Search
Filter Search
How the Tort Wars Became the Court Wars
Recent rulings in Ohio and North Carolina demonstrate divisions on medical malpractice damages caps.
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.
Case Trends: State Courts Continue to Grapple with Covid-19 Policies
Courts are still weighing the constitutionality of state responses to the pandemic more than five years after its start.
Sarah L. Swan
Sarah L. Swan is a professor of law and Dean’s Civil Governance Scholar at Rutgers Law School.
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.
How Will Federal Funding Cuts Impact State Budgets?
Fiscal provisions found in every state constitution constrain states’ ability to work around budget shortfalls.
Cities Battle State Legislatures for the Right to Regulate Vapes
City efforts to prohibit the sale of flavored tobacco are an important part of the push to curb tobacco usage in children.
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.
Sean Beienburg
Sean Beienburg is an associate professor in the School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership at Arizona State University, where he has...
