State Court Oral Arguments to Watch for in March

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

In March, state supreme courts will take up a wide range of issues, including a challenge by eight youth to an Alaska natural gas pipeline project, whether Ohio’s “healthcare freedom” amendment bars its ban on gender-affirming care for minors, death penalty eligibility for California defendants whose trials involved racial bias, and more.

Does a Fossil Fuel Project Violate Young Alaskans’ Rights? — March 4

Sagoonick v. State of Alaska II, Alaska Supreme Court

The Alaska Supreme Court will hear from a group of young people appealing the dismissal of their challenge to a law requiring state officials to develop the Alaska Liquified Natural Gas Project, which the youth plaintiffs say is one of the largest infrastructure projects ever proposed nationally and is slated to more than triple the state’s annual greenhouse-gas emissions. The young people claim the law violates their state constitutional rights to equally access — relative to prior generations — natural resources the state holds in trust for the public and to a climate system that sustains human life and dignity.

Although youth climate actions have had success in Montana and Hawaii, an Alaska trial judge found this suit to be a political question not properly resolved by courts, relying on the Alaska high court’s 2022 dismissal of a challenge to the state’s energy policies more generally. On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that high court ruling explicitly permitted future challenges like this one to “discrete” legislative actions to implement state resource development.

The state supreme court in May rejected a separate motion the plaintiffs filed directly with the court, seeking to block the state from transferring majority ownership of the Liquified Natural Gas project and all its permits to a private developer while the plaintiffs appealed.

Watch the arguments here.

Is a California Defendant Categorically Ineligible for the Death Penalty if Racial Bias Was Exhibited at Trial? — March 5

People v. Bankston, People v. Barrera, People v. Chhoun, People v. Demolle, California Supreme Court

The California Supreme Court will hear together several arguments raising how to apply a 2025 amendment to the state’s Racial Justice Act, a 2020 law making it easier for defendants to establish their convictions or sentences were racially discriminatory by showing a prosecutor, judge, counsel, witness, or juror exhibited racial bias or used racially discriminatory language. When such a violation is demonstrated, the amendment categorically states “the defendant shall not be eligible for the death penalty.”

In Bankston, a long-running appeal of a death sentence, the state attorney general conceded that prosecutors’ remarks during sentencing analogizing the defendant, who is Black, to a “Bengal tiger” were racially discriminatory in violation of the law. The California high court has asked for argument in Bankston and the other appeals on whether the amendment should be interpreted to preclude the death penalty regardless of whether a violation of the Racial Justice Act was prejudicial to the defendant’s case, or regardless of whether the defendant receives a new sentencing trial. The court also has asked whether interpreting the amendment in either way would run afoul of a state constitutional clause barring judgments from being set aside unless a judge finds an error “resulted in a miscarriage of justice,” or unlawfully amend a 1978 citizen initiative that expanded the class of defendants eligible for the death penalty.

Watch the arguments here.

Can a Texas Beach Be Closed for SpaceX Flight? — March 5

Texas General Land Office v. SaveRGV; Cameron County v. SaveRGV; Paxton v. SaveRGV, Texas Supreme Judicial Court

The Texas Supreme Court will consider claims by environmental groups and the Carrizo/Comecrudo Nation that statutes relied on by officials to close a public beach so Elon Musk-owned SpaceX could launch rockets nearby violate a state constitutional amendment granting citizens the “unrestricted right” to use public beaches. State and county officials dispute the validity of those claims, arguing, in part, that the public’s right to use and access beaches does not preclude the government from regulating that use for public safety reasons. Officials also contend that the plaintiffs are seeking to exercise a “private right of enforcement,” which the amendment expressly states it does not create. An intermediate appellate court found the claims could proceed.

Watch the arguments here.

