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 sentencing severity for so-called felony-murder convictions, whether Meta can be sued over Instagram’s design, police stops made for pretextual reasons, and more.

Police Stops and Arrests for Minor Traffic Violations in Massachusetts — December 3

Commonwealth v. Arias, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Massachusetts’s high court will take up several state constitutional questions stemming from a traffic stop a lower court found to be pretextual and from the defendant’s subsequent arrest for a separate low-level traffic offense. Police pulled over the defendant, stating on the radio it was for a drug investigation but later indicating the reason was a civil traffic infraction they observed the day before. They then searched and seized him for the misdemeanor offense of not responding fast enough to sirens directing him to stop.

Along with amicus criminal justice and privacy groups, the defendant asks the state supreme court to use this case to find that pretextual stops and arrests violate the Massachusetts Constitution’s guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures. He argues a stop cannot be reasonable when the justification given for the stop is not the real reason. The “ubiquity of traffic infractions,” particularly with electronic traffic surveillance, also gives officers the cover of what is effectively an unconstitutional “general warrant” to stop drivers, increasing the risk of biased policing and racial profiling, the defendant and amici contend.

The court will also consider whether the state’s search and seizure clause limits officers’ authority to make arrests for offenses that statutes provide are misdemeanors and not punishable by jail time, like that for which the defendant was arrested. While the U.S. Supreme Court has said probable cause that “even a very minor criminal offense” has been committed in an officer’s presence is sufficient for arrest under the Fourth Amendment, other states’ high courts — including Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, and Ohio — have interpreted their constitutions to require more.

Watch the arguments here.

Can Massachusetts sue Meta for Addictive Design Features? — December 5

Commonwealth v. Meta Platforms, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Massachusetts’s highest court will address whether Meta — owner of photo sharing app Instagram — is entitled to interlocutory appeal of a lower court’s refusal to dismiss a case brought against it by the state. Massachusetts’s lawsuit claims Meta “created a public nuisance” by including on Instagram “addictive design features to exploit children’s psychological vulnerabilities” and misled the public about the safety of its services. If the appeal is deemed proper, the court could also address, among other defenses, Meta’s arguments that the free speech protections in the First Amendment and the Massachusetts Constitution bar the state’s claims. Meta contends allowing the claims would improperly allow it to be held liable for its editorial choices in selecting and organizing user content and for statements of opinion concerning its services.

The state counters that Instagram’s design elements are not expressive speech but commercial tools that manipulate kids into excessive use independent of the content displayed. Common Sense Media is among the groups that submitted briefs in support of the state, while TechFreedom is among those supporting Meta.

Watch the arguments here.

Do Incarcerated People Have a Right to Acquire Property? — December 9

Franklin v. Martinez, New Mexico Supreme Court

The New Mexico Supreme Court will consider whether the state constitution’s “inherent and inalienable rights” clause protecting citizens’ right to acquire property extends to people who are incarcerated such that, in conjunction with the state’s due process clause, an incarcerated person cannot be deprived of obtaining certain property without meaningful process.

The lawsuit arose after an incarcerated person sought to acquire items from an approved vendor — per the policy of the state correctional department — but was denied. He argues in a habeas petition that because the New Mexico Constitution affords the specific right “of acquiring” property, which the U.S. Constitution does not, the state constitution should be interpreted more expansively than the federal right. He asks the court to hold that a constitutionally protected property interest is embedded in the New Mexico Corrections Department Inmate Property policy and to provide due process by ordering the agency to complete his and future requests in compliance with the policy.

Watch the arguments here.

Taxpayers’ Standing to Sue Cities in Ohio — December 9

City of Cincinnati, ex rel. Mark Miller v. City of Cincinnati, Ohio Supreme Court

The Ohio Supreme Court will consider under what circumstances a taxpayer has standing to sue to stop actions by local officials the taxpayer views as an abuse of municipal power. A state statute permits any city taxpayer to bring such a suit on the city’s behalf, if the city fails to pursue the action itself when requested in writing by the taxpayer. The taxpayer here sued to stop construction of affordable housing, arguing the Cincinnati city council unlawfully exercised administrative power in granting a zoning variance permitting the project. Although it was undisputed he satisfied the statute’s plain text, an intermediate court said he lacked standing because to sue as a taxpayer he also needed to show his challenge sought to enforce a public right or provide a public benefit. On appeal, the Ohio high court will address whether the lower court was right to read these additional standing requirements into the statute.

The argument ties into larger questions states are weighing about how broadly taxpayer standing should be defined (the doctrine is almost nonexistent in federal court). As one conservative amicus group notes, Ohio’s statute is “uniquely broad” and if the legislature wanted to limit taxpayer challenges to align with other states it had many models to do so. Twenty-five city amici, however, argue the additional requirements are crucial to prevent “‘constant judicial intervention into government affairs.’”

Watch the arguments here.

Mandatory Life in Prison for Felony Murder Under Scrutiny in Michigan — December 10

People v. Langston, Michigan Supreme Court

The Michigan Supreme Court will take up for the second time whether automatically sentencing adults convicted of “felony murder” to life in prison without the possibility of parole, the state’s harshest sentence, is unconstitutionally excessive. Felony murder is a doctrine that allows a defendant to be charged with murder for a death that occurred during commission of another felony, even if the death was unintentional. The doctrine has effectively ceased to exist in Michigan since a 1980 state high court decision made malice — defined generally as intent to kill or to do “great bodily harm” — a necessary element of any pending or future murder charge. For defendants like Edwin Langston, who was convicted prior to that ruling, however, a jury was not required to find malice.

In January, the court considered whether a mandatory life-without-parole sentence, in the absence of evidence a defendant acted maliciously, violated Michigan’s prohibition on “cruel or unusual” punishment or the Eighth Amendment. Subsequent questions the court asked the parties — and will now weigh in a second argument — have refined the issue. They include whether this sentence is unconstitutional in all cases decided before the 1980 ruling required a finding of malice, or only in those where some threshold amount of intent evidence, to be determined by the court, was not otherwise presented. The court has also requested argument on the appropriate remedy if mandatory life imprisonment is found to be invalid.

A similar state constitutional challenge failed in Colorado last year. The serious consideration suggested by these questions, along with recent decisions from Michigan’s high court forging a path against excessive sentencing, suggest the outcome in Michigan could be different.

Watch the arguments here.

Sarah Kessler is an advisor and contributing editor 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(Dec. 2, 2025), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/state-court-oral-arguments-watch-december-0