Search
Filter Search
State v. Francisco Edgar Tirado
Held that North Carolina's "cruel or unusual" punishment clause — construed consistently with a separate state constitutional provision specifying the types of punishment laws may impose, without limitations based on age — would provide less protection against life-without-parole sentences for juveniles than the Eighth Amendment, so must be interpreted in lockstep with the federal "cruel and unusual" punishment clause.
Cherokee Nation v. U.S. Department of the Interior
Held that the governor possesses constitutional and statutory authority to represent the state’s interests in litigation involving tribal gaming contracts, including to choose the counsel who will represent his position. The governor was a named defendant in his official capacity in the underlying litigation, and the state attorney general sought to assume control of defending the state’s interests over the objection of the governor, who had already employed separate counsel to represent the state.
Texas v. Margaret Daley Carpenter
Texas’s attorney general sued a New York doctor for mailing abortion-including drugs to a woman in Texas, claiming she practiced medicine in Texas without a Texas license and improperly aided an abortion. After the doctor did not respond to the complaint, a Texas trial court issued a default judgment enjoining her from prescribing abortion-inducing drugs to state residents and imposing $100,000 in civil penalties, as sought by the attorney general.
Bailey v. McKintosh County, Webster v. McIntosh County, McIntosh County v. Webster
Will consider whether to uphold a lower court order stopping a special election, after early voting had already begun, on a local referendum to repeal zoning changes that would increase permissible house sizes in a historic community of slave descendants. The lower court ruled that a state constitutional provision allowing citizens to petition to repeal or amend county ordinances by referendum does not extend to zoning ordinances.
Reuss v. Arizona
Healthcare providers sought to block enforcement of Arizona's 15-week abortion ban on the basis that it violates a state constitutional amendment passed in November 2024 that establishes a fundamental right to pre-viability abortion. On plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the state did not contest, the trial court permanently blocked the ban.
Wyoming Supreme Court Signals Openness to Limiting Excessive Punishments
At oral arguments over the constitutionality of mandatory life-without-parole sentences for young adults, several justices suggested the right to be free from “cruel or unusual” punishments might be fundamental.
State Constitutional Challenges to Laws Defining Sex
A Montana court decision shows how state protections for privacy and against discrimination may invalidate laws defining sex as binary.
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.
Montanans Against Irresponsible Densification v. State
Reversed lower court's preliminary injunction against state laws requiring municipalities to allow multi-unit dwellings in single-family zoned areas, finding that the state constitutional right to acquire and protect property is subject to the state's police power and that the "possibility" of constitutional harm is insufficient to support an injunction.
Access Independent Health Services v. Wrigley
Will consider whether trial court erred in striking down near-total abortion ban on bases that the law violates a woman's fundamental right to obtain an abortion pre-viability and the exceptions are unconstitutionally vague. The North Dakota Supreme Court previously refused to stay the trial court ruling, finding at that juncture that the state had not shown it was likely to prevail on appeal.
