Image
Judicial Interpretation
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.
Filters
Case Trends: State Courts Shape the Right to Vote
State high courts continue to settle disputes over voting and election processes, including obstacles to by-mail voting — and to define the right to vote under their own constitutions.
State Court Oral Arguments to Watch for in November
Issues on the dockets include indigent defense crises in multiple states, what’s been called a “de facto repeal” of citizens’ initiative power, and a voter-approved ban on large-capacity magazines.
Resistance to Public Policies Assisting the Poor
Property owners have challenged programs meant to assist vulnerable populations, alleging they are unconstitutional takings of private property for public use.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision on Trans Healthcare Is Rippling Through State Courts
A North Dakota case upholding a ban on gender-affirming care for trans kids should trouble people who care about the dignity of trans people.
The Maryland Constitution: One of the Nation’s Oldest, Was a Model for Other States
The state’s current constitution was adopted during the Reconstruction Era as a reactionary effort to re-establish pre-Civil War government.
State Judges Target the U.S. Supreme Court
A justice in Washington concurred in a recent opinion but dissented “from the racism embedded in the federal case law that applies to this dispute.”
State Legalization of Marijuana Is Changing Search and Seizure Jurisprudence
The smell of marijuana, on its own, is no longer considered to be evidence of criminal activity in many jurisdictions.
The Extra Hurdle in State Courts to Prove a Statute Violates the U.S. Constitution
Many states require a litigant challenging a statute as violating the U.S. Constitution to prove the statute is unconstitutional “beyond a reasonable doubt.”