State of Justice: May Keep Your Eyes On
Arizona
Arizona Supreme Court permits restitution for murdered child’s future lost wages
After a grandmother and aunt abused and murdered a 6-year-old boy, his half-sister sued the grandmother and aunt for $3 million in lost wages that her brother would have earned over his lifetime. Following a decision from the Arizona Supreme Court, the half-sister and other murdered children’s families may seek restitution payments for future lost wages so long as there is a reasonable basis for calculating that amount. In a news release, the state supreme court further emphasized that its ruling follows the state’s Victims’ Bill of Rights.
Arizona Supreme Court considers arguments that voter-approved dark money law is unconstitutional
The Goldwater Institute, representing the Center for Arizona Policy and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, challenged the constitutionality of Proposition 211, an initiative approved by a substantial majority of voters in 2022 that requires organizations spending more than $50,000 in state elections to disclose their donors over $5,000. They allege Proposition 211 violates First Amendment protections as well as the right to privacy. However, both the lower and appellate courts ruled against them.
Colorado
Colorado Supreme Court skeptical of broad municipal power to permit violations of state noise limits
After two appellate courts split on defining local governments’ authority to regulate noise limits, the Colorado Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case seeking to clarify local governments’ authority under the Colorado Noise Abatement Act and subsequent “Fiddler’s Green bill” amendment. The City of Salida claimed it has authority under the amendment to regulate local noise ordinances even if they exceed the statewide decibel limits set under the noise abatement act. The city argued that the amendment gave them the ability to regulate noise abatement as well as granted exceptions for certain uses of property under the proper permits. Now the court will determine the scope of local governments’ authority.
Colorado Supreme Court to say whether self-defense in workplace is grounds for termination
While on her shift at Circle K, a robber came in and attacked Mary Ann Moreno. Moreno claimed she acted in self-defense to protect herself and came into contact with the robber as a result. Following the altercation, Circle K fired Moreno, stating she violated the company’s “Don’t Chase or Confront” policy. Moreno sued, claiming the termination was wrongful and violated Colorado’s right to self-defense. During litigation in federal court, that court certified a question to the Colorado Supreme Court, asking that court to determine whether state policy permits employers to fire workers for using self-defense. The federal court will determine if the case should go to trial depending on the state court’s conclusion.
Georgia
Georgia Supreme Court to weigh in on hair relaxer lawsuit that could have potential statewide impact
Kiara Burroughs used chemical hair relaxers for nearly 20 years. After she stopped using them, she was diagnosed with uterine fibroids. A later study linked chemical relaxers to certain health conditions. As a result, Burroughs sued under the state’s product liability laws. For Burrough’s lawsuit to continue, the Georgia Supreme Court must determine if the state’s liability claim statute timeline resets with every product purchase or starts from when the consumer first bought the product. The court’s decision may impact future relaxer liability cases in the state.
Hawaii
Hawaii governor defends emergency housing powers at state Supreme Court
The Hawaii Supreme Court will determine the scope of the governor’s power to make emergency declarations. Gov. Josh Green (D) used those powers to address the state’s affordable housing crisis. Environmentalists and Native Hawaiian activists challenged this use of authority, claiming this emergency declaration will allow developers and the government to circumvent protections for Native Hawaiian historical sites and the local environment. Further, plaintiffs argue the intent of the grant of power to the governor was for emergent cases that threaten public safety, not long-term economic issues. In response, the governor contended it is authorized to address continuing circumstances threatening public safety.
Illinois
Illinois Supreme Court hears arguments over Sean Grayson’s pretrial status
Attorneys for Sean Grayson, the officer charged with the murder of Sonya Massey, have asked the Illinois Supreme Court to release Grayson while he awaits his criminal trial. After Massey called 911 to her home about a potential person outside her home, Grayson responded to her house. Thirty minutes later, Grayson fatally shot Massey. Massey’s wrongful death at the hands of the police was broadly reported after her death in July 2024. The court must determine if any present circumstances require the state to keep Grayson from being a danger to the public.
