State Court Oral Arguments to Watch for in February

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

In February, state supreme courts will take up a wide range of issues, including Florida’s prosecution of voting fraud charges, Wyoming’s school-choice program, Wisconsin’s college-retention scholarships for students of certain racial groups, and more.

Can a Statewide Office Prosecute a Local Voting Case in Florida — February 4

Terry Hubbard v. State, Florida Supreme Judicial Court

Florida’s high court will consider whether a statewide entity created to combat organized crime has authority to prosecute people accused of voting while ineligible.

The Office of Statewide Prosecution was created by a 1980s constitutional amendment as a response to widespread organized crime in the state. It was meant to facilitate more efficient prosecution of complex cases, spanning multiple judicial districts. Under the amendment, the office has concurrent jurisdiction with local district attorneys to prosecute offenses that occur in or affect multiple circuits.

The defendant in the case was ineligible to vote due to a felony conviction, though he, along with many others, said he believed he was again eligible after a 2018 Florida constitutional amendment restored people’s voting rights following completion of their sentences for most felony convictions. The state’s requirements for restoration are complex, and the registration application does not indicate that people with certain convictions, like the defendant’s felony sex offense, are still disqualified.

After some local prosecutors declined to bring charges against those who registered or voted believing they were allowed to do so, the Florida governor pressed the statewide office to bring those cases. An appellate court found the office had jurisdiction to bring charges against the defendant, saying his registering to vote and voting in one judicial circuit involved another because state officials processed his registration and ballot in a different circuit. The Brennan Center filed an amicus brief in the case arguing, in part, that allowing the office to prosecute isolated incidents of voter confusion will chill voter participation. 

Watch the arguments here.

Is Pretrial Detention Via Unaffordable Bail Lawful in California? — February 4

In re Kowalczyk, California Supreme Court

The California Supreme Court will take up whether it violates the state constitution for a judge to set bail at an amount the arrested person cannot afford. Gerald Kowalczyk, an unhoused, disabled man with a lengthy but primarily nonviolent criminal history, was arrested for buying a hamburger with other people’s credit cards. The trial court originally set his bail at $75,000 but, after he asked to reduce that amount to one he could pay, the court ordered him detained without bail.

In taking up Kowalczyk’s challenge to his pretrial detention, the California high court will consider whether or how each of two state constitutional clauses governs a judge’s decision to deny bail: One clause provides that a person “shall be released on bail” unless he satisfies limited exceptions for violent threats; another provides that an individual “may be released on bail” and requires the judge to consider various factors, including primarily public and victim safety. Kowalczyk — with amicus support from numerous civil rights, defense, and bar groups — argues that the former clause controls and grants a right to pretrial release that prohibits courts from imposing de facto detention by setting unaffordable cash bail. That wealthy arrestees could not be deprived of their right to release via unaffordable bail (as any such amount would likely violate separate limits on bail exceeding the seriousness of the offense) also violates equal protection, he contends.

Watch the arguments here.

Is Wyoming’s School-Choice Program Constitutional? — February 10

Degenfelder v. Wyoming Educational Association; Leck v. Wyoming Educational Association, Wyoming Supreme Court

The Wyoming Supreme Court will consider whether a lower court erred in halting the state’s school-choice program that was set to begin in July 2025. The program would provide education savings accounts of up to $7,000 to Wyoming students not enrolled in public school to use for a range of expenses, including tuition at approved private and religious schools. The lower court found a state teachers’ union and several public school families were likely to succeed on their challenge that the program violated a state constitutional bar on education-related appropriations made to entities that are sectarian or not under state control. The program also likely violates “‘the right to an equal opportunity to a proper public education’” granted by Wyoming’s constitution, the trial judge said, by providing public funds to institutions that are not open to all state students and not required to provide instruction that is constitutionally adequate.

The state and a group of intervening parents who want to use the program appealed to the Wyoming high court. The state constitution does not prohibit appropriations made to state agencies for social welfare programs with private beneficiaries, they contend, and the program does not affect the educational rights of students in public schools. The state supreme court rejected their earlier requests to undo the lower court’s injunction while their appeals were pending.

