Search
Filter Search
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.
Levels of Scrutiny Applied by State Courts, Explained
The tests state courts use to decide whether a law impermissibly infringes on people’s rights play a big role in determining whether government restrictions on those rights are upheld.
Huskey v. Oregon Department of Corrections
Oregon Supreme Court considered whether a state constitutional clause providing that inmates should work or engage in on-the-job training while in custody but have no “legally enforceable right” to a job, training, or compensation, precludes an inmate who does not get such assignments from suing for lost wages. The court held the clause is not a barrier to pleading a claim for economic damages based on lost future income.
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
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.
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.
What Can States Do to Mitigate the Threat of ICE Arrests in Courthouses?
Wisconsin trial Judge Hannah Dugan’s high‑profile arrest renews focus on the impact of ICE enforcement inside state courthouses.
Moe v. Yost
An Ohio appellate court struck down a state ban on gender-affirming medical care for trans youth, holding that it violated the state constitution's "health care freedom" amendment and the fundamental right of parents to seek appropriate medical care for their children. The court remanded the case to the trial court to impose a permanent injunction as to enforcement of the law's provisions banning the use of puberty blockers and hormones “for the purpose of assisting the minor individual with gender transition.” The state attorney general appealed the appellate decision to the Ohio Supreme Court, which stayed the ruling pending resolution of the appeal.
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.
North Carolina Court Enables a Partisan Shift on State Elections Board
The court approved a law to strip the governor’s election board powers, risking creating a precedent for partisan power-grabbing.
