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.
South Carolina High Court Hears Challenge to Firing Squads and Electric Chair
States have increasingly turned to antiquated, painful methods of execution in response to shortages of lethal injection drugs.
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
Where Abortion Litigation in Georgia Stands
The Writ of Mandamus in State Courts
The centuries-old remedy is increasingly used to force hotly contested political issues before state courts.
Knife Laws on the Chopping Block