Kentucky
Kentucky Supreme Court orders rehearing on law to limit JCPS board power
The Kentucky Supreme Court will rehear a challenge to Senate Bill 1, a 2022 law that limited the Jefferson County school board’s powers. SB1 limited the board’s meeting frequency, transferred some of the board’s powers to the superintendent, and made it harder for the board to overrule decisions by the superintendent. The board’s school district is the state’s largest school district. The Jefferson Cunty Board of Education claims SB1 violates the state constitution, which prohibits special legislation from targeting one district. The supreme court previously upheld the law, but after the election of Justice Pamela Goodwine, the court decided to rehear the case.
Missouri
Missouri Supreme Court weighs who can tax recreational marijuana
Voters approved a sales tax on marijuana purchases in Missouri in 2023. The law applied to incorporated areas like cities or towns and unincorporated areas like counties. Now, the state supreme court must determine if incorporated and unincorporated areas each have the authority to tax marijuana purchases at a 3% rate, thus resulting in a 6% tax. Robust, a dispensary that operates across the state in both towns and counties, asked the state supreme court whether the state department of revenue may compel tax payments totaling 6% from sales in Florissant, a municipality in St. Louis County. Robust argues that the county government cannot add an additional tax when municipalities like Florissant already have the 3% tax. Robust further argues that the taxes between the town and county may not be compounded. Robust lost at the district and circuit court levels.
Nevada
Murdoch family trust case involving Fox News ownership heard by Nevada Supreme Court
The Nevada Supreme Court will determine if court records from the Murdoch family’s probate hearing that split the family’s conservative media empire between its children may be “super-sealed.” Nevada’s probate court system has some of the country’s highest confidentiality measures, allowing probate trust hearings to be “super-sealed,” which takes the case from the public record and makes it confidential, eliminating transparency. Media outlets like the New York Times and CNN seek to obtain court records from the Murdoch probate hearing. Attorneys for the Murdochs are challenging this.
ABA asks Nevada Supreme Court to reverse mentally ill man’s death sentence
The American Bar Association (ABA) filed an amicus brief, a friend of the court brief, on behalf of Robert Ybarra Jr., a man on Nevada’s death row since 1981. Ybarra was convicted of the rape and murder of a 16-year-old girl. Ybarra has since been diagnosed with schizophrenia. As a result of his mental condition, the ABA appealed to the state supreme court. Attorneys argue that since Ybarra has schizophrenia due to “dementia, intellectual disability, catatonia, and depressive disorder” his condition makes him ineligible for the death penalty. The ABA’s brief cited Atkins v. Virginia – a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case ruling that executions of people with mental disabilities is cruel and unusual punishment.
New Jersey
State’s top court to decide records dispute in police discipline case
The New Jersey Supreme Court will determine if Jersey City officials violated state law when they refused to release police department internal affairs records about an incident involving Michael Timmins, a Jersey City police officer. Timmins got drunk and shot at his party guests. He was charged with terroristic threats and possession of a weapon for unlawful purposes, but Timmins completed a pre-trial diversion program that later led to his record’s expungement, even though his sentence violated a state law that required a mandatory prison sentence. Following the expungement, the State Newsroom sued Jersey City officials after the city refused to release internal affairs records that reported the incident involving the officer pursuant to the state’s Open Records Act.
New York
New York Court of Appeals to Determine Whether FAPA Can Be Applied Retroactively
New York’s Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) sought to protect homeowners from banks and other mortgage lenders abusing the mortgage proceedings by resetting the statute of limitations so lenders could continue to pursue borrowers’ payments. The New York Court of Appeals must answer two critical questions about FAPA in order to determine whether or not a federal case seeking to terminate a mortgage can move forward. The court of appeals must determine if the law applies retroactively, and if so, does that violate due process for lenders.
