State Court Report

Tyler v. Hennepin County shows why a federal floor for constitutional property rights is vital.

Washington innovates on peremptory strikes.

State court benches continue to fall short of representing the racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of the communities they serve.

The trial will show the obstacles to enforcing environmental provisions in state constitutions.

State institutions have a major impact on people’s everyday lives — often more than their federal counterparts.

The high court reaffirmed the right to abortion under the Montana Constitution.

The new court majority reversed itself and found the state constitution powerless to confront partisan gerrymandering.

The court also upheld voter ID and felony disenfranchisement.

While state courts have been skeptical of judicial remedies, momentum for legislative responses is growing.

A conservative majority held that the law was not racially discriminatory, reversing the court’s prior ruling.

Oral argument is set for May 11 in a challenge under the 14th Amendment and state constitution.

A recent New Mexico Supreme Court opinion highlights how single-subject rule decisions in many states give legislators and courts little guidance.

Two court decisions raise questions about whether modifying discriminatory provisions can wash away their dubious histories.

A landmark decision firmly establishes that partisan gerrymandering violates the Alaska Constitution.

Two lawsuits seek relief from climate change using state constitutions.

State courts should reassert their role as primary guarantors of liberty.

The Los Angeles district attorney is contesting a requirement that he must seek higher sentences.

Courts play an increasingly important role in enforcing states’ environmental rights amendments.

How to bring back the “inviolate” right to a jury trial.

Republican state legislators threaten to upset long-standing norms of judicial independence.

State courts have largely sidestepped state constitutional questions about remote criminal proceedings.

Justices raised questions about the court’s jurisdiction.

Abortion access, voting district maps, and executive powers all hang in the balance.

The court decision gives teeth to the state constitution’s promise of a “clean and healthful environment.”

In assessing policing tactics, the court considered racial disparities in the justice system.

Parties, courts, and legislatures can use original jurisdiction to meet their own political ends, potentially affecting issues from elections to abortion rights.

Significant decisions come down in Oklahoma and North Dakota.

The state’s high court is considering whether the state constitution tethers Illinois to cash bail.

Most state constitutions include a right to bail, but amendments have limited those rights over time.

Ohio is the latest state to conclude that state courts need not defer to state agency interpretations of state law.

A recent decision will help plaintiffs win damages when government officials violate the Constitution.

Decisions are expected soon from supreme courts in Wisconsin and Florida.

“Peaceable and orderly” isn’t the same as “respectful and courteous.”

State provisions that commit states to ensuring democratic citizenship through education are promising tools to challenge illiberal education measures.

Scholars offer new ideas for boosting public participation in the construction and interpretation of state constitutions.

North Carolina’s reconfigured supreme court will hear two recently decided democracy cases.

Massachusetts’s high court rejected the U.S. Supreme Court’s narrow approach to determining fundamental rights in favor of a comprehensive analysis that considers evolving equality norms.

Rulings in Oregon and Utah offer a road map for other state courts.

Judges should reject calls to embrace a single method of constitutional interpretation.

The Supreme Court used flawed legal comparisons in overturning Roe v. Wade. Looking forward, state judges must take context into account when engaging with other countries’ abortion laws.

An ideological shift on the North Carolina Supreme Court could upend a landmark decision in a long-running battle for adequate public education spending under the state’s constitution.

Dangers remain as the justices explore a different path for deciding Moore v. Harper.

A closely divided court held that the law was racially discriminatory, but the ruling’s impact may not survive under the court’s new conservative majority.

In striking down an abortion ban in South Carolina and upholding one in Idaho, state high courts are grappling with the use of history in constitutional interpretation.

Cases involving abortion, gun control, and public health pivoted on state preemption standards.

Recent decisions show courts using state constitutions to protect young defendants’ rights.

In two states, the winners mean new court majorities and changed legal landscapes.

From abortion to voting rights, amendments creating new state constitutional rights were approved at the ballot box.

State constitutions offer protections for unenumerated rights, but courts rarely act on those provisions.

Dozens of legal cases around the country are challenging abortion bans.

Recent scholarship raises important questions about how state high courts should use the history of their state’s constitution, particularly when information is lost or unreliable.

Washington State’s chief justice discusses balls and strikes, diversity on the bench, and the role of state courts in protecting rights.