Search
Filter Search
LeMieux v. Evers
The Wisconsin Supreme Court will address the scope of Gov. Tony Evers’s state constitutional authority to approve spending bills passed by the legislature only “in part,” by line-item vetoing other parts.
Vet Voice Foundation v. Hobbs
Civic organizations and voters allege that Washington’s signature verification process for vote-by-mail ballots disproportionally disenfranchises minority voters, young voters, military personnel, voters with disabilities, and non-native English speakers, in violation of state constitutional voting rights protections.
Darnell Battle
Darnell Battle was a law student at New York University who participated in the Brennan Center’s public interest law clinic.
What Litigation After the 2020 Election Can Tell Us About 2024
Efforts to disqualify mail-in ballots and unfounded allegations of voter fraud dominated post-election litigation in 2020. Similar efforts are possible this month.
Access to Reproductive Health Care for Minors Is a Political Flash Point
Courts in some states have ruled that laws requiring parental consent for abortion are unconstitutional, while Idaho forbids nearly all medical care for children without parental consent.
State ex rel. Brooks v. Evnen
The Nebraska Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a proposed abortion-rights amendment could go before voters, rejecting claims that it violated the subject-subject rule and was so vague that it would mislead voters
Acorn International v. State
Held that the Secretary of State's response to ACORN International's public records request asking for documentation of the actual costs for a yearly subscription to state voter database did not violate organization's constitutional right to know
Oberholzer v. Galapo
Held that neighbors' anti-racist signs did not intolerably intrude on homeowners' substantial privacy interests, and thus constitutional free-speech protections did not permit trial court to enjoin continued display of the signs
Coleman v. Ashcroft
The Missouri Supreme Court rejected claims that Amendment 3, a ballot measure that would protect abortion access until viability, violated the single-subject rule and state election law by failing to list all the existing laws that its passage would repeal. The ruling ensured that Amendment 3 would remain on the ballot.
Francisco v. Affiliated Urologists
Held that statutes requiring the patient to obtain expert testimony to establish the requisite standard of care in the patient's negligence action did not violate the anti-abrogation clause, despite the patient's allegations that no expert would testify
