Search
Filter Search
Marcelius Braxton
Marcelius Braxton is the director of the Center for Social Change and Belonging and an affiliate associate teaching professor of Philosophy and African Studies at Penn State University.
How State Courts Pushed Back on an Infamous U.S. Supreme Court Case
Dred Scott, widely considered a stain on the U.S. Supreme Court’s history, denied citizenship to Black Americans in 1857. Many state supreme courts refused to follow it.
State v. Davieontray Breax
Louisiana Supreme Court held that the state constitution bars prosecutors from joining capital charges with other felony charges in one indictment.
J.F. v. St. Vincent Hospital
Indiana Supreme Court established a new approach to mootness for the state constitutional and statutory right to appeal court-ordered temporary involuntary commitments confining individuals to mental health treatment facilities, holding that expiration of such an order generally will not bar appeal. Expiration will only moot an appeal if the appellee can show the absence of any collateral consequence from the temporary commitment order.
Evers v. Marklein
Wisconsin Supreme Court held that statutes permitting a legislative committee to pause, object to, or suspend administrative rules for varying periods of time both before and after promulgation — used by the committee in this case effectively to block for three years a rule banning “conversion therapy” for LGBTQ+ patients — facially violate the state constitution’s bicameralism and presentment requirements.
Sobel v. Cameron
Three Jewish women claim abortion ban, which defines human life as beginning at fertilization, violates the state constitution’s prohibition on unintelligible laws because its application to in vitro fertilization is unclear, and religious liberties by inhibiting the Jewish duty to procreate and prioritizing Christian values. Trial court granted summary judgment for the state defendants for lack of standing, but Court of Appeals reversed as to one of the plaintiffs who has frozen embryos and has shown an interest in using them but confusion about her options.
State v. Adrian Fernandez
The Oregon Supreme Court will consider whether a law that restricts appellate courts’ authority to review a sentence that falls within the range set in guidelines by the state criminal justice commission precludes appellate review of a state constitutional challenge to that sentence. In an amicus brief, the American Civil Liberties Union argues that interpreting the law to preclude such appellate review would violate separation of powers and the state constitution's equality guarantee.
Universal Injunctions in State Courts
Debates over whether a judge in a single county can issue a statewide injunction are brewing. States should not follow the U.S. Supreme Court’s approach.
Stary v. Ethridge
Texas Supreme Court held that due process requires a heightened evidentiary standard to support a protective order prohibitng contact between a parent and child for longer than two years, likening such an order to a government's termination of parental rights. Instead of the ordinary civil preponderance of the evidence standard, a court must find the statutory requirements for such an order by clear and convincing evidence and must consider the best interests of the child.
Michigan Supreme Court Justice Richard Bernstein Discusses Disability Rights
Bernstein, the court’s first blind justice, travels the world promoting access and equality for disabled people.
