Search
Filter Search
Webster v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline
Held that a disciplinary complaint collaterally accusing the first-assistant state attorney general of making misrepresentations in a petition filed in the U.S. Supreme Court alleging 2020 election “irregularities” violated separation-of-powers principles. While the judicial branch (and the lawyer discipline commission derivatively) has the power to enforce compliance with conduct rules, the attorney general (and his first assistant derivatively) has exclusive authority to assess the propriety of filing suit and of "the representations forming the basis of the petitions that he files." If the contents of those pleadings are objectionable, permitting the court to which the pleadings are presented to scrutinize the contents and discipline the attorney general's office "wholly accommodates the legitimate interests of all branches of government." But a disciplinary complaint arising outside the litigation in which the challenged statements were made, "improperly invade[s] the executive branch's prerogatives and risk[s] the politicization and thus the independence of the judiciary."
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
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.
Fisher v. Harter
Ruled that a statute granting peremptory grounds to state legislators to obtain continuances or extensions of fixed court dates was unconstitutional on its face under the separation-of-powers doctrine
In re The Thirtieth County Investigating Grand Jury
Ruled that supervising judge's failure to give notice and opportunity to respond to all named, unindicted individuals criticized in a proposed investigating grand jury report violated the unindicted individuals' constitutional rights to due process and reputation
State v. McGee
Held that the attenuation doctrine under the Washington Constitution did not apply to allow the admission of evidence discovered from a police report of a prior illegal stop
In re Benson
Dissent would have held that requiring counsel at all stages of the civil commitment process is central to the constitutionality of the Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act: Sexually Dangerous Persons and Sexual Psychopathic Personalities
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Scardina
Cakeshop owner refused to make blue and pink cake to celebrate prospective customer’s gender transition, citing free speech and free religious exercise rights. Colorado appellate court ruled the refusal violated state anti-discrimination laws. Colorado Supreme Court vacated that opinion on procedural grounds without addressing the merits of the free speech or free religion claims.
Johnson & Johnson v. Wilson
Held that under New Mexico's governing statutory framework, the Attorney General's authority to access executive agency materials for discovery purposes was fairly and necessarily implied and incurred no resulting constitutional violation
