Search
Filter Search
Commons of Lake Houston v. City of Houston
Held that a floodplain regulation can effect a regulatory “taking” under the state constitution even when the regulation is intended to promote compliance with the federal flood-insurance program
Jersey City United Against the New Ward Map v. Jersey City Ward Commission
New Jersey Supreme Court held new boundaries for municipal election districts redrawn after the 2020 census that local organizations and a city councilman had alleged carve up longstanding neighborhoods and communities of interest do not violate New Jersey’s equal protection clause, civil rights law, or statute requiring municipal wards to be “compact.”
State v. Maestas
Held that only fees collected, not fines imposed, by the judicial department are subject to the limitations of Article VI, Section 30 of the New Mexico Constitution and a punitive contempt fee payable to a third party did not violate the provision
McCombie v. Illinois State Board of Elections
Refused to accept an original action by the state’s house majority leader and voters, claiming that house districts drawn in 2021 are partisan and not compact, finding the complaint untimely and barred by laches because the plaintiffs did not exercise due diligence in bringing suit. The dissenting justice said the majority was wrong to discredit the plaintiffs’ argument that they had to collect data from multiple election cycles. Because the Illinois high court has never adjudicated a state constitutional partisan gerrymandering claim before, he opined, it has not provided guidance on whether such data — which was required for federal constitutional claims until the U.S. Supreme Court in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) ruled such claims cannot be brought — is applicable for a state constitutional challenge.
Sean Beienburg
Sean Beienburg is an associate professor in the School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership at Arizona State University, where he has...
The Arizona Constitution: Deeply Skeptical of Power
Arizona’s governing document is easy to amend. While Arizonans have approved changes on issues like abortion and immigration, they use the right relatively sparingly.
Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana v. Planned Parenthood Great Northwest
Indiana Supreme Court held that the right to privacy does not protect the right to abortion except when necessary to protect the patient’s life or to protect a patient from a serious health risk. The court left open the possibility of an as-applied challenge to the state's ban, which is being pursued on remand.
In re Doe
Held that the state Board of Medicine did not violate a physician's due process rights when it temporarily suspended his license after finding, ex parte at a regularly scheduled hearing, that there were sufficient facts to prove that he posed an imminent danger to life or health
Opternative, Inc. v. South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners
Will consider whether a law that prevents telehealth companies from providing online vision tests for glasses and contact prescriptions in the state violates the businesses’ equal protection and due process rights under the South Carolina Constitution.
State v. Dias
Held that the Georgia Supreme Court had previously only ruled that the state constitution's right against self-incrimination precluded admission of a suspect's right to consent to a breath test and had never ruled that drawing someone’s blood implicated the right against compelled self-incrimination
