State courts should hesitate before adopting the federal major questions doctrine under state law.
In considering state constitutional questions, judges may apply an array of methodologies, including originalism and other uses of history, textualism, purposivism, comparativism (including studying other state courts), and common law or precedent.
State constitutions also raise unique interpretation questions. For example, one common issue is whether a state constitutional provision should be interpreted in “lockstep” with the federal constitution.
The candidates for an open seat on Pennsylvania’s supreme court have very different approaches to legal interpretation.
The state supreme court relied on a seldom-used state constitutional provision to upend a long-standing state legislative practice.
As the U.S. Supreme Court reconsiders Chevron deference, almost all state courts continue to recognize the importance of agencies’ expertise in policymaking.
New York State’s high court has yet to define the scope of the right to shelter, which comes from a Depression-era amendment to the state constitution.
The outcome could have big implications for abortion rights, elections, and more.