Search
Filter Search
Everything You Need to Know About Applying For and Clerking on a State High Court
Sitting state supreme court justices from four states opened up about what they look for in applicants, what clerks do day-to-day, and more.
Louisiana Voters Considering Constitutional Changes that Expand Legislative Power
This week’s ballot asks voters to overhaul the state tax code, give lawmakers more power over creation of courts and juveniles’ punishments, and more.
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 Missouri v. State
Trial court permanently enjoined provisions restricting voter registration and absentee ballot solicitation activities, finding that they burden core political speech, constitute content- and viewpoint-discrimination, and are overbroad, in violation of state constitutional speech protections. The court also held that the provisions violate civic engagement groups' state constitutional right to associate and are unconstitutionally vague. The court determined that because the laws restrict election-related speech, not the mechanics of elections, strict scrutiny review applies.
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
In re Courtney Rae Hudson v. Arkansas Administrative Office of the Courts
Relying on the state high court's general superintending control over all state courts, vacated a circuit court preliminary injunction that had prevented the administrative office of the courts and the office of professional conduct from complying with a FOIA request for certain communications with the state supreme court chief justice. The state high court also referred the chief justice and her attorney, who had sought the injunction, to state ethics bodies.
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.
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.
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
