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
Can Wisconsin’s Governor Use a Line-Item Veto to Extend School Funding by 400 Years?
The state high court is set to address whether the governor’s deletion of words, numbers, and punctuation from a bill to change its meaning violates the state constitution.
Will Courts Continue to Favor State Control Over Home Rule?
Constitutional amendments giving cities greater authority over local policy have repeatedly met resistance by state courts over the last century.
A Conversation with Justice Clint Bolick of the Arizona Supreme Court
The justice talked about the challenges facing state courts and what makes the state constitution unique.
Iowa Supreme Court Allows Six-Week Abortion Ban to Take Effect
The court’s stance on reproductive health has shifted dramatically since 2018, when it held that abortion was a fundamental right under the state constitution.
Judicial Deference to Agency Expertise in the States
Almost all state courts recognize the importance of agencies’ expertise in policymaking.
Pennsylvania’s Indigent Defense Crisis Goes to Court
Pennsylvania is not the only state struggling to meet its constitutional obligations to provide representation to people who can’t afford it.
SCOTUS’s Review of Ban on Trans Health Care Highlights Need for State Litigation
Even if the U.S. Supreme Court decides that bans on gender-affirming care for trans youth are constitutional, state courts can strike down such laws under state constitutions.
SCOTUS’s 2nd Amendment Decision Leaves Open Questions for State Courts
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the disarmament of a domestic abuser in United States v. Rahimi, but litigation over where to draw the line will continue.