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
Judicial Federalism and the Status of State Constitutions
Transcript of panel from Symposium: The Promise and Limits of State Constitutions
Unpacking the Legal Challenges to Trump’s Ballot Eligibility
The vast majority of cases aiming to remove Trump from the ballot have been dismissed, but without deciding whether he’s eligible to hold the presidency.
Single-Subject Rules Can Prevent Perverse Outcomes but Give Judges Enormous Power
Single-subject requirements were used to strike down a Missouri law criminalizing homelessness and also helped undermine attempts to protect abortion access in other states.
The Major Questions Doctrine in Texas
The Texas Supreme Court’s nod last year toward the major questions doctrine was premature, given the differences between Texas and federal institutions.
The Writ of Mandamus in State Courts
The centuries-old remedy is increasingly used to force hotly contested political issues before state courts.
Scholarship Roundup: That’s a Wrap on 2023
New publications on state public law focus on topics ranging from constitutional conventions to criminal sentencing.
2023’s Most Significant State Constitutional Cases
Over a dozen academics, practitioners, and thought leaders weigh in on the most notable state constitutional cases of the year.
Efforts to Keep Trump Off 2024 Ballot Move Through State Courts
Courts are considering claims that Trump engaged in an insurrection and is disqualified from running for president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.