Search
Filter Search
Sikora v. Iowa
Iowa Supreme Court held that a former incarcerated person’s state constitutional and tort damages claims against the state and correction officers for releasing him from prison five months late were barred by the legislature’s choice not to waive sovereign immunity for false imprisonment claims. Three dissenting justices would have held that the right to sue an official for false imprisonment was part of the common law at the state constitution’s adoption and was secured by its liberty guarantees, precluding legislators from eliminating that right in the state tort claims act.
Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Planned Parenthood Great Rivers v. State of Missouri
Asking the court to declare unconstitutional and block enforcement of Missouri’s ban on abortion, its ban on the use of telemedicine for abortion, the 72-hour waiting period for the procedure, and multiple other restrictive abortion-related laws.
State Court Oral Arguments to Watch for in January
Issues on the dockets include legislative responses to Missouri’s voter-approved reproductive rights amendment, Utah’s execution methods, and Idaho’s school-choice program.
Grube v. Trader; State v. Rogan
Hawaii Supreme Court held that law requiring courts to "seal or otherwise remove all judiciary files" from any public electronic judicial database must be interpreted as providing two options to avoid state constitutional right to public access and separation of powers issues: removal of judicial records from the qualifying database, but keeping them publicly available for in-person review; or sealing of court records on a case-by-case basis, subject to procedural and substantive safeguards.
Kansas v. Harper
Trial court found requirement that drivers' licenses display sex as assigned at birth did not violate equal protection by discriminating based on sex or transgender status, or a right to personal autonomy or informational privacy. Appellate court reversed on separate grounds and remanded to a new judge
Washington v. Meta Platforms
Washington Supreme Court will consider whether the state's Fair Campaign Practices Act violates First Amendment speech protections or is preempted by the federal Communications Decency Act.
State v. City of San Antonio
Court of Appeals blocked a city from distributing payments under a $100,000 fund created to cover reproductive healthcare costs, which may include out-of-state travel for abortion care, while a full appeal is pending. Preliminarily held the fund violates the state constitution's gift clause because sending residents to undergo procedures out of state that Texas prohibits within the state does not count as a public purpose. Although the city had not yet disbursed any money and argued it still had the option to choose not to pay for out-of-state abortion travel, the panel found it sufficiently likely such payment would occur for the dispute to be ripe.
League of Women Voters of South Carolina v. Alexander
South Carolina Supreme Court held that partisan gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable political questions, which state courts cannot review, under the state constitution.
State v. Amble
Iowa Supreme Court revisited its 2021 decision in State v. Wright that the state's search and seizure clause requires police to obtain a warrant before searching garbage placed curbside for collection, finding that subsequent enactment of a state statute providing such garbage "shall be deemed abandoned property" means a warrant is no longer constitutionally required. The majority reasoned that Wright relied on "positive law" -- a local anti-scavening ordinance prohibiting anyone but licensed trash collectors from picking up trash -- to define private property rights, and the state statute changed that positive law by preempting the local ordinance. A dissent opined that the majority's position allows legislative "end-runs" of constitutional rights and disregards an overarching reasonable-expectation-of-privacy analysis.
Josh Kaul v. Wisconsin State Legislature
Wisconsin Supreme Court held a law giving a legislative committee authority to approve or disprove civil settlements reached by the state justice department violates separation of powers as applied to civil enforcement actions and civil cases brought on behalf of executive agencies. Settling these types of actions is within the core power of the executive branch, as the legislature has failed to demonstrate that doing so implicates an institutional interest giving lawmakers a shared constitutional role.
