State Court Oral Arguments to Watch for in October

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

In October, state supreme courts will take up a wide range of issues, including free speech rights to insult and record police in Montana, the constitutionality of New York’s landmark voter protection law, Alaska’s restrictions on who may perform abortions, and more.

Is Recording the Police Protected Speech? — October 1

City of Kalispell v. Doman, Montana Supreme Court

The Montana Supreme Court will consider the appeal of a defendant who saw a traffic stop underway and started recording the encounter on his cell phone. He was arrested and charged with obstructing a peace officer after he argued with police, including calling one of the officers a “tyrant.” The defendant argues his “tyrant” remark was protected speech under the U.S Constitution’s First Amendment and Montana’s speech and expression clause, so was an improper basis for a criminal charge. With amicus support from the American Civil Liberties Union, he also contends the obstruction law is unconstitutional as applied to his conduct because both federal and state free speech and press guarantees encompass the right to record law enforcement performing their duties in public. Given the defendant was peacefully filming from a public sidewalk, they argue, the officers unduly restricted that right by arresting him.

Watch the arguments here.

Are Certain Texas Investigations into Gender-Affirming Care for Minors Legally Permissible? — October 7

PFLAG v. Office of the Attorney General, Texas Supreme Court

The Texas Supreme Court will address information requests the state has made to PFLAG, a LGBTQ+ organization, as part of an investigation into whether healthcare providers are evading Texas’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors. The requests stem from an affidavit PFLAG’s chief executive submitted in Loe v. Texas — a prior case that ultimately let the ban take effect — which mentioned that families fearful about losing what was then still-legal care were considering “contingency plans” and “alternative avenues to maintain care.” PFLAG responded to the investigative demand by suing to block it, and the state counter-petitioned to enforce it. The state high court will consider whether the lower court erred in finding “good cause” to strike parts of the demand on the grounds they seek information related to PFLAG’s membership and private communications in violation of the First Amendment and state constitutional speech and association rights, or that is unreasonably broad in violation of the Fourth Amendment and Texas analogue.

PFLAG also has a separate appeal awaiting argument before the Texas Supreme Court. At issue is the propriety of temporary injunctions, upheld by the intermediate court, against implementation of a gubernatorial directive that the state protective services agency investigate for child abuse parents suspected of providing gender-affirming medical care to their transgender kids.

Watch the October arguments here.

May a Suit Seeking to Stop Future Harm to Immigrants Proceed? — October 8

Michigan Immigrant Rights Center v. Governor, Michigan Supreme Court

The Michigan Supreme Court will take up a due process challenge by an immigrant legal assistance group to the state’s alleged policy of denying workers’ compensation to undocumented workers based on their immigration status. The group seeks only prospective relief to require officials to follow the law in the future, not damages for past harms. An intermediate court said the suit could not proceed because of a statute barring claims against the state unless the plaintiff files a complaint or notice of the claim within one year of when the claim comes to exist, known as accrual. The practice alleged here, the court said, first caused injury more than a year prior to filing.

On appeal to the Michigan high court, the plaintiff and amicus groups — including the National Immigration Law Center and National Employment Law Protect — argue the statute should not apply to claims for prospective relief against state officials. Barring claims seeking to prevent future harms based on past injuries, they contend, would broadly shield the state from accountability for continuous and future constitutional violations, interfering with state courts’ power to order compliance with constitutional law and disproportionately affecting marginalized communities “where systemic abuses can persist over long periods, compounding the harm.”

Watch the arguments here.

Does New York’s Voting Rights Act Violate Equal Protection? — October 14

Clarke v. Town of Newburgh , New York Court of Appeals

New York’s high court will hear arguments over whether provisions of the state’s Voting Rights Act designed to remedy electoral practices that diminish minority groups’ ability to elect candidates of their choice, known as vote dilution, violate federal or state equal protection requirements. Black and Hispanic residents claimed Newburgh’s methods for electing town board members diluted their votes in violation of the act. A trial court found the state act itself violated the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection by providing for relief based on racial classifications. But an appeals court reversed that decision, finding the town had failed to show that compliance with the New York Voting Rights Act would force it to violate federal equal protection requirements. The intermediate court reasoned, in part, that the vote dilution provisions permit all racial groups — including white voters who are a minority in their political subdivision — to bring claims and contemplate potential remedies, like ranked-choice voting, that do not sort voters based on race.

Watch the arguments here.

Does a Washington Campaign Disclosure Law Violate Free Speech? — October 28

Washington v. Meta Platforms, Washington Supreme Court

The Washington Supreme Court will consider Meta’s free speech challenge to the state’s Fair Campaign Practices Act, which generally requires businesses that run election-related advertisements to keep records on the ads for public review, including who paid for or sponsored them, the dates the ads were displayed, and — for digital platforms like Meta — demographic information on the target audience and the total number of impressions generated.

An appeals court rejected Meta’s assertion that the law violates the First Amendment and is preempted by the federal Communications Decency Act, which specifies that online platforms may not be treated as the publisher or speaker of content provided by a third party. The court applied “exacting scrutiny” — a federal standard used to evaluate campaign disclosure requirements — to Washington’s law and concluded the law substantially relates to the important government interest of informing voters about who pays for advertising and how advertisers are attempting to influence an election and does not unnecessarily burden Meta.

The Brennan Center and other non-profit organizations filed an amicus brief at the appeals court stage and before the Washington Supreme Court arguing the surging spending on and microtargeting of online political advertising necessitates transparency requirements.

Watch the arguments here.

Can Non-Physicians Be Banned from Performing Abortions? — October 29

Alaska v. Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest, Alaska Supreme Court

The Alaska Supreme Court will take up a state ban against clinicians with advanced training and licensing — such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners — but who are not doctors, from performing medication and aspiration abortions, the two most common first-trimester procedures. A trial court struck down the ban, finding it violates patients’ state constitutional privacy right to make reproductive decisions, previously recognized by the Alaska high court, by limiting the availability of care without improving patient health and safety. The ban also violates Alaska’s equal protection clause, the trial court said, because it does not prevent these advanced practice clinicians from providing nearly identical care to people experiencing miscarriage and therefore treats patients differently based on their reproductive choices. In its appeal, the state argues the ban does not impair the right to make reproductive decisions enough to trigger strict scrutiny, the stringent standard of review the trial court applied, contending it does not actually prevent access to abortion care or, at most, affects very few people.

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 October, Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ(Sep. 30, 2025), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/state-court-oral-arguments-watch-october-0