Search
Filter Search
Arizona Supreme Court Grapples with Challenge to “Dark Money” Disclosure Law
Voters overwhelmingly approved the law in 2022 to shed light on anonymous campaign spending from large donors.
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.
In re N.S.
Iowa Supreme Court issued divided opinion upholding state process for restoring gun rights revoked by federal law after an involuntary commitment, holding the process does not violate 2022's Amendment 1A that expressly required judges to apply strict scrutiny to gun regulations
In re Tom Malinowski
Appellants claim that state's ban on fusion voting violates rights to vote, to free speech and political association, to equal protection, and to assemble
In re Texas House of Representatives
Held that separation-of-powers principles prevent the Texas legislature from using its subpoena power to halt a long-scheduled execution.
Layla H v. Virginia
Plaintiffs claim that state’s practice of approving permits for fossil-fuel infrastructure violates substantive due process and public trust rights to natural resources, protected by the state constitution. They claim such practice infringes these rights by contributing to greenhouse-gas pollution and climate change. A trial court dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint, and the intermediate appellate court affirmed on the basis that the plaintiffs lack standing. Finding that there was no reversible error, the Virginia Supreme Court declined to grant review of the appellate court decision.
Crawford v. Commonwealth
Held that Philadelphia, city residents, and a gun-safety group had failed to state a claim that state laws preempting local gun control measures violate state constitutional due process, rejecting their argument that the clause protects a collective right to use local regulation as a means of self-defense from acts of gun violence.
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.
Sarah J. Morath
Sarah J. Morath is a Professor of Law and Associate Dean for International Affairs at Wake Forest University School of Law.
