Search
Filter Search
Stephen Vladeck
Stephen Vladeck is a law professor at Georgetown University and editor and author of the Supreme Court newsletter One First.
SCOTUS’s Declining State Criminal Appeals
The disappearance of state criminal appeals from the high court’s docket is profoundly problematic for the rights of criminal defendants and civil rights plaintiffs.
Askew v. City of Kinston
Held that plaintiffs bringing direct actions under the state constitution are not required to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit.
State v. White
Ruled that the state constitution's confrontation clause requires two-way visibility between the accused and witnesses during testimony.
Borgelt v. Austin Firefighters Association
Held that provision of collective bargaining agreement authorizing union members to conduct certain union-related activities does not violate the state constitution's Gift Clause
State v. Bauler
Plurality holds that the state constitution's search and seizure provision was not violated when a K-9 handler and his trained canine momentarily made contact with the exterior of a vehicle during a dog sniff
In re Harris
Held that a judge may consider proffered inadmissible evidence to support denial of bail without violating due process principles so long as the evidence is reliable
Kaul v. Urmanski
Agreed to hear challenges to a 175-year-old law that conservatives claim bans abortion. A lower court said that law did not outlaw abortions. The high court will consider if it does and, if so, if it is still enforceable on an appeal brought by a Republican Wisconsin county attorney.
Surface Water Use Permit Applications
Vacated the Water Commission’s decision regarding interim instream flow standards for failure to comply with the state constitution's public trust doctrine and remanded for further proceedings.
Foresman v. Foresman
The Hawaii Supreme Court will consider a law that reopened civil claims “based upon sexual acts” with a minor “that constituted or would have constituted a criminal offense” under certain statutes. At issue is whether the law can impose liability for acts that were not crimes when they were committed without violating federal and state constitutional bars against retroactive application of punishment.
