State Court Oral Arguments to Watch for in November

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

In November, state supreme courts will take up a wide range of issues, including courts’ authority to try to fix public defender shortages in multiple states, restrictions on voting in Missouri, challenges to corporate law changes designed to keep companies in Delaware, and more.

Three States Weigh Courts’ Roles in Improving Indigent Representation — November 4, 5, and 13

State v. Hemion, Oregon Supreme Court; Committee for Public Counsel Services v. Middlesex and Suffolk County District Courts, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court; In re the Detention of M.E. and R.S., Washington Supreme Court

Three states’ high courts will consider whether judges have authority to order measures intended to ease indigent defense crises in their state, where overstretched systems are struggling to protect the constitutional rights to counsel of people in poverty — an issue occurring around the country.

On November 4, in State v. Hemion, the Oregon Supreme Court will address whether a trial court was within its authority to order the largest public defense provider in Washington County, near Portland, to turn over detailed caseload data and records related to its representation of indigent criminal defendants. The dispute stems from a larger controversy over how to provide attorneys to thousands of people accused of crimes across the state who lack them. Prosecutors had argued the service’s failure to appoint counsel has more to do with its resource allocation than workload capacity, prompting the trial court’s order. Watch the Oregon arguments here.

On November 5, in Committee for Public Counsel Services, the Massachusetts high court will weigh under what circumstances, if any, a court may order an increase in the compensation rate for attorneys accepting representation of indigent criminal defendants, as a means of addressing a shortage of such counsel in the Greater Boston area. That rate is currently set by statute. These private court-appointed lawyers represent about 80 percent of indigent defendants in Massachusetts, and many stopped accepting new cases in May over concerns that their compensation is unreasonably low given the cost of living, lack of benefits, and difficult work circumstances. Despite the legislature in August increasing their hourly rate by $10 each year for two years, there were still 2,462 unrepresented indigent defendants in two Boston Metro counties as of the beginning of October, demonstrating — the state public defender agency argues — the need for court action to increase pay further. The shortage prompted the Massachusetts high court to direct trial courts in those counties to begin dismissing criminal cases of defendants who lack counsel for over 45 days, with around 1,500 dismissed to date. Watch the Massachusetts arguments here.

Finally, on November 13, the Washington Supreme Court, in In re Detention of M.E. and R.S., will take up a trial court’s order that the public defense department for Seattle’s King County assign counsel to numerous people facing involuntary civil commitments for mental health or substance use treatment. The department had not assigned the cases because its attorneys had already exceeded its monthly caseload limits, which are based on state bar and court standards for effective representation. The department argues the court order interfered with its responsibility under state and local regulations to manage and oversee indigent defense, while a hospital seeking to involuntarily commit one of the individuals counters that the court’s inherent authority to safeguard constitutional rights to counsel takes priority. (The hospital has also separately argued that the state high court should dismiss the case as moot because no party represents the indigent person whose rights are at stake.) Watch the Washington arguments here.

Are Delaware’s Corporate Law Revisions Unconstitutional? — November 5

Rutledge v. Clearway Energy Group LLC, Delaware Supreme Court

The Delaware Supreme Court will take up an overhaul to the state’s corporate law, enacted earlier this year in response to concerns that companies may move their places of incorporation outside Delaware — long regarded as the “corporate capital of the world.” Concerns arose following some decisions of its business court, the Court of Chancery, viewed by critics as partial to stockholders with minority stakes, including one agreeing with a shareholder that a $56 billion pay deal between Tesla and its controlling stockholder Elon Musk was unfair. The decision prompted Tesla’s 2024 relocation to Texas.

