Search
Filter Search
In re Tom Malinowski
Appellants claim that state's ban on fusion voting violates rights to vote, to free speech and political association, to equal protection, and to assemble
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
Layla H v. Virginia
Plaintiffs claim that state’s practice of approving permits for fossil-fuel infrastructure violates substantive due process and public trust rights to natural resources, protected by the state constitution. They claim such practice infringes these rights by contributing to greenhouse-gas pollution and climate change. A trial court dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint, and the intermediate appellate court affirmed on the basis that the plaintiffs lack standing. Finding that there was no reversible error, the Virginia Supreme Court declined to grant review of the appellate court decision.
Mitchell v. University of North Carolina Board of Governors
Will consider whether public university's termination of a tenured professor based, in part, on a letter he wrote to a department chair using offensive language violates the First Amendment, and whether lower courts' deference to the interpretation put forth by the university -- a state agency -- of its faculty employment regulations violates separation of powers.
Blackmon v. State
Plaintiffs who allege they were denied, or received delayed, medically necessary abortion care due to doctors' confusion regarding the scope of the medical necessity exception in the state's abortion ban challenge that exception as violating their state constitutional rights to life and equal protection and as unconstitutionally vague. A Tennessee trial court held the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits as to each challenge, at least with respect to certain maternal medical conditions the parties agreed fall within the exception, and granted temporary relief declaring the exception to include those conditions.
A "Bombshell" Ruling on Education Funding in Wyoming
As the Trump administration tries to assert unprecedented influence over education, the ruling reminds us that most educational policy is set at the state and local levels.
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. John Doe, Board of Education of Harford County v. Doe, The Key School, Inc., et al. v. Valerie Bunker
Held that a law repealing a prior time bar for child sex abuse claims — which had prevented victims from suing once they turned 38 — did not violate a defendant's vested right to be free from liability because the prior time bar was an ordinary statute of limitations, not a statute of repose. The court concluded that the expiration of a statute of limitations does not create a vested right, while the running of a statute of repose does. Even absent a vested right, however, the court ruled that a law retroactively resurrecting a remedy previously precluded by a statute of limitations must bear "a real and substantial relation to the problem it addressed," but found that standard met in the context of child sex abuse claims.
McKinney v. Goins
Ruled that the retroactive amendment of the statute of limitations for tort claims by victims of child sexual abuse effected by SAFE Child Act did not disturb or destroy a “vested right” and thus did not violate state constitution's Law of the Land Clause, and the General Assembly may enact retroactive legislation that does not fall into the two explicitly prohibited categories of retroactive laws enumerated in state constitution's Ex Post Facto Clause
Idaho’s Constitution Promotes Freedom and Common Welfare
The state is still governed by its original constitution, drafted in 1889.
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
