State Court Oral Arguments to Watch for in May

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

In May, state supreme courts will take up a wide range of issues, including the “first ever” lawsuit between Michigan’s two legislative chambers, the constitutionality of religious statues adorning public buildings in Massachusetts, multiple challenges to Missouri’s new congressional map, and more.

Can Oregon Criminal Defendants Subpoena Social Media Records? — May 5

State v. Ayon-Urbano, Oregon Supreme Court

The Oregon Supreme Court will consider whether criminal defendants have a constitutional right under the federal and state “compulsory process” clauses to subpoena records from social media platforms that are relevant to investigating their defense. These clauses each give an accused person the right “to have compulsory process for obtaining” favorable witnesses and their documents. The defendant here subpoenaed records from Instagram to develop his self-defense claim, but parent company Meta, like other social media companies, refused to comply. Meta cited the federal Stored Communications Act, which prohibits entities from divulging the contents of stored electronic communications, subject to exceptions including search warrants and certain government subpoenas.

The defendant argues that interpreting the law to allow prosecutors but never the defendant to obtain social media evidence is contrary to the historical intent of the compulsory process clauses. In amicus briefs, legal defense organizations nationwide contend Meta and other companies’ interpretation impedes meaningful defense of their clients in a world where “evidence obtained from social media often features as the central — or only — evidence against the accused.” Law professors also argue the Stored Communications Act’s silence about how it applies to defense subpoenas is not enough to overcome compulsory process rights.

Meta, as well as the United States and a victim advocacy group as amici, counter with multiple points, including that defendants have alternate means to obtain this evidence, it is “commonplace” for the government to have access to asymmetrical investigative tools, and the law serves legitimate state interests in protecting the privacy rights of online users.

Watch the arguments here.

Can Michigan Legislators Be Compelled to Present Bills to the Governor? — May 6

Senate v. House of Representatives, Michigan Supreme Court

The Michigan Supreme Court will consider whether the state House should be ordered to present to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer nine bills that both legislative chambers passed in the 2023–2024 session but that the House did not send to the governor for signature before the session adjourned. As a result of the House’s inaction, the nine bills approved by lawmakers — including legislation supporters say will improve public employees’ access to affordable health care and pension benefits and expand protections for debtors facing collection actions — never went into effect. The state Senate alleges the House, as the originator and possessor of the bills, violated a non-discretionary duty under a state constitutional provision that “every bill passed by the legislature shall be presented to the Governor before it becomes law.”

The state’s intermediate court agreed and granted an order — known as a writ of mandamus — compelling the House to present them to Whitmer.

On appeal, the House argues the case is not resolvable by a court because it is an internal dispute among the legislature about its own processes, and the person who would have a distinct interest in presentment sufficient for standing is the governor, not state senators. Alternatively, the House contends on the merits, the state constitution treats presentment as “a precondition to a bill becoming law,” not an affirmative obligation with a textual deadline; and even if there were a duty, it would not extend to the current House that convened in 2025 and had no role in the bills’ passage.

Watch the arguments here.

Can a Massachusetts City Erect Statues of Saints? — May 6

Fitzmaurice v. City of Quincy, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Massachusetts’s high court will weigh whether a city’s plan to install two 10-foot-tall statues of Catholic saints, the patron saints of police and firefighters, outside its public safety building violates the state’s constitution. Similar to the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause, Massachusetts’s Declaration of Rights provides that “no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.” A lower court preliminarily blocked the installation, finding it “impossible to strip” the statues of their religious meaning, despite the city’s argument that they serve a secular purpose of inspiring and honoring first responders.

On appeal, the parties dispute the test that should apply to the state constitutional provision. The taxpayer plaintiffs point to a 1979 Massachusetts high court test, focused on the government action’s purpose, effect, and potential for “entanglement” with religion. The city, however, asserts that test is no longer good law after the U.S. Supreme Court abandoned the Establishment Clause framework it was based on, and state courts should instead assess the government action by reference to the text and history of the state constitutional provision. The plaintiffs respond, in turn, that even if the state high court were to depart from its 1979 test, it should consider “present-day conditions,” not just those in the 18th or 19th century.

Watch the arguments here.

Does Missouri’s new congressional map violate the state constitution? — May 12 and 27

Wise v. State, Maggard v. State, NAACP v. Kehoe, Missouri Supreme Court

The Missouri Supreme Court will hear arguments in the ongoing dispute over the state legislature’s efforts to redraw congressional district lines ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. In March, the court ruled that the state constitution did not prevent the legislature from redistricting mid-decade. The high court will consider this month two lower courts’ denials of several other challenges to the new map passed in September 2025.

First, on May 12, the court will consider whether the newly drawn districts meet the state constitutional requirement that they “shall be composed of contiguous territory as compact and as nearly equal in population as may be,” as well as whether the map should be in effect pending the vote on a referendum petition to approve or veto the legislation that enacted the new boundaries. Proponents of that petition say their submission in December of enough signatures to qualify it for the November ballot had the legal effect of suspending the new map based on “longstanding precedent” involving past referendums. But a lower court said officials must first complete the verification process and certify the referendum, which has not occurred.

Then, on May 27, the court will consider whether the redistricting special session, during which the legislature passed the new map, was allowed under the state constitution. Appellant NAACP is asking the court to decide what the NAACP says is a question of first impression — whether the governor’s authority to call the session is “dependent on the existence of an extraordinary occasion,” and, if so, whether he properly stated one.

Watch the arguments here.

Did New York’s Equal Rights Amendment Implicitly Repeal Its Judicial Retirement Age? — May 20

Matter of Miller v. State, New York Court of Appeals

New York’s highest court will consider whether the state’s mandatory judicial retirement age violates New York’s Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) passed by voters in November 2024. The case is one of the first interpreting the state’s ERA, which added age, among other new categories, expressly protected from discrimination.

Three judges who have reached 70 — the retirement age prescribed by the state constitution and statutes — contend that the ERA nullified that state constitutional requirement. Lower and intermediate courts disagreed. The appellate court reasoned that the ERA contains no reference to judicial retirement or eligibility and a proposal by lawmakers to raise the retirement age soon after the ERA went into effect suggested its drafters intended to address that issue separately.

A majority of states require judges to retire at a certain age, and several states’ lawmakers and voters have sought to extend those cutoffs in recent years, with mixed results. Louisianans are set to vote on such an amendment this month, and Arizonans and Hawaiians may do so in November.

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.