State Court Oral Arguments to Watch for in September

With the start of new terms, State Court Report is resuming its monthly previews of upcoming oral arguments in prominent or interesting state court cases.

In September, state supreme courts will take up a wide range of issues, including a “dark money” campaign disclosure law in Arizona, whether Kentucky’s constitution permits charters schools, police stops based on suspects’ flight in Pennsylvania high-crime areas, and more.

When Is an Online Arbitration Agreement Binding? — September 9

Chilutti v. Uber, Pennsylvania Supreme Court 

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will take up what legal rules apply to online arbitration agreements, particularly those entered into via a set of hyperlinked “terms and conditions.” Uber seeks to compel arbitration against a couple who sued for an injury sustained during a ride. When the couple registered for the ridesharing service, the company argues, they received notice that by creating an account they were agreeing to the company’s hyperlinked terms and conditions, which included an agreement to arbitrate. The couple testified they never clicked on the hyperlink so didn’t see the arbitration terms.

An intermediate court said the couple was not bound by the agreement. The court also held that a federal test for when arbitration terms can be enforced against a user who lacks actual knowledge is insufficient to waive the strong right to a jury trial in the Pennsylvania Constitution. That right requires a stricter standard for proving the user unambiguously demonstrated assent to arbitrate, the court concluded, requiring the company on the registration page to explicitly state the jury right would be waived by agreeing to the “terms and conditions” and prominently display the arbitration terms on the hyperlinked page. On appeal, Uber and industry amicus groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, contend this stricter test violates the federal act governing arbitration.

Watch the arguments here.

Is a Requirement Voters Handwrite Date on Ballot Constitutional? — September 10

Baxter v. Philadelphia Board of Elections, Pennsylvania Supreme Court

The Pennsylvania high court is also set to consider whether it violates the state constitution’s “free and equal” elections clause to not count a mail ballot because the voter failed to comply with a state requirement that the date be handwritten on the ballot envelope. 

Last October, an appellate court ruled that refusing to count undated or misdated ballots in a September special election violated that clause, though the state high court said then that the law would remain in effect for the 2024 general election. Voters, backed by voting rights groups and legal scholars, argue the requirement plays no role in establishing voter eligibility or timeliness of the ballot. The Republican National Committee, which favors the rule, argues the appellate court erred in finding the rule infringed a citizen’s fundamental right to vote. 

The handwritten date requirement has been the subject of several state and federal challenges. In federal court, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a lower court’s finding that discarding ballots based on the requirement violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. While the U.S. Supreme Court may end up reviewing that decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court could have the final word if it were independently to find the rule violates the state constitution. 

Watch the arguments here.

Can Ability to Buy a Home Be a Sentencing Factor? — September 10

State v. Hidlebaugh, Iowa Supreme Court

The Iowa Supreme Court will resolve whether a trial court’s imposition of a harsher sentence based at least in part on the defendant’s financial inability to purchase a home violates state or federal equal protection guarantees. The defendant had trouble finding consistent rental housing and pleaded guilty to violating a prior sex offender registry requirement for failing to update his address when staying with a friend. With the goal of stable housing, the plea agreement said prosecutors would recommend a suspended sentence and probation, instead of prison, if the defendant by sentencing had a mortgage or contract to buy a home. When the defendant could not afford a down payment, the trial court incarcerated him. The defendant argues on appeal — with amicus support from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) — that the trial court unlawfully discriminated based on wealth by imposing a more severe penalty when he could not make the purchase. 

Watch the arguments here.

Flight from Police in High-Crime Area as a Basis for Stops — September 10

Commonwealth v. Shivers, Pennsylvania Supreme Court

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will weigh whether a person fleeing from officers in a high-crime area, without more, can create reasonable suspicion of a crime to justify a police stop. The state high court previously ruled that a stop for flight from law enforcement violated the Fourth Amendment and the state constitution’s search and seizure clause, but reversed itself after the U.S. Supreme Court held in Illinois v. Wardlow that unprovoked flight in high-crime locations can support a stop under the federal Constitution. 

The defendant in this case, with amicus support from the ACLU, urges the state supreme court to find it was right originally for purposes of Pennsylvania’s search and seizure clause. Differences of text, structure, and history, they argue, support interpreting the state clause to be more protective against investigative stops than the Fourth Amendment. Relying on a neighborhood’s crime rate as a factor to justify denying privacy rights is also discriminatory, the defendant contends, as many people there — including many people of color — cannot afford to live elsewhere. 

