Search
Filter Search
Disability Rights Under State Constitutions
Thirty-five years after the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, state constitutional anti-discrimination clauses, voting rights, and educational guarantees can expand protections for people with disabilities.
National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Farrar
Held that the Mississippi Constitution, like the federal Constitution, requires state action for due-process violations, and that the university's cooperation with an NCAA investigation did not transform the NCAA into a state actor for the purposes of due process
Sumrall v. State
Ruled that the provision requiring prosecuting attorney's consent to retroactive first-offender treatment did not violate the Georgia Constitution provision providing that no person shall be deprived of right to prosecute or defend their cause in any of the courts of the state
Hollis v. City of LaGrange
Held that the constitutional provision prohibiting the General Assembly from regulating or fixing municipal public utilities charges did not prevent judicial review of city residents' putative class action complaint against city, alleging that it imposed excessive mandatory charges for utilities services that constituted unauthorized tax under the Georgia Constitution
Marcelius Braxton
Marcelius Braxton is the director of the Center for Social Change and Belonging and an affiliate associate teaching professor of Philosophy and African Studies at Penn State University.
How State Courts Pushed Back on an Infamous U.S. Supreme Court Case
Dred Scott, widely considered a stain on the U.S. Supreme Court’s history, denied citizenship to Black Americans in 1857. Many state supreme courts refused to follow it.
Crenshaw ex rel. Crenshaw v. Sonic Drive In of Greenville, Inc.
Held that the Workers' Compensation Act's exclusive-remedy provisions did not violate the Alabama Constitution's clause that every injured person has the right to a remedy
State v. Mumford
Dissent would have held that a K-9 unit's brief entry into the cabin of a vehicle duting a lawful traffic stop constituted an unconstitutional search under both the federal and state search-and-seizure provisions
Jackson v. State
Dissent would have granted defendant's petition to transfer jurisdiction and found that the State had not sufficiently shown the reasonableness of the officer's search of the defendant's locked trunk based only on the smell of burnt marijuana coming from the passenger compartment, as required under the Indiana Constitution's search-and-seizure standard
O’Neil v. Gianforte
Held that the state constitution’s protection of the public’s “right to know” allows for a limited gubernatorial privilege exception if the governor meets the “high bar of demonstrating that the information is essential to carrying out a constitutional duty and that its disclosure would chill future candor.” Also held that the process for determining whether a particular document otherwise subject to the "right to know" may be shielded by gubernatorial privilege should be the same as for other "candor privileges" (e.g., attorney-client, doctor-patient), including in camera review by the trial court to determine the proper scope. Remanded to the district court to conduct such review with respect to the requested agency documents.
