Search
Filter Search
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
Black Voters Matter v. Byrd
Florida Supreme Court upheld the state's 2022 congressional map against voting rights groups' challenge that it diminishes Black voters' ability to elect candidates of their choice in violation of a 2010 amendment, finding the plaintiffs had not proven the possibility of drawing a remedial map that complies with the federal Equal Protection Clause.
2025 Ballot Measures to Watch
Voters will decide whether to amend their state constitutions or statutes regarding redistricting, voting, firearm access, parental rights, taxes, and more.
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.
Katherine Steefel
Katherine Steefel is an Assistant Professor of the Practice of Law at the University of Denver’s Sturm College of Law.
The Extra Hurdle in State Courts to Prove a Statute Violates the U.S. Constitution
Many states require a litigant challenging a statute as violating the U.S. Constitution to prove the statute is unconstitutional “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Harrison Stark
Harrison Stark is Senior Counsel, Director of Special Projects at the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School.