Watch the arguments here.

Charter Schools’ State Constitutionality — September 11

Commonwealth v. Council for Better Education; LaFontaine v. Council for Better Education, Kentucky Supreme Court

The Kentucky Supreme Court will take up whether a law providing for public charter schools violates a requirement in the state constitution that the legislature establish “an efficient system of common schools.” In response to a challenge backed by hundreds of school districts, a trial court struck down the law, finding charter schools to be “private entities” with unique autonomy and an ability to limit enrollment that brings them outside the state constitutional definitions of “public” or “common schools.” On appeal, the state and a would-be charter school operator point out that 45 states now have such schools. They also argue that “because public charter schools depend entirely on community engagement, assessment tests, and parents voting with their feet, they represent the highest aspirations” of the Kentucky Supreme Court’s landmark 1989 decision, Rose v. Council for Better Education, holding that the same state constitutional provision gives each Kentucky student a fundamental right to an adequate education.

Watch the arguments here.

Do State Dark Money Disclosure Requirements Violate Free Speech? — September 11

Center for Arizona Policy v. Arizona Secretary of State, Arizona Supreme Court

The Arizona Supreme Court will hear an appeal of lower courts’ dismissal of a challenge to Arizona’s “dark money” disclosure law — legislation passed by citizen initiative that seeks to regulate the practice of hiding the identity of political contributors by passing the money through intermediaries. The plaintiffs, conservative nonprofits and donors, argue that the law violates state constitutional rights to free speech and not to be disturbed in “private affairs,” among other arguments. The court is expected to address whether the federal “exacting scrutiny” standard for disclosure laws should be adopted over the more rigorous “strict scrutiny” standard when evaluating speech rights under the Arizona Constitution. 

In March, the state high court heard a separate appeal related to the same law. In that case, an appellate court agreed with lawmakers that a provision limiting the legislature’s oversight over the law’s enforcement violated separation of powers. Lawmakers in that case argued to the state high court that the rest of the law, including the disclosure requirements, should be struck as inseparable from the blocked enforcement provision.

Watch the September arguments here. 

Do Gift Clauses Apply to Economic Development Grants? — September 11

J.P. Morgan Chase v. City of Corsicana, Texas Supreme Court

The Texas Supreme Court will consider whether a 1987 amendment authorizing publicly funded economic development programs is subject to a separate “gift clause” in the state constitution, which generally prohibits grants of public money to private entities unless the grants have a predominantly public purpose and the government retains control over the funds. An intermediate appellate court found the gift clause invalidated local government agreements that gave a private venture tax incentives to help develop a retail center and construct a big-box store. 

On appeal, a beneficiary of the agreements argues that subjecting the economic development project to the gift clause ignores a “notwithstanding any other provision” preface in the amendment. Even if the gift clause applies, the beneficiary argues in the alternative, the appellate court’s decision undermined Texas’s strong policy in favor of freedom of contract because it disregarded the localities’ arm’s-length determination that building a retail hub served a public purpose. In amicus briefs, Texas’s attorney general and conservative nonprofits contend the gift clause should apply. 

Watch the arguments here.

Minimum Wage Exemption for Live-in Caregivers — September 16

Assurecare Adult Home v. Bolina, Washington Supreme Court

The Washington Supreme Court will take up the state constitutionality of an exclusion in Washington’s minimum wage, overtime, and sick leave law for live-in caregivers to elderly or disabled adults. A group of caregivers argue the exemption violates the Washington Constitution’s prohibition against laws that grant unequal privileges and immunities, as it gives some employers immunity from labor standards and the privilege of lower labor costs, while impairing caregivers’ rights as workers. The exclusion also has racist and sexist origins that perpetuate in a workforce that is 83 percent female and nearly half non-white, contend the plaintiffs and amicus groups, including the National Employment Law Project and National Women’s Law Center. In defense of the exemption, employers say they could not afford to continue to operate residential homes for vulnerable adults if paying minimum wage for all live-in caregiver hours was required. 

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 September, Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (Sep. 05, 2025), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/state-court-oral-arguments-watch-september-0