Search
Filter Search
O’Neil v. Gianforte
Held that the state constitution’s protection of the public’s “right to know” allows for a limited gubernatorial privilege exception if the governor meets the “high bar of demonstrating that the information is essential to carrying out a constitutional duty and that its disclosure would chill future candor.” Also held that the process for determining whether a particular document otherwise subject to the "right to know" may be shielded by gubernatorial privilege should be the same as for other "candor privileges" (e.g., attorney-client, doctor-patient), including in camera review by the trial court to determine the proper scope. Remanded to the district court to conduct such review with respect to the requested agency documents.
City of Fargo v. State
Held that a 2023 statute barring localities from enacting ordinances related to the purchase, sale, or possession of firearms and ammunitions that are more restrictive than state law preempted the city of Fargo’s limits on such sales and did not violate state constitutional “home rule” clauses as applied to Fargo’s restrictions.
Texas v. Margaret Daley Carpenter
Texas’s attorney general is suing a New York doctor for mailing abortion-including drugs to a woman in Texas, claiming she practiced medicine in Texas without a Texas license and improperly aided an abortion. The attorney general seeks to bar her from doing so again and asks for at least $100,000 in damages.
Missouri State Conference of the NAACP v. State
Trial court upheld voter identification requirements, finding them 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. The trial court determined that rational basis review is the appropriate level of scrunity, but said the law would satisfy any level.
State v. Pulizzi
Ruled that the criminal defendant did not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in his curbside garbage based on the city's waste collection ordinance requiring special permission from the city for an exemption from waste collection service
Ellutzi v. Regents of the University of California
Two students and a professor allege university violated their state and federal constitutional rights to due process, speech, and assembly by summarily banning them from campus after they failed to disperse when the university deployed law enforcement to dismantle a "Gaza Solidarity Encampment." The trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, citing "disputed evidence."
League of Women Voters of South Carolina v. Alexander
Original petition challenging 2022 congressional district map as partisan gerrymandering in violation of the South Carolina Constitution and arguing that the more explicit guarantee of equal voting rights in the state constitution (as compared to the federal) make such a challenge justiciable, unlike federal partisan gerrymandering claims under Rucho v. Common Cause (U.S. Supreme Court 2019). The same map was previously challenged in federal court as racially discriminatory line-drawing in violation of the U.S. Constitution, but the U.S. Supreme Court in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024) found that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proving that racial considerations predominated over partisan political motivations.
Washington Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Ban on Large-Capacity Magazines
The court must navigate confusing U.S. Supreme Court precedent in evaluating the ban.
Murray v. Dalton (In re Doe)
Held that Idaho’s statutes governing powers and duties of guardianship and governing resignation, removal, modification, or termination proceedings for guardians of minors, were rationally related to legitimate government interest in the minor’s safety and best interests and, thus, were not unconstitutionally broad or vague in violation of due process
In re S.M.
Held that an indigent parent or custodial respondent in an abuse and neglect case has a right to appointed counsel at all stages of the proceedings, but they may elect to continue self-represented upon a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel
