Search
Filter Search
McNabb v. Harrison
Held that the state constitution requires a candidate running for municipal judgeship to be a resident of the same municipality to which he will be assigned, both at time of the election and for one year prior
State v. Mercedes
Held that officers were not required to administer warnings pursuant to article I section 7 of the Washington constitution as interpreted by prior caselaw -- informing individuals of their right to refuse, limit, or revoke consent -- prior to the warrantless consensual entries onto the defendant's outdoor property for investigative purposes
Simon v. Demuth
Ruled that the quorum clause in Article IV, Section 13, of the Minnesota Constitution requires a majority of the total number of seats of which each house may consist to constitute a quorum, without reference to vacancies
Gonzales v. Markland
Held that the use of a jury district for manslaughter trial comprised of two counties did not violate the “county or district” terminology of art. 6, § 7 of the South Dakota Constitution, granting the right to a trial by a “jury of the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed”
McCombie v. Illinois State Board of Elections
Refused to accept an original action by the state’s house majority leader and voters, claiming that house districts drawn in 2021 are partisan and not compact, finding the complaint untimely and barred by laches because the plaintiffs did not exercise due diligence in bringing suit. The dissenting justice said the majority was wrong to discredit the plaintiffs’ argument that they had to collect data from multiple election cycles. Because the Illinois high court has never adjudicated a state constitutional partisan gerrymandering claim before, he opined, it has not provided guidance on whether such data — which was required for federal constitutional claims until the U.S. Supreme Court in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) ruled such claims cannot be brought — is applicable for a state constitutional challenge.
Rivas v. Brownell
Held that a statute-of-limitations tolling provision in a supervisory order issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic did not violate the separation of powers nor the affected drivers' rights to procedural due process
Amanda Barrow
Amanda Barrow is a senior staff attorney with UCLA Law’s Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy.
The Role of History and Tradition in State Court Abortion Cases
Some state courts weighed historical evidence and found abortion rights protections, diverging from the U.S. Supreme Court’s approach in Dobbs.
Dispute over Abortion for Florida Teen Could Have Far-Reaching Consequences
A showdown over parental rights, abortion access, fertility care, and more could follow a recent state court decision.
People v. Taylor; People v. Czarnecki
Michigan Supreme Court held that mandatory life-without-parole sentences violate the state constitution’s protection against “cruel or unusual” punishment for anyone under age 21 at the time of the offense. The decision extends the court’s 2022 ruling in People v. Parks that such sentences are unconstitutional for those 18 or under.