Did Missouri Legislators Violate the State Constitution by Redistricting? — March 10

Luther v. Hoskins, Missouri Supreme Court

The Missouri Supreme Court will take up voters’ appeal from a December trial court decision finding the legislature had the power to enact a new congressional district map for the state in 2025. Redistricting generally occurs once a decade to account for population shifts revealed in each new 10-year U.S. Census. But President Trump triggered a round of mid-decade redistricting when he began urging Republican states to redraw their maps for partisan advantage ahead of the 2026 midterms, resulting in challenges like this one across the country.

Missouri’s state constitution provides that the legislature “shall” enact a new map when new census results are certified to the governor, the lower court said, but there’s no text prohibiting lawmakers from conducting a second redistricting based on the same census. On appeal, the parties dispute whether the court properly interpreted the state constitutional provision; whether a restriction that’s implied, but not express, can limit legislators’ actions; and whether — even if legislators lacked authority to pass the new map — it should stay in place through the 2026 midterms under a principle known as Purcell, from the U.S. Supreme Court case Purcell v. Gonzolas, which disfavors changing voting rules too close to an election.

Watch the arguments here.

Can Philadelphia’s Ghost Gun Ban Stand? — March 10

Gun Owners of America v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Supreme Court

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will weigh whether the state’s law regulating ownership, possession, and transfer of firearms preempts Philadelphia’s ban on so-called ghost guns, created by 3-D printers or from unassembled parts. An intermediate court found that while the state law “fully occupies the field of firearms regulation” — and therefore precludes local regulation in that area — Philadelphia’s ordinance did not restrict firearms “per se” but rather prohibited the use of certain unfinished pieces or manufacturing processes to create weapons from scratch.

The Pennsylvania high court will also consider whether the gun-rights plaintiffs waived a separate claim that the city’s ban violates the state constitution’s “right to bear arms” clause. The intermediate court held they did waive it by only cursorily addressing four factors the state supreme court has established as grounds for independently interpreting state constitutionals provisions with federal analogues, like the Second Amendment here.

Watch the arguments here.

Does Ohio’s Constitution Invalidate Its Gender-Affirming Care Ban? — March 24

Moe v. Yost, Ohio Supreme Court

The Ohio Supreme Court will take up the state’s appeal of an intermediate court decision striking down its ban on puberty blockers and hormone therapy prescribed to transgender minors for gender-affirming care. The intermediate court said the ban violated Ohio’s constitution, including parents’ fundamental right to direct the medical care of their children and a 2011 “health care freedom” amendment, which prevents the state from prohibiting “the purchase or sale of health care.” Six states passed such amendments as part of a conservative-backed effort to limit the effects of the Affordable Care Act, but the amendments have since become an unlikely tool in trans and reproductive rights challenges. The Wyoming Supreme Court in January invalidated that state’s abortion bans under its version.

While it remains to be seen how the gender-affirming care ban will fair under Ohio’s amendment, the state supreme court in April halted the intermediate court’s ruling without explanation, pending resolution of the appeal.

Watch the arguments here.

Was it Lawful for Nebraska Official to Share Voter Data with the DOJ? — March 31

Common Cause v. Evnen, Nebraska Supreme Court

The Nebraska Supreme Court will consider whether the secretary of state had authority to hand over data on every registered voter, including birthdates, addresses, and partial driver’s license or Social Security numbers, in response to a demand from the U.S. Department of Justice. The DOJ has made similar requests of over 40 states and Washington, DC and sued numerous states in federal court for not complying. Common Cause, a democracy-rights nonprofit whose members include Nebraska voters, sued to stop the transfer. The group argued that state statutes prohibit state and local election officials from disclosing such information and third parties from making or receiving copies of Nebraska’s voter register. The Nebraska high court in February declined to block the secretary from releasing the data but agreed to hear Common Cause’s case and scheduled an expedited oral argument.

Watch the arguments here.

Sarah Kessler is an advisor and contributing editor to State Court Report.

Suggested Citation: Sarah Kessler, State Court Oral Arguments to Watch for in March, Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (Mar. 2, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/state-court-oral-arguments-watch-march-0