Search
Filter Search
Ronald Chen
Ronald Chen is University Professor and Distinguished Professor of Law at Rutgers Law School.
The New Jersey Constitution: A Tool of Good Governance, Not Partisan Politics
A 1947 constitution offered a needed update for a state saddled with a weak executive and a court system “out of Dickens.”
State v. Spencer
Illinois Supreme Court held that an aggregate 100-year prison sentence for a defendant who was 20 when the crimes occurred is not a de facto life sentence because a state statute makes first-degree murder defendants under 21 eligible for parole after 20 years and mandates that the reviewing board consider mitigating circumstances related to the defendant’s youth. The court further held that the the fact the sentence is not de facto life does not foreclose the defendant from bringing an as-applied challenge to his sentence under the state constitution’s “proportionate penalties” clause in a post-conviction petition.
Bryna Godar
Bryna Godar is a staff attorney for the State Democracy Research Initiative at University of Wisconsin Law School.
Wisconsin Supreme Court Strikes Down Legislative Vetoes
The case marks a major shift in how Wisconsin’s government functions.
American Indians and Indigenous Peoples in State Constitutions
In the shadow of federal law, some state constitutions address American Indian land, taxation, gaming permissions, voting rights, cultural protection, and governance.
Recent State Judicial Opinions Critique Lockstepping
Justices in Connecticut, Texas, and Pennsylvania have called on their courts to embrace independent state constitutional interpretations.
State v. Sabra Danielson, State v. Simone Nelson
Will consider the defendants' argument that it violates equal protection to refund fines or fees paid in cash when a conviction is vacated, but not to reimburse defendants who performed community service at the equivalent of minimum wages to satisfy financial obligations they were unable to pay.
Grube v. Trader; State v. Rogan
Hawaii Supreme Court held that law requiring courts to "seal or otherwise remove all judiciary files" from any public electronic judicial database must be interpreted as providing two options to avoid state constitutional right to public access and separation of powers issues: removal of judicial records from the qualifying database, but keeping them publicly available for in-person review; or sealing of court records on a case-by-case basis, subject to procedural and substantive safeguards.