North Dakota
CO2 storage law challenged in North Dakota Supreme Court hearing
The North Dakota Supreme Court will determine if a state law regulating underground carbon dioxide storage is constitutional. Current state law requires landowners to allow carbon dioxide storage under their property if 60% of other landowners in the interested area agree to the project. Landowners and the North Dakota Farm Bureau claim the law is unconstitutional and does not allow owners to seek just compensation. Energy and carbon dioxide storage companies are on the other side of the case.
Pennsylvania
Oral Arguments on RGGI Before Pennsylvania Supreme Court
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is a 10-state agreement to reduce carbon emissions by requiring participating states to buy carbon allowances in return for investment to reduce statewide emissions further. Gov. Tom Wolf tried via executive order to have Pennsylvania join the RGGI. Republican lawmakers sued the governor and now the case is before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The court must determine if Pennsylvania can participate in RGGI by executive authority or remand the case to the lower courts for further facts and clarification.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will determine if a state law can grant a special prosecutor authority to try crimes that occurred on SEPTA, the Philadelphia region’s transit system, when the state attorney general appoints that special prosecutor. Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner challenged the law, claiming it usurps the power of the locally elected district attorney.
South Dakota
South Dakota Supreme Court set to hear arguments over proposed McCook Lake canal
After Mike Chicoine sought to add a canal to McCook Lake, several residents and the lake association opposed it. Chicoine then proceeded with his permitting process despite community opposition. Now, the lake association is asking the state supreme court to step in. The association claims Chicoine must obtain a “water rights” permit and is asking the court to reshape current regulations allowing Chicoine to move forward without a “water rights” permit.
Utah
Utah Fits All voucher program will keep running until Utah Supreme Court weighs in
In a case challenging Utah’s school voucher program, the “Utah Fits All Scholarship,” a district court judge ruled the program unconstitutional but did not order an injunction against it, meaning it will still move forward. At the same time, litigation continues during the appeal to the state supreme court. The Utah Constitution requires that the state’s public school system be “open to all children of the state.” Challengers to the voucher program say that because funds can be used towards private school institutions with some application and vetting process, it is not genuinely open to all.
Vermont
Complaint against Burlington’s voting policy goes to supreme court
In 2023, a charter change approved all residents’ ability to vote in the city of Burlington, meaning Burlington residents may vote in local elections regardless of citizenship status. A group called Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections (RITE) sued to challenge the law’s constitutionality. RITE claims the law’s impact would be bigger than just Burlington due to its potential impact on local school budgets’ votes on the statewide education funding. A lower court dismissed RITE’s lawsuit with prejudice. RITE appealed to the state supreme court. No date for arguments has been set.
Virginia
Flint Hill fire company lawsuit heads to Virginia Supreme Court
The Virginia Supreme Court will hear an appeal in a case concerning the Flint Hill Volunteer Fire and Rescue’s leadership and the Rappahannock County Board of Supervisors. Former leader of Flint Hill’s rescue squad sued the county board of supervisors after the board voted to remove the squad’s leadership. The court will determine if the board had the authority to remove Flint Hill’s leadership.
Wisconsin
2 lawsuits challenging Wisconsin’s congressional map filed with state Supreme Court – WPR
Last year, the state supreme court struck down the state Senate and Assembly maps once a liberal majority took control of the court. Voting rights advocates are hoping the court will step in again. There are two voting rights challenges before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. One challenge, led by the Elias Law Group, focuses on partisan gerrymandering claims. Elias’ case claims that partisan gerrymandering violates Democratic voters’ free speech and discriminates against voters who support Democratic candidates, in violation of the state constitution. The Elias complaint also challenges the “least changes” doctrine which requires that when new maps are drawn, there are as minimal changes made to the original maps as possible. The doctrine was created by the state supreme court’s former conservative majority. The second challenge is led by the Campaign Legal Center (CLC). CLC’s challenge centers on ‘malapportionment’ and county splits. Voters are asking the state supreme court to step in before the 2026 elections to redraw the state’s congressional maps.
