Search
Filter Search
State v. Vasquez
In response to certified questions from the state intermediate appellate court, held that a trial court may, of its own accord without a defense motion, order a hearing as to whether evidence should be suppressed. The questions arose after a trial judge noticed a pattern of warrantless searches and seizures in her docket and set suppression hearings in 30 cases, ultimately supressing evidence in 6 cases after the prosecution chose to dismiss 13.
Gatehouse Media Ohio Holdings v. City of Columbus Police Department
Court will decide whether Ohio's Marsy's Law requires the identity of police officers involved in use of force incidents to be shielded and, if so, whether that requirement violates a state constitutional right of the public and press to inspect public records.
Zyst v. Miller
Oregon trial court held that the state prison's failure to provide medically necessary gender-affirming care and treatment to a transgender inmate, and to provide adequate conditions when the inmate was in a period of segregation, violated cruel and unusual punishment and "unnecessary rigor" clauses.
People v. Lopez
Held that a defendant seeking to establish a violation of their constitutional right to conflict-free counsel is required to show both a conflict of interest and an adverse effect resulting from that conflict
Perez v. City of San Antonio
Will consider whether a 2021 amendment, which bans the state and localities from prohibiting or limiting religious services, imposes a categorical ban on any limitation of a religious service regardless of the form taken or the government’s interest in the limitation.
State v. Thompson
Ruled that state constitutional and statutory provisions required a concurrence of only ten jurors for acquittal for offenses committed before January 1, 2019
State v. Velasquez
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held that suppression of evidence as a remedy did not apply to officers' violation of Oklahoma's "knock and announce" requirement for executing a search warrant, and reaffirmed that the state's search and seizure clause is substantively "identical" to the Fourth Amendment.
In Re Application for Correction of Birth Record of Hailey Emmeline Adelaide
Court was unable to form a majority on the merits, which had the effect of leaving undisturbed lower court rulings denying a transgender woman’s request to change the sex marker on her birth certificate.
Webster v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline
Held that a disciplinary complaint collaterally accusing the first-assistant state attorney general of making misrepresentations in a petition filed in the U.S. Supreme Court alleging 2020 election “irregularities” violated separation-of-powers principles. While the judicial branch (and the lawyer discipline commission derivatively) has the power to enforce compliance with conduct rules, the attorney general (and his first assistant derivatively) has exclusive authority to assess the propriety of filing suit and of "the representations forming the basis of the petitions that he files." If the contents of those pleadings are objectionable, permitting the court to which the pleadings are presented to scrutinize the contents and discipline the attorney general's office "wholly accommodates the legitimate interests of all branches of government." But a disciplinary complaint arising outside the litigation in which the challenged statements were made, "improperly invade[s] the executive branch's prerogatives and risk[s] the politicization and thus the independence of the judiciary."
No State Actor, No Problem
Unlike the U.S. Constitution, state constitutions can impose obligations on private actors.
