Search
Filter Search
Zurawski v. Texas
Held that the language in state abortion laws allowing abortions when the life of the mother is threatened is adequate to protect the health of the patient and constitutional. Plaintiffs claimed prohibition on abortions in the case of medical emergencies would violate the due course of law clause and guarantees of equal rights and privileges and equality based on sex.
Idaho’s Constitution Promotes Freedom and Common Welfare
The state is still governed by its original constitution, drafted in 1889.
New State Hurdles to Standing Threaten Abortion Ban Challenges
Georgia’s Supreme Court sent a challenge to the state’s abortion ban back to the trial court to consider if the plaintiffs, including medical providers, had standing to bring the suit.
High Stakes Supreme Court Elections in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania
With court majorities at stake in both states, 2025 may see the most expensive judicial elections ever.
Allegheny Reproductive Health v. Pennsylvania Department of Human Services
Reinstated lawsuit challenging constitutionality of ban on Medicaid-funded abortion and announced that the ban must survive heightened scrutiny
Graham v. District Attorney for Hampden District
Held that the district attorney’s office breached its duty under the state due process clause to disclose evidence that could exculpate criminal defendants
Cooper v. Berger
Held that law transferring governor’s authority to appoint members on the state elections board to the legislature infringed on governor's appointment authority
State Court Oral Arguments to Watch for in March
Issues on the dockets include controversial ballot counting rules, a minimum wage hike, and “dark money” contributions.
Arlington Heights Pension Fund v. Pritzker
Held that the ability to vote in elections for local pension board members and to have local board members control and invest pension funds are not constitutionally protected
Lovell v. Raffensperger
Dismissed lawsuit challenging the state's electronic voting machine system because the plaintiffs' did not satisfy constitution's requirements for naming defendants