The Wyoming arguments take place as courts in numerous states consider similar challenges to school-choice programs under their own state constitutions.

Watch the arguments here.

Can Montana Courts Decide Partisan Gerrymandering Allegations? — February 11

Montana Conservation Voters v. Jacobsen, Montana Supreme Court

The Montana Supreme Court will take up a partisan gerrymandering challenge to the state legislature’s 2023 redrawing of the five districts that each elect one seat on the state’s public service commission. Several voters and an environmental group involved in elections for the commission — which regulates utilities and, in turn, energy policy for Montana — alleged the map favored Republican candidates and voters in violation of the rights to vote and to equal protection of laws under the state constitution. A lower court disagreed and upheld the map.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argue the trial court incorrectly required proof of intent to dilute non-Republican votes for their suffrage claim, presumed the legislature acted in good faith in finding the map’s predominant purpose was not to advantage Republicans, and concluded lawmakers had an absolute privilege that barred the plaintiffs’ discovery of evidence of how the map was drawn.

State officials defend the merits of the lower court’s decision but take issue with its initial ruling that the claims were appropriate for a judge to resolve, instead of properly left to the political branches. Tying into other legal battles around the country, the officials argue Montana’s high court should follow the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2019 holding that partisan gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable political questions, for purposes of Montana’s courts.

Watch the arguments here.

Does a Race-Based Wisconsin Scholarship Fund Violate Equal Protection — February 11

Rabiebna v. Higher Educational Aids Board, Wisconsin Supreme Court

The Wisconsin Supreme Court will consider whether a 40-year-old state program that offers grants to college students from certain racial and national-origin groups that, statistically, have experienced higher college attrition rates violates federal and state equal protection clauses. The needs-based grants of up to $2,500 annually are available beginning in a student’s sophomore year so long as they stay enrolled. Relying on a 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision striking race-based affirmative action in college admissions, an intermediate court found the Wisconsin program violated federal equal protection.

On appeal, state officials argue the program should survive — even if the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision applies to scholarships and not just admissions — because it could pass the Court’s test: It serves “compelling, measurable interests; it does not create a zero-sum system where others lose out on a finite, competed-for-benefit;” and it has an end point as it must be re-funded every two years. The officials also contend the plaintiffs — who are taxpayers relying on a doctrine that confers standing to challenge improper expenditures of tax dollars — did not or will not suffer any pecuniary loss themselves, as Wisconsin courts have required for such standing. The plaintiffs are not students seeking financial assistance, the officials say, and challenge only some of the grants’ criteria without seeking to spend fewer tax dollars by eliminating the program.

Listen to the arguments here.

Are Juryless Trials Before Arizona’s Securities Agency Constitutional? — February 19

EFG America v. Arizona Corporation Commission, Arizona Supreme Court

The Arizona Supreme Court will address whether trying enforcement actions brought by the state’s securities regulator in juryless administrative hearings violates an enforcement target’s right to a jury trial under the state constitution. In Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) v. Jarkesy, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal Seventh Amendment grants a jury trial right when the SEC seeks civil penalties for securities fraud. In this case, and a parallel one also pending before the Arizona high court, companies assert the court should adopt the same approach under the state constitution, arguing the state jury trial right is, if anything, broader than the Seventh Amendment.

The intermediate court below rejected that approach. Because Arizona’s constitution grants the state corporation commission specific powers to impose fines and handle securities matters without any reference to a jury requirement, the lower court said, a jury trial right does not extend to its proceedings.

The Arizona arguments occur against a backdrop of developments involving juryless agency trials at both the federal and state levels. In January, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take up a related issue to Jarkesy, on whether the Federal Communications Commission may assess monetary penalties without a jury trial. A petition for review raising a similar question to EFG under the Pennsylvania Constitution was also filed before that state’s high court. 

Watch the Arizona 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 February, Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (Feb. 2, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/state-court-oral-arguments-watch-february-0