The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is reviewing a civil rights lawsuit that challenges traffic stop practices by the Kansas Highway Patrol, according to court documents filed Jan. 29, 2026.
The case, *Shaw v. Smith* (Nos. 23-3264 & 23-3267), involves five plaintiffs who sued Erik Smith in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Kansas Highway Patrol. The plaintiffs are Blaine Franklin Shaw, Samuel James Shaw, Joshua Bosire, Mark Erich, and Shawna Maloney.
The lawsuit originated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas in 2019 under case number 6:19-CV-01343-KHV. The district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, prompting Smith to appeal to the Tenth Circuit.
The case has attracted significant attention from legal scholars, with three prominent constitutional law experts filing an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs' position. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law, Fred O. Smith Jr., and David C. Vladeck joined the brief filed by attorneys from Latham & Watkins LLP.
Chemerinsky is widely recognized as one of the nation's leading constitutional law scholars and has authored numerous texts on constitutional law and civil rights. His participation as an amicus signals the potential broader implications of this case for Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and police practices.
The Kansas Attorney General's Office is defending Smith in the appeal. Deputy Solicitor General Dwight R. Carswell leads the defense team, with Solicitor General Anthony J. Powell and Assistant Solicitor General Kurtis K. Wiard also appearing on the briefs. The representation comes from the office of Kansas Attorney General Kris W. Kobach.
Representing the plaintiffs is a coalition of civil rights attorneys led by Kunyu Ching from the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Kansas. The ACLU team includes Brian Hauss and Elizabeth Gyori from the national ACLU Foundation in New York. Private counsel includes Leslie A. Greathouse and Patrick McInerney from Spencer Fane LLP in Kansas City, Missouri.
The involvement of the ACLU suggests the case involves significant civil liberties issues, likely related to Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Traffic stops have been a frequent subject of civil rights litigation, particularly concerning racial profiling and the scope of permissible police conduct during routine stops.
The Tenth Circuit panel hearing the case consists of Circuit Judges Harris L Hartz, William J. Kelly, and David J. Federico. The court designated the opinion for publication, indicating the judges view the case as establishing important precedent for future similar disputes.
Publication designation means the ruling will become binding precedent within the Tenth Circuit, which covers Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming, plus the portions of Yellowstone National Park in Montana and Idaho. Published opinions carry greater weight and can be cited in future cases throughout the circuit.
The case represents part of ongoing national litigation challenging police practices in traffic stops. Courts across the country have grappled with balancing public safety concerns against constitutional protections, particularly in cases involving data collection, pretextual stops, and duration of traffic encounters.
The district court's original ruling apparently favored the plaintiffs' civil rights claims, though the specific nature of the constitutional violations alleged is not detailed in the available court documents. The Kansas Highway Patrol's appeal suggests state officials believe the district court incorrectly interpreted either the facts or applicable law.
Civil rights lawsuits against state law enforcement agencies typically seek both injunctive relief to change practices and monetary damages for constitutional violations. When filed against officials in their official capacity, such suits primarily aim to reform institutional policies rather than individual accountability.
The timeline shows the case has been in litigation for approximately seven years since the original 2019 filing. The extended duration reflects the complexity of civil rights cases and the multiple levels of judicial review involved in federal constitutional challenges.
The appeal numbers 23-3264 and 23-3267 indicate this may involve consolidated appeals or multiple related issues being heard together. Such consolidation is common when cases involve similar legal questions or overlapping factual circumstances.
The Tenth Circuit's decision will likely influence how law enforcement agencies throughout the region conduct traffic stops and could provide guidance for similar constitutional challenges in other jurisdictions. The court's analysis of Fourth Amendment protections in the traffic stop context may establish new precedent for police practices.
The case demonstrates the ongoing tension between law enforcement authority and individual constitutional rights, particularly in routine police-citizen encounters. The outcome could affect training protocols, departmental policies, and oversight mechanisms for highway patrol operations throughout the Tenth Circuit.
With oral arguments complete, the court will now deliberate before issuing its published opinion. The decision will determine whether the district court correctly applied constitutional principles to the Kansas Highway Patrol's practices and could shape future civil rights litigation against state law enforcement agencies.