Search
Filter Search
Anderson v. Clarke
Habeas petitioner claims that state Department of Corrections wrongly interpreted a budget provision related to sentencing credits, violating ex post facto and due process clauses.
Hensley v. State Commission on Judicial Conduct
Plaintiff justice of the peace claims that sanctioning her for refusing to officiate same-sex marriages on account of her Christian faith violated her free speech rights
PFLAG v. Abbott
Plaintiffs claim that Governor's directive to investigate reports of gender-dysphoria treatment as alleged "child abuse," violated state constitution
Jane Doe v. Manchester School District
Plaintiff claims that school district's policy that staff generally should not inform parents when a student identifies as gender nonconforming, absent student consent, violates parents' rights
In re Tom Malinowski
Appellants claim that state's ban on fusion voting violates rights to vote, to free speech and political association, to equal protection, and to assemble
The Gym 24/7 Fitness LLC v. State of Michigan
Plaintiff claims that the temporary closure of fitness centers as a result of COVID-19-related executive orders constituted inverse condemnations and takings requiring compensation
Gascon v. the Association of Deputy District Attorneys for Los Angeles County
Intermediate court held that three strikes law's requirement that prosecutors plead and prove prior convictions that qualify defendants for longer sentences violates separation of powers
Natalie R. v. State of Utah
Plaintiffs claim that state's policy of promoting fossil-fuel development violates their substantive due process rights to life and to be free from government conduct that endangers health and safety
People v. Johnson
Dissents would have ruled that statute authorizing courts to impose costs to fund general court operating expenses violated separation of powers principles
Dotson v. State
Ruled that administrative review by court office and Chief Justice of post-conviction court's authorization of expert funds for indigent defendants does not violate separation of powers, judicial authority, or due process
