Opinions August 6, 2025

The following opinions were posted after The Indiana Lawyer’s deadline Tuesday:

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Chicago Wine Co., et al. v. Mike Braun, Governor of Indiana; Theodore Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana; and Jessica Allen, Chairwoman of the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission
21-2068
Civil. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Judge Tanya Walton Pratt.  Affirms the district court’s summary judgment order for Indiana state officials after Chicago Wine Company sued the state over a law that prevent retailers of alcoholic beverages located outside the state from shipping wine to Indiana consumers. Finds Indiana’s retail-premises requirement does not discriminate by either the source of the beverages or the state citizenship of the proprietor. Also finds Chicago Wine has not come forward with sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the common carrier ban imposes such a heavy burden on interstate commerce as to overcome the state’s legitimate interest in combatting underage drinking. Judge Frank Easterbrook and Judge Michael Scudder concur with separate opinions. Attorneys for appellants: James Tanford, Robert Epstein, James Porter II. Attorneys for appellees: John Herriman, Aaron Craft, Jefferson Garn, Michael Maxwell Jr., Benjamin Jones.

John M. Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Corporation
24-1942
Civil. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson. Reverses the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Brownsburg High School  on John Kluge’s accommodation claim and remand for further proceedings. Finds other factual disputes exist on the undue hardship issue. Leave sit to the district court’s discretion whether to reopen discovery on remand. Affirms the district court’s decision to not revisit Kluge’s retaliation claim, and its denial of summary judgment to him based on factual disputes as to his sincerity. Judge Iland Rovner dissents with separate opinion. Attorneys for appellant: Michael Cork, John Bursch, David Corfman, Travis Barham, Rory Gray, Tyson Langhofer. Attorneys for appellee: Alexander Pinegar, Brent Borg, Cassie Heeke.

Monica Richards, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, v. Eli Lilly & Company and Lilly USA, LLC
24-2574
Civil. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. Vacates the district court ‘s order to grant Monica Richards’ motion to conditionally certify a collective action, as part of her Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 claim asserting that the unfavorable treatment she experienced was part of a broader pattern of age discrimination against Eli Lilly’s older employees, and issuing notice to potential plaintiffs so that they may opt to join the collective. Finds district courts must consider both parties’ evidence with respect to similarity and may issue notice to potential plaintiffs when the named plaintiffs have raised at least a material factual dispute as to the similarity of potential plaintiffs. Also finds the district court did not have the opportunity to evaluate the propriety of notice under the framework the 7^th Circuit adopted with its decision. Remands for proceedings consistent with the opinion. Judge David Hamilton concurs with a separate opinion.  Attorneys for appellant: Joseph Torres,  Jonathan Linas, Jacob Roth, Mihcael Heckmann, Christopher Pagliarella, Michael Rossman, James Saywell. Attorneys for appellee: Jeffrey Macey, Harold Lichten, Thomas Fowler.

Reporters Committee for Freedom of The Press, et al. v. Todd Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, et al
24-2927
Civil. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Chief Judge James Sweeney II. Affirm the district court’s decision to preliminarily enjoin enforcement of Indiana’s buffer law, which makes it a crime for a person to knowingly or intentionally approach within 25 feet of a law enforcement officer who is “lawfully engaged in the execution of the law enforcement officer’s duties after the law enforcement officer has ordered the person to stop approaching.”  Finds that the buffer law is unconstitutionally vague under the 14th  Amendment’s due process clause because it is susceptible to arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement by the police. Remands for the district court to consider, through additional briefing or other means, the appropriate scope of injunctive relief. Attorneys for appellant: James Barta, Jefferson Garn, Adrienne Pope, Thomas Pratt, John Lowrey, Jenna Lorence, John Vastag. Attorneys for appellee: KatieLynn Townsend, Grayson Clary.

Wednesday opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals
Bobby Arnold v. County Line Landfill Partnership
24A-EX-3124
Administrative. Affirms the Full Worker’s Compensation Board of Indiana decision to deny Bobby Arnold’s claims that he is permanently and totally disabled and that County Line Landfill Partnership acted with bad faith and without due diligence. Finds the appellate court cannot say that the evidence is undisputed and leads inescapably to a result contrary to the board’s conclusion that Arnold is not permanently and totally disabled. Attorney for appellant: Brandon Hall. Attorney for appellee: Michael Dugan.