Search
Filter Search
Gonzales v. Markland
Held that the use of a jury district for manslaughter trial comprised of two counties did not violate the “county or district” terminology of art. 6, § 7 of the South Dakota Constitution, granting the right to a trial by a “jury of the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed”
Rivas v. Brownell
Held that a statute-of-limitations tolling provision in a supervisory order issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic did not violate the separation of powers nor the affected drivers' rights to procedural due process
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.
League of United Latin American Citizens of Iowa v. Pate
Iowa Supreme Court held the plaintiff organization did not have standing to seek to dissolve an injunction entered in a separate case that barred the secretary of state from providing voter registration forms in languages other than English, by claiming such materials fall within an exception to the state law underlying the injunction. The law generally requires all "official documents" to be in English but exempts "language usage required by or necessary to secure" state constitutional or federal law rights. According to the state high court, an organization's expenditure of resources in response to a law that does not violate or regulate its rights, status, or legal relations is not a legally cognizable injury establishing standing.
People v. Taylor; People v. Czarnecki
Michigan Supreme Court held that mandatory life-without-parole sentences violate the state constitution’s protection against “cruel or unusual” punishment for anyone under age 21 at the time of the offense. The decision extends the court’s 2022 ruling in People v. Parks that such sentences are unconstitutional for those 18 or under.
McCarty v. Missouri Secretary of State
Missouri Supreme Court held that plaintiff business groups and voters had failed to show that the ballot summary and fiscal note summary for an approved measure increasing the state's minimum wage and providing paid sick leave were inadequate or unfair. The court also held that its constitutionally and statutorily derived original jurisdiction over post-election contests is limited to matters related to the election process and does not extend to claims about the validity of a ballot measure.
N'Da v. Hybl
Nebraska Supreme Court held that statutory requirement that applicant seeking certificate to provide nonemergency medical transport must show the proposed service is required by "public convenience and necessity" does not facially violate state constitutional due process or bans on "special laws" or laws granting "special privileges and immunities." Also held that that the Nebraska Constitution's due process and equal protection clauses are coextensive with their federal equivalents, so federal rational basis review applies to substantive due process challenges to economic regulations, not the heightened standard the court had applied in a line of cases from the early 20th century.
Wyoming Supreme Court Signals Openness to Limiting Excessive Punishments
At oral arguments over the constitutionality of mandatory life-without-parole sentences for young adults, several justices suggested the right to be free from “cruel or unusual” punishments might be fundamental.
State Constitutional Challenges to Laws Defining Sex
A Montana court decision shows how state protections for privacy and against discrimination may invalidate laws defining sex as binary.
Democracy’s Fate Depends on Both State and Federal Courts
State and federal courts each played a role in stopping a candidate who lost his race for a seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court from throwing out 60,000 votes.
