Search
Filter Search
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
New State Hurdles to Standing Threaten Abortion Ban Challenges
Georgia’s Supreme Court sent a challenge to the state’s abortion ban back to the trial court to consider if the plaintiffs, including medical providers, had standing to bring the suit.
High Stakes Supreme Court Elections in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania
With court majorities at stake in both states, 2025 may see the most expensive judicial elections ever.
SisterSong v. Georgia
Plaintiffs claim that abortion ban violates the state constitution’s right to liberty and privacy and guarantee of equal protection
Amedure v. State
Ruled that Election Law § 9-209 (2) (g), which provides that if the members of a bipartisan local board charged with reviewing ballots are split as to a ballot's validity, the ballot shall be cast and canvassed, did not violate the equal representation mandate set forth in article II, section 8 of the New York Constitution and principles of judicial review and separation of powers
Nevada Policy Research Institute v. Miller
Held that respondents' dual service as legislators and employees of state or local government did not violate the doctrine of separation of powers
Cross v. State
Affirmed a lower court's preliminary injunction against Montana's ban on gender-affirming care for minors. Applying strict scrutiny, the state high court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the ban likely violates the state constitution's express right to privacy.
State Court Oral Arguments to Watch for in March
Issues on the dockets include controversial ballot counting rules, a minimum wage hike, and “dark money” contributions.
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.
State ex rel. Martens v. Findlay Municipal Court
Overruled precedent that recognized a “public right” exception to standing requirements, which allowed plaintiffs seeking to enforce important public rights to avoid having to show personal injury. Affirmed dismissal for lack of traditional or taxpayer standing.
