Search
Filter Search
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.
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.
People v. Jennings
Will consider what standard Michigan courts should adopt to determine whether prosecutorial misconduct bars retrial under the state’s double jeopardy clause. The defendant argues that the federal constitutional standard -- which requires proof that a prosecutor specifically intended to cause a mistrial -- inadequately protects the principles of double jeopardy and insufficiently deters egregious conduct, so an objective standard should apply under the Michigan Constitution.
Taking Offense v. State of California
The California Supreme Court will consider whether a law that makes it a misdemeanor for staff at long-term care facilities to “willfully and repeatedly” fail to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns violates federal and state free speech protections.
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.
Smith v. BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee
Tennessee Supreme Court held that 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 state constitutional right to petition only constrains the government, a private employer does not violate public policy by terminating an employee for exercising that right.
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."
Richard Michael Fay vs David Pedro
Oregon trial court found the corrections department had unconstitutionally inflicted cruel and unusual punishment and unnecessary rigor by failing to provide adequate medical treatment and diagnosis to an inmate for serious injuries sustained in prison, and ordered specific medical care to be provided.
Democracy’s Fate Depends on Both State and Federal Courts
State and federal courts each played a role in stopping a candidate who lost his race for a seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court from throwing out 60,000 votes.
