctrine,” individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding information associated with their ETB card because they present that information to the store when they use the card.
Article I, Section 10:
Commonwealth v. Kujawa, 332 A.3d 835 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2025), per Beck, J., the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the prosecutor’s failure to property prepare a state trooper did not amount to prosecutorial overreach sufficient to bar retrial under the Pennsylvania Constitution. The court explained that although Article I, Section 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides broader double jeopardy protections than the federal Constitution, retrial is barred only where prosecutorial misconduct either intends to provoke a mistrial or is undertaken so recklessly that it demonstrates a conscious disregard for a substantial risk of depriving the defendant of a fair trial. Because the court found that the prosecutor’s carelessness in preparing the witness did not evidence intent to prejudice or reckless disregard tantamount to overreaching, double jeopardy did not bar a retrial.
Article I, Section 13
Commonwealth v. Davis, 333 A.3d 731 (Pa. Super Ct. 2025), per McLaughlin, J., the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the imposition of a mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of parole for a third-time enumerated sexual offense does not constitute a cruel and unusual punishment under Article I, Section 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. In applying only Eighth Amendment “as-applied” jurisprudence, the court found that because of Defendant’s repeated commissions of child pornography offenses, the graphic nature of the videos Defendant disseminated, and Defendant’s remorseless disposition, the mandatory sentence imposed was not grossly disproportionate to the crime committed.
Article I, Section 17:
City of Pittsburgh v. Fraternal Order of Police, — A.3d –, 2025 WL 826274 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2025), per Jubelirer, J., the Commonwealth Court held that an arbitration award reducing a police officer’s discipline was not a violation of the Contracts Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The court found that the award was not a legislative act that would trigger protections under Article I, Section 17, but rather an administrative decision resolving a private contractual dispute between the city and the police union and the arbitrators acted within the authority granted to them by the parties’ collective bargaining agreement.
Article II, Section 1:
East Coast Vapor LLC v. Dept. of Revenue, — A.3d –, 2025 WL 24357 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2025), per Wolf, J., the Commonwealth Court held that provisions of the Tobacco Products Tax Act (TPTA) that allowed the Department of Revenue to request information from applicants for a manufacturer’s license was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority. The court found that the TPTA’s licensing provisions failed to provide sufficient standards to limit the Department’s discretion and therefore violated Article II, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which vests legislative power solely in the General Assembly.
Z&R Cab, LLC v. Philadelphia Parking Authority, – A.3d -, 2025 WL 1161995 (Pa. Commww. Ct.), per McCullough, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that Act 64 corrected the constitutional shortcomings of Section 5707 of Act 94. Act 64 requires legislative approval for the Philadelphia Parking Authority’s budget and fee schedule and provides that certain parties can challenge the Authority’s assessments. The court found that there was no unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to the Parking Authority because the budget and fee schedule required legislative approval.
Article II, Section 15:
Hommich v. Boscola, — A.3d –, 2025 WL 24368 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2025), per Jubelirer, J., the Commonwealth Court held that Senator Lisa Boscola was protected by legislative privilege under Article II, Section 15 of the Pennsylvania Constitution when she used the plaintiff’s name to refer to a legal loophole in a memorandum. The plaintiff, a solar energy developer, sued for defamation after Senator Boscola circulated a memorandum to fellow legislators advocating for a bill to close the so-called “Hommrich loophole.” The Commonwealth Court found that the memorandum was part of Senator Boscola’s core legislative function and thus protected under legislative privilege.
Article III, Section 18:
Herold v. University of Pittsburgh, — A.3d –, 2025 WL 258783 (Pa. 2025), per Todd, C.J., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the interpretation of the Occupational Disease Act (“ODA”) must align with Article III, Section 18 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which requires reasonable compensation for workplace injuries. The court acknowledged that the constitutional history of workers’ compensation in Pennsylvania reflects an intent to ensure workers receive compensation while allowing for an exclusive statutory remedy system. Thus, the court found that claims for occupational diseases, such as mesothelioma, which manifest beyond four years after the last employment are not barred by the ODA’s exclusivity provision and that the ODA’s four-year statute of limitations does not preclude an employee from pursuing common-law claims against an employer.
Article IV, Section 20:
Lara v. Commissioner Pa. State Police, 125 F.4th 428 (3d Cir. 2025), per Jordan, J., the Third Circuit held that Pennsylvania laws prohibiting 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying firearms in public during a state of emergency violated the Second Amendment. The court also considered Article IV, Section 20 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which was amended to limit the governor’s authority to issue emergency declarations to 21 days. The court noted that while this amendment reduced the likelihood of prolonged emergencies, the historical pattern of frequent emergency declarations in Pennsylvania made it likely that similar constitutional challenges would arise.
Article V, Section 5:
Carr v. First Commonwealth Bank, — A.3d –, 2025 WL 912542 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2025), per Kunselman, J., the Superior Court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant nunc pro tunc relief allowing an untimely appeal from a common-law arbitration award because it violated the Pennsylvania Constitution’s separation of powers by exceeding the jurisdictional boundaries set by the legislature. The Court held that Article V, Section 5 of the Constitution gives the legislature, not the judiciary, the authority to limit the jurisdiction of the courts and the statute clearly imposes a 30-day deadline to appeal arbitration awards. The court held that once that deadline expired, the trial court lost jurisdiction and could not revive it, even for equitable reasons like personal tragedy.
Article V, Section 9
Commonwealth v. Burkholder, 333 A.3d 739 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2025), per Covey, the Commonwealth Court held that Article V, Section 9 of the Constitution requires courts to allow individuals to appeal their summary convictions nunc pro tunc when they miss filing deadlines through no fault of their own and lack recourse under the Post Conviction Relief Act. The court reasoned that denying these individuals the opportunity to appeal nunc pro tunc would deprive them of their constitutional right to a direct appeal.
Article V, Section 10
T.M.H v. J.L., – A.3d -, 2025 WL 1231559 (Pa. 2025), in a per curiam order, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court exercised its authority under Article V, Section 10 to direct a trial court to hold a custody hearing within 30 days of the order to readdress standing, resolve outstanding custody petitions, and determine a custody arrangement in the best interests of a child. The Court affirmed the Superior Court’s ruling that the trial court had erred in granting primary legal custody to the Maternal Grandparents under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5324(3), given their failure to comply with procedural deadlines and the fact that child had not resided with them for the year preceding removal.
Article V, Section 12
In re Huff, 334 A.3d 232 (Pa. 2025), per Brobson, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that Section 704(d) of the Election Code addresses voter registration, not candidate eligibility; therefore, issues pertaining candidate eligibility under Article V, Section 12 revolve around that individual’s “residence,” which the Court held is their domicile. The Court did not address the issue of whether, for purposes of eligibility to run for elected office, a candidate may obtain a domicile different from his spouse while in an intact marriage, because a Section 704(d) analysis settled the issue.
Article VIII, Section 1
In re Mishrikey, 334 A.3d 417 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2025), per McCullough, the Commonwealth Court held that a residential property owner failed to meet their burden of proof to show that their property was assessed at a higher valuation than those of their neighbors, which, if true, would violate Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution. The court reasoned that the appellant failed to introduce evidence to establish the market value of the allegedly comparable properties, relying on too few and overly selective neighboring properties.
Misc.
Rogalski v. Department of Education, 2025 WL 1453348 (Pa. Commw. Ct.), per McCullough, the Commonwealth Court held that the Educator Discipline Act does not violate the Constitution. The court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the act lacks a rational basis and infringes on various constitutional rights. It concluded that the Act survives rational basis review because the state has a legitimate interest in disciplining educators with expired permits.