Search
Filter Search
Sobel v. Cameron
Three Jewish women claim abortion ban, which defines human life as beginning at fertilization, violates the state constitution’s prohibition on unintelligible laws because its application to in vitro fertilization is unclear, and religious liberties by inhibiting the Jewish duty to procreate and prioritizing Christian values. Trial court granted summary judgment for the state defendants for lack of standing, but Court of Appeals reversed as to one of the plaintiffs who has frozen embryos and has shown an interest in using them but confusion about her options.
Montana Environmental Information Center & Sierra Club v. Montana Department of Environmental Quality
Held that the Department of Environmental Quality appropriately considered noise impacts of a proposed project as required under the Montana Environmental Policy Act, but did not analyze lighting impacts and greenhouse gas emissions as required under the then-applicable language of the Act
Montana Trout Unlimited v. Montana Department of Natural Resources & Conservation
Held that the exemption of dewatering from the Montana Water Use Act's permitting requirements did not violate the water rights section of the state's constitution
Dupuis v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland
Held that a law that revived claims based on sex acts toward minors that were previously time-barred impairs a defendant's vested right to be free from a claim once its statute of limitations has expired, finding that a prohibition on laws reviving expired claims "runs as a theme" throughout the text of Maine's Constitution.
State v. Francisco Edgar Tirado
Held that North Carolina's "cruel or unusual" punishment clause — construed consistently with a separate state constitutional provision specifying the types of punishment laws may impose, without limitations based on age — would provide less protection against life-without-parole sentences for juveniles than the Eighth Amendment, so must be interpreted in lockstep with the federal "cruel and unusual" punishment clause.
Cherokee Nation v. U.S. Department of the Interior
Held that the governor possesses constitutional and statutory authority to represent the state’s interests in litigation involving tribal gaming contracts, including to choose the counsel who will represent his position. The governor was a named defendant in his official capacity in the underlying litigation, and the state attorney general sought to assume control of defending the state’s interests over the objection of the governor, who had already employed separate counsel to represent the state.
Gotay v. Creen
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that a “special relationship” exists between foster children and the state that imposes an affirmative duty on the state to ensure a reasonably safe foster home environment, but found the state defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the parent and guardian's substantive due process claim.
LeMieux v. Evers
The Wisconsin Supreme Court held, in a divided decision, that the governor did not exceed his partial veto authority under the state constitution when he altered digits, words, and punctuation in a budget bill to extend a school funding increase from 2 to 402 years.
Texas v. Margaret Daley Carpenter
Texas’s attorney general sued a New York doctor for mailing abortion-including drugs to a woman in Texas, claiming she practiced medicine in Texas without a Texas license and improperly aided an abortion. After the doctor did not respond to the complaint, a Texas trial court issued a default judgment enjoining her from prescribing abortion-inducing drugs to state residents and imposing $100,000 in civil penalties, as sought by the attorney general.
Firearms Owners Against Crime v. Commissioner of Pennsylvania State Police
Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that statute providing for "instantaneous" background checks of prospective gun purchasers requires provision of eligibility determinations as quickly as possible with the resources the agency has available, but found to be waived -- and declined to reach -- state constitutional claims that failing to provide immediate results violates purchasers' and sellers' inherent rights and right to bear arms.
