State Court Oral Arguments to Watch for in January

Each month, State Court Report previews upcoming oral arguments in prominent or interesting state court cases. In January, state supreme courts will take up issues related to search and seizure law, access to courts, funding private schools, and more.

Can Missouri’s Attorney General Appeal a Preliminary Injunction when Other State Litigants Can’t? — January 7

Nicholson v. State, Missouri Supreme Court

The Missouri Supreme Court will consider if a 2025 state statute allowing the state attorney general to immediately appeal any preliminary injunction that blocks the state from enforcing a law violates Missouri’s equal protection clause; other Missouri litigants do not enjoy that same immediate appellate right. A lower court said it did, applying a heightened review standard because it found the law to impinge a fundamental right to access courts. On appeal, the state argues the state constitution’s “open courts” clause simply protects a plaintiff’s right to sue, and because the law does not bar plaintiffs from bringing their claims in the first instance, it does not interfere with that right.

News reports indicate that legislators passed the preliminary injunction provision in response to trial court orders that temporarily blocked abortion restrictions after voters approved a 2024 amendment protecting abortion rights. The clause at issue allowed the attorney general immediately to appeal that case.

The high court is also hearing a cross-appeal by the plaintiff in Nicholson, a Missouri taxpayer who works on ballot campaigns, of a separate portion of the lower court’s ruling related to sections of the 2025 statute addressing ballot measures. Those sections shorten the deadlines and add procedures for disputing ballot language as well as increase the length of ballot summaries. News reports reflect these provisions were a legislative reaction to successful challenges brought by abortion-rights proponents to the 2024 amendment’s ballot language. The lower court rejected the plaintiff’s claims that the legislature’s combination of the preliminary injunction provision with the ballot measure sections violated state constitutional prohibitions against altering a bill’s purpose in the enactment process and addressing more than one subject in a law.

Watch the arguments here.

Can Officers Demand Alabamians Present ID During a Stop? — January 7

Jennings v. Smith, Alabama Supreme Court

The Alabama Supreme Court will consider whether a statute that allows police making a stop to demand the stopped person’s name, address, and explanation for his actions permits officers who deem the person’s oral response unsatisfactory to demand a form of physical identification from the individual. The case arose after law enforcement, responding to a 911 call about a suspicious “Black male,” approached a pastor watering his neighbors’ flowers while they were away and arrested him when he refused their demand to provide ID. The pastor originally sued the officers for damages in federal court, claiming they unlawfully arrested him without probable cause. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found the claim could proceed because the statute did not make it unlawful to refuse ID, but the trial court on remand said a subsequent circuit decision created uncertainty about the statute’s meaning and sent this question to the Alabama high court.

The pastor and a variety of amicus groups — including the Southern Poverty Law Center, Cato Institute, and American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) — argue that construing the statute to contain an implicit obligation to present ID whenever officers view a reply to be incomplete would make the law unconstitutional. The vagueness of what constituted an unsatisfactory response, they contend, would violate due process. Amici further maintain that allowing officers to demand ID would be problematic given state and federal protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and compelled self-incrimination, and would misalign the statute’s scope and its title in violation of the state constitution.

Watch the arguments here.

Does the Ohio Constitution Afford Greater Protection for Administrative Searches than the Fourth Amendment? — January 8

Department of Development Services for the City of North Canton v. CF Homes, Ohio Supreme Court

The Ohio Supreme Court will consider for the first time whether the Ohio Constitution’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures requires city officials seeking to inspect homes for regulatory reasons, not for criminal violations, to make a greater showing than what federal law requires.

In Camara v. Municipal Court, the U.S. Supreme Court said the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant for such searches, but the warrant can be based on “reasonable legislative or administrative standards” — such as the time that has passed since an inspection or conditions of the area as a whole — without probable cause to believe any individual dwelling is violating regulations. A landlord challenging a rental inspection by local officials argues this lack of individualized cause is insufficient for purposes of Ohio’s constitution. The state’s constitutional history reflects a longstanding rejection of general warrants and emphasis on sanctity of the home, the company and amici Institute for Justice and Pacific Legal Foundation contend. A Pennsylvania appellate court recently departed from Camara under Pennsylvania’s search and seizure clause for similar reasons.

In the Ohio case, however, legal aid amicus groups from across the state counter that Ohio tenants, particularly those who are low income, “rely on the ability of municipalities to conduct housing safety inspections to ensure safe rental conditions in their homes.”

Watch the arguments here.

Is Idaho’s School-Choice Program Constitutional? — January 23

Committee to Protect and Preserve the Idaho Constitution v. State, Idaho Supreme Court

The Idaho Supreme Court will take up a challenge to the state’s first school-choice program brought by a teachers’ union, school district, and other advocates. Enacted in 2025 and set to open this month, the program offers students enrolled in non-public schools up to $5,000 in tax credits (or $7,500 if they have special needs) to pay tuition and other education expenses. In their petition filed directly with the state high court, the plaintiffs allege this use of taxpayer funds benefits private schools that lack public oversight and exist outside of the “general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools” the state constitution requires the legislature to maintain. They also assert the program violates a state doctrine requiring governmental programs to have a “public purpose.” They contend the primary beneficiaries are a limited number of private entities that may exclude students, not the community as a whole, and that private schools’ lack of accountability means “education services that are antagonistic to the public interest” can be funded.

State officials and lawmakers — with amicus support, including from parents intending to apply for the tax credits and faith-based school groups — defend the program. They maintain nothing in Idaho’s constitution prevents the legislature from supporting additional educational initiatives outside the state’s public school system, the tax credits do not undermine lawmakers’ obligation to adequately maintain public schools, and barring public purposes because the means are private would risk numerous government programs like Medicaid and food assistance.

The Idaho arguments take place against a backdrop of similar school-choice challenges occurring around the country.

Watch the arguments here.

Can Utah’s Execution Methods Be Challenged Under the State Constitution? — January 28

Menzies v. Department of Corrections, Utah Supreme Court

The Utah Supreme Court will take up a challenge to the state’s protocols for lethal injection and firing squad executions. Five men sentenced to death alleged that these methods violate a state constitutional clause barring both cruel and unusual punishment and treatment of incarcerated people with “unnecessary rigor.” A lower court dismissed the claims, finding that the U.S. Supreme Court’s Eighth Amendment requirement that plaintiffs challenging an execution method identify an available alternative that presents less risk of pain also applies under the state constitutional clause.

The ACLU filed an amicus brief in support of the individuals’ appeal to the state high court. The group argues that interpreting the state clause in lockstep with the Eighth Amendment ignores that only the former includes an “unnecessary rigor” prohibition. “Utah’s broader commitment to humane treatment of those in the carceral system” reflected in the text and history of its clause, the ACLU contends, would be compromised by requiring plaintiffs “to work out a better way of punishing them before they may bring challenges.”

One of the men who brought the case, Ralph Menzies, died of natural causes in November. The state supreme court had halted his execution in August to allow for an evaluation of his competency to be put to death in light of his progressing dementia.

Listen to 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 January, Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (Jan. 6, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/state-court-oral-arguments-watch-january-0