Search
Filter Search
Maya Menlo
Maya Menlo is an Assistant Defender at the Michigan State Appellate Defender Office, where she represents children and adults on appeal from juvenile court and criminal court proceedings.
Cathren Cohen
Cathren Cohen is a staff attorney with UCLA Law’s Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy.
The Power of State Reproductive Freedom Amendments
A new report analyzes the language and effects of recently adopted amendments protecting reproductive rights and highlights their potential for abortion access and beyond.
The Vermont Constitution: Early Grievances, Notable Early Protections, Still Evolving
The state’s constitution has lasted since 1793, but recent changes rid it of the vestiges of slavery and protect reproductive rights.
State Legalization of Marijuana Is Changing Search and Seizure Jurisprudence
The smell of marijuana, on its own, is no longer considered to be evidence of criminal activity in many jurisdictions.
Do State Constitutions Demand a Monopoly for Public Schools?
Courts across the country are considering whether school-choice programs violate state constitutions.
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.
