State of Justice: December 2024
-
Arkansas Supreme Court justices face censure for unauthorized entry of administrative office
Arkansas Supreme Court justices are once again under ethical scrutiny. This time, incoming Chief Justice Karen Baker, in addition to Justice Courtney Hudson, is under scrutiny. On December 4, Baker, alongside Hudson and Commerce Department Chief of Staff Allