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 Advisory Opinions Explained
State and federal courts differ not just in the substantive rights they recognize but also in how they define judicial power.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Election Could Shape Direction of State Law
The candidates for an open seat on Pennsylvania’s supreme court have very different approaches to legal interpretation.
North Dakota Budget Bill Struck Down as Violation of ‘Single Subject’ Constitutional Rule
The state supreme court relied on a seldom-used state constitutional provision to upend a long-standing state legislative practice.
The Stakes in Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Election
The outcome could have big implications for abortion rights, elections, and more.
State Courts Have Their Own Shadow Dockets
Expedited judicial rulings may not always be problematic in the state context.
New Mexico Supreme Court Hints at a Big Constitutional Change
A footnote in a recent opinion could signal a new method for analyzing state constitutional claims.
Administrative Deference in Colorado
The Colorado Supreme Court has declined to adopt the federal courts’ approach to deference.
Victims’ Rights Meet State Constitutions
The Maryland Supreme Court is considering appeals in the murder case of Adnan Syed, made famous by the “Serial” podcast.