Search
Filter Search
Smith v. BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee
Held that an insurance company’s termination of an at-will employee for petitioning legislators about Covid-19 vaccine requirements did not fall within a “violates clear public policy” exception to at-will employment. Because the right to petition in the TN Constitution only constrains the government, not private parties, a private employer does not violate “public policy” by terminating an employee for exercising that right.
O’Neil v. Gianforte
Held that the state constitution’s protection of the public’s “right to know” allows for a limited gubernatorial privilege exception if the governor meets the “high bar of demonstrating that the information is essential to carrying out a constitutional duty and that its disclosure would chill future candor.” Also held that the process for determining whether a particular document otherwise subject to the "right to know" may be shielded by gubernatorial privilege should be the same as for other "candor privileges" (e.g., attorney-client, doctor-patient), including in camera review by the trial court to determine the proper scope. Remanded to the district court to conduct such review with respect to the requested agency documents.
ICE’s New Courthouse Arrest Policy Set Them on a Collision Course with State Courts
The arrest of a Wisconsin judge comes after ICE walked back policies designed to ensure communities wouldn’t be afraid to access courts
McKay v. State
Reversed trial court ruling that a 2023 law that gives the attorney general control over the state’s defense of the imposition of the death penalty on collateral review violates the state constitutional provision governing the duties of district attorneys
Federal Workers Have Scant Job Protection in the Constitution
In contrast, some state constitutions protect explicitly both the civil service and public employee unions.
Michigan’s High Court Is Charting a Course Against Punitive Excess
The court has perhaps never been friendlier to criminal justice reform.
State v. Waldner
Held that privacy right in the state's victims'-rights amendment (known, along with versions in other states, as "Marsy's Law") is not self-executing, but a statute providing for appeal of certain orders affecting "substantial rights" may be used by crime victims to appeal denials of motions to quash discovery to enforce that privacy right. Also held that the right to privacy in the amendment is not an absolute protection from discovery requests and must be balanced against defendants' due process rights. For a discovery request to be upheld, a defendant must establish the relevance, admissibility, and specificity of the information sought.
In re L.E.S.
Will consider whether a "would have been married" test created by an intermediate appellate court to determine whether a woman, who had children with a same-sex partner at a time when the state's same-sex marriage ban was in effect, has parental rights over the children, violates separation of powers principles and the state constitution's ban on retrocative laws by effectively rewriting state statutes that do not recognize common-law marriage and define parenthood in the case of artificial insemination.
City of Fargo v. State
Held that a 2023 statute barring localities from enacting ordinances related to the purchase, sale, or possession of firearms and ammunitions that are more restrictive than state law preempted the city of Fargo’s limits on such sales and did not violate state constitutional “home rule” clauses as applied to Fargo’s restrictions.
