Search
Filter Search
State Department of Education & Early Development v. Alexander
Held that statutes permitting local school districts to operate correspondence study programs as alternative to traditional schooling and authorizing allotments of public funds to purchase nonsectarian educational services and materials did not facially violate state constitutional prohibition on using public funds for the direct benefit of religious or private educational institutions
State v. Cohee
Held that the state was entitled to a writ of prohibition to effectively compel a lower court judge to impose a recidivist life sentence, finding that the state’s pursuit of such a sentence did not violate equal protection and the imposition of such sentence for fleeing from a law enforcement officer with reckless indifference would not violate proportionality clause of state constitution
North Carolina NAACP v. Moore
North Carolina Supreme Court ruled principles of popular sovereignty and democratic self-rule impose limits on authority of legislators elected from unconstitutionally racially gerrymandered districts to initiate process of amending constitution
Fremin v. Boyd Racing, LLC
Ruled that statutory amendments that incorporated historical horse racing as a form of authorized pari-mutuel wagering on horse racing without requiring prior local voter approval were unconstitutional under Article XII, section 6(C) of the Louisiana Constitution
Welch v. United Medical Healthwest-New Orleans
Held that the Louisiana Health Emergency Powers Act's (LHEPA) immunity provision did not violate state constitution's access to courts and adequate remedy provision, due process provisions, nor its prohibition of special laws
Happel v. Board of Education
Held that the law of the land clause of the North Carolina Constitution protects both a parent's right to control her child's upbringing and the right to bodily integrity
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
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.
Katherine Steefel
Katherine Steefel is an Assistant Professor of the Practice of Law at the University of Denver’s Sturm College of Law.
The Extra Hurdle in State Courts to Prove a Statute Violates the U.S. Constitution
Many states require a litigant challenging a statute as violating the U.S. Constitution to prove the statute is unconstitutional “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
