State Court Oral Arguments to Watch for in December 

Each month, State Court Report previews upcoming oral arguments in prominent or interesting state court cases.

In December, state supreme courts will take up a wide range of issues, including interference with religious services, social workers’ responsibilities to children in foster care, school funding, juror requirements for death penalty sentences, and printing ballots in multiple languages.

How Forceful Is a Recent Amendment Protecting Religious Services? — December 4

Perez v. City of San Antonio, Texas Supreme Court

The Texas high court will consider the scope of the state’s “Religious Service Protections” amendment, which bans the state and localities from limiting religious services. The legislatively referred amendment was adopted by voters in 2021 in response to restrictions on religious gatherings during the Covid-19 pandemic. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit certified a question to the state high court asking whether the amendment imposes a categorical ban on any limitation of a religious service regardless of the form taken or the government’s interest in the limitation.

The question arises from a federal court challenge by members of the Lipan-Apache Native American Church over San Antonio’s plans to close temporarily and improve an area of a public park that the plaintiffs consider sacred and seek to access for individual worship. The city argues changes to the park, including tree removal, are necessary for public health and safety.

The crux of the parties’ dispute is the amendment’s intent. The plaintiffs argue that Texans clearly meant for the new provision to go further than existing law, which already provided the most demanding standard of review for government religious restrictions. The city responds that the amendment only guarantees religious service is treated no less favorably than secular activity, not absolute protection.

Watch the arguments here.

Social Worker Responsibility to Protect Children in Foster Care — December 4

Gotay v. Creen, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

The Massachusetts high court will hear arguments over whether a child placed in foster care by the state has a due process right to a “safe living environment” because of the relationship created between the state and the child. The case stems from permanent injuries a child suffered after being left unattended in a room that became too hot overnight. Her parents and guardian sued state-employed social workers, alleging they showed “absence of professional judgment” by failing to address known dangerous conditions in the foster placement in violation of the child’s due process right.

In response, the social workers claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that would allow them to escape liability on the basis that the right they allegedly violated is not “clearly established.” They argue that even assuming a due process right based on the child’s relationship with the state exists, it is only triggered when state employees act with “deliberate indifference that shocks the conscience,” not when they are unaware of the particular risk. State Court Report recently wrote about state accountability for abuse in foster care.

Watch the arguments here.

Determining What It Costs to Educate New Hampshire Students — December 10

Contoocook Valley School District v. New Hampshire, New Hampshire Supreme Court

The New Hampshire Supreme Court will consider an appeal from a holding that the base amount the state is spending per pupil per year (approximately $4,100) fails to meet its state constitutional obligation to provide an adequate public education. After a bench trial, the lower court found the state must spend at least $7,356.01 per child, an increase of $537.55 million minimum over the current aggregate amount. The New Hampshire high court paused that decision while it decides the appeal — after the state argued having to go forward with that annual increase would cause “irreparable harm.”

The New Hampshire attorney general argues on appeal that courts lack authority under the separation of powers doctrine to tell the legislature how much to spend per child, that the lower court’s approach “untethers the right to an adequate education from any objective, definitional standard,” and that the court improperly relied on superintendents’ estimates of what it costs to provide an education instead of the minimum standards for schools in state statutes and agency rules. State Court Report has written about this and similar litigation addressing public education clauses, which are a unique feature of state constitutions.

Watch the arguments here.

Can a Florida Man Be Sentenced to Death by only 8 of 12 Jurors? — December 12

Jackson v. Florida, Florida Supreme Court

The Florida high court will consider a challenge to a 2023 state law that permits a defendant to be sentenced to death with only the votes of 8 of 12 jurors — a standard the defendant says is the lowest nationally for imposing a capital sentence. The defendant, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, was set to be resentenced after the Florida Supreme Court in 2016 determined that juror unanimity was required for a recommendation of death. After three justices reached mandatory retirement, the state high court receded from that decision in 2020, holding that nothing in the state or federal constitutions requires a unanimous jury recommendation of death. Because of numerous delays, the defendant’s resentencing did not occur until after that subsequent decision and the legislature’s enactment of the new law.

The defendant and amicus groups, including the NAACP, argue that the non-unanimity law operates to exclude the viewpoints and negate the participation of jurors of color, in violation of the federal Equal Protection Clause and Eighth Amendment. They also assert that Florida’s abandonment of capital sentencing safeguards — including dropping the unanimity requirement, doubling the number of aggravating factors for death eligibility, and ceasing review of such sentences for comparative proportionality across cases — has led the death penalty to be arbitrarily and inconsistently applied in the state.

Watch the arguments here.

A Fight in Iowa Over Printing Ballots in Multiple Languages — December 17

League of United Latin American Citizens of Iowa v. Pate, Iowa Supreme Court

The Iowa Supreme Court will hear an appeal of a district court’s dissolving of a 2008 injunction that barred the secretary of state from providing voter registration forms in languages other than English. Considering an argument advanced by the League of United Latin American Citizens of Iowa (LULAC) — a new party not in the original case — the trial court ruled that voting materials fall within an exception to the state law underlying the injunction, the English Language Reaffirmation Act. The act generally requires all “official documents” to be in English, but it exempts language usage “required by” or “necessary to secure” rights guaranteed by federal law or the state constitution.

The state defendants argue that providing the forms in a language other than English is not necessary to secure the right to vote. LULAC responds that non-English voting materials are necessary to ensure that people with limited English-language proficiency can enjoy that right, citing evidence that lack of access to native language voting materials results in decreased registration and turnout among such citizens.

Watch the arguments here.

Sarah Kessler is an advisor to State Court Report.

Erin Geiger Smith is a writer and editor at the Brennan Center for Justice.

Suggested Citation: Sarah Kessler & Erin Geiger Smith, State Court Oral Arguments to Watch for in December, Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ(Nov. 26, 2024), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/state-court-oral-arguments-watch-december