Search
Filter Search
State v. Maestas
Held that only fees collected, not fines imposed, by the judicial department are subject to the limitations of Article VI, Section 30 of the New Mexico Constitution and a punitive contempt fee payable to a third party did not violate the provision
Kaul v. Urmanski
Wisconsin Supreme Court held that an 1849 law, which a local prosecutor had claimed was a near-total abortion ban, is impliedly repealed as to abortion by subsequent legislation and does not ban the procedure in the state.
In re Doe
Held that the state Board of Medicine did not violate a physician's due process rights when it temporarily suspended his license after finding, ex parte at a regularly scheduled hearing, that there were sufficient facts to prove that he posed an imminent danger to life or health
McCombie v. Illinois State Board of Elections
Refused to accept an original action by the state’s house majority leader and voters, claiming that house districts drawn in 2021 are partisan and not compact, finding the complaint untimely and barred by laches because the plaintiffs did not exercise due diligence in bringing suit. The dissenting justice said the majority was wrong to discredit the plaintiffs’ argument that they had to collect data from multiple election cycles. Because the Illinois high court has never adjudicated a state constitutional partisan gerrymandering claim before, he opined, it has not provided guidance on whether such data — which was required for federal constitutional claims until the U.S. Supreme Court in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) ruled such claims cannot be brought — is applicable for a state constitutional challenge.
Evers v. Marklein
Wisconsin Supreme Court held that statutes permitting a legislative committee to pause, object to, or suspend administrative rules for varying periods of time both before and after promulgation — used by the committee in this case effectively to block for three years a rule banning “conversion therapy” for LGBTQ+ patients — facially violate the state constitution’s bicameralism and presentment requirements.
Perez v. City of San Antonio
Texas Supreme Court held that a 2021 amendment, which bans the state and localities from prohibiting or limiting religious services, is absolute and categorical when it applies, but its applicability does not extend to the government’s preservation and management of publicly owned lands.
State v. Dias
Held that the Georgia Supreme Court had previously only ruled that the state constitution's right against self-incrimination precluded admission of a suspect's right to consent to a breath test and had never ruled that drawing someone’s blood implicated the right against compelled self-incrimination
Boline v. JKC Trucking
Held that impecuniosity following an award of sanctions did not violate the open courts provision of state constitution, which guarantees a right to access state courts
Carrie Ann Donnell
Carrie Ann Donnell is a lawyer in Arizona and founder of American Juris Link, a nonprofit organization that helps pro bono litigators advance the rule of law.
A New Tool Makes Comparing State Constitutions Easier
Scholars, practitioners, and judges can quickly see how constitutional provisions differ or overlap with a resource from the nonprofit American Juris Link.