The Delaware high court will address a portion of the new law that shields transactions between corporations and their controlling stockholders from exposure to damages or equitable relief (such as a court order blocking the deal), so long as the deals receive certain approvals by disinterested directors or shareholders that qualify them for a “safe harbor” in the law. Specifically, the state high court will decide two state constitutional questions asked by a lower court in a potentially affected suit: First, whether removing the ability of the Chancery Court to award equitable relief for such transactions that satisfy the “safe harbor” unlawfully divests that court of jurisdiction; and, second, whether a provision applying the “safe harbor” retroactively to transactions that occurred before the law’s enactment violates would-be plaintiffs’ due process and access-to-courts rights by eliminating claims they were entitled to pursue.

Watch the arguments here.

Will a Voter-Approved Gun Control Measure, Called “Extreme,” Stand in Oregon? — November 6

Arnold v. Kotek, Oregon Supreme Court

The Oregon Supreme Court will consider a ballot measure narrowly approved by voters in 2022, and yet to go into effect because of litigation. The National Rifle Association called the measure at the time “the nation’s most extreme gun control Initiative.” The measure requires a multi-step permitting process to be eligible to purchase a gun and completion of a criminal background check before any gun transfer (regardless of the time that takes). It also almost entirely bans so-called “large capacity” magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. A trial court agreed with pro-firearm advocates that the restrictions violate the state constitutional right to carry arms, but an intermediate appellate court reversed.

On appeal to the state high court, state officials — with significant amicus support, including from the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, religious groups, and Portland’s chamber of commerce — argue, in part, that large-capacity magazines are not “arms” protected by the state constitutional clause. The Washington Supreme Court accepted a similar argument for purposes of its state constitution in May, upholding a ban on selling or manufacturing large-capacity magazines.

Watch the arguments here.

Should New Limits on Signature Collection for Oklahoma Initiatives be Blocked? — November 18

McVay v. Cockroft, Oklahoma Supreme Court

The Oklahoma Supreme Court will consider whether to block a May 2025 state law on the basis that it violates citizens’ state constitutional rights to initiate constitutional amendments or legislation and engage in political speech. Several would-be initiative proponents filed a case directly with the state high court challenging numerous provisions including the law’s strict limits on the total number of signatures that can be collected from any one county, which they claim effectively reduce the pool of signers eligible to help get an initiative petition on the ballot by millions of people who reside in populous counties.

The state already had the shortest window in the country for collecting signatures, the proponents say. They argue the new law amounts to a “de facto repeal” of the constitutional right of initiative, contending the county caps combined with the law’s restrictions on non-Oklahomans contributing to petition circulation, as well as a ban on performance-based compensation for circulators and other requirements, make it a practical — and sometimes mathematical — impossibility to qualify a measure for the ballot. The state defendants argue the difficulties are overstated and that the previous signature process made voters outside metro areas feel “disenfranchised.”

Watch the arguments here.

Should a 2022 Law Restricting Voting Survive in Missouri? — November 19

Missouri State Conference of the NAACP v. State; State v. League of Women Voters of Missouri, Missouri Supreme Court

The Missouri high court will consider two decisions by the same trial judge involving challenges brought by individual voters and voting advocacy organizations to provisions of an omnibus law restricting voting passed in 2022 by Missouri’s Republican-controlled legislature. One challenge involves the law’s requirement that voters show a valid Missouri or federal government-issued ID or, alternatively, vote by provisional ballot with a signature verification process. The law eliminated previous ID options for in-person voting, including a voter registration card, student ID, utility bill, or out-of-state license. The trial court found the plaintiffs did not show they were sufficiently harmed by the new voter ID requirements to establish standing, but also found the requirements consistent with a 2016 state constitutional amendment that a voter “may be required by general law to identify himself or herself” and not to violate the state constitutional right to vote or equal protection. 

Also challenged by the state League of Women Voters and NAACP organizations are provisions that restrict voter registration and absentee ballot solicitation activities with the risk of criminal penalties for noncompliance. The trial court struck down those provisions, saying they were vague and violated state constitutional speech protections by burdening core political speech and discriminating based on content and viewpoint against speech that is pro-registration or absentee voting.

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 November, Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ(Oct. 29, 2025), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/state-court-oral-arguments-watch-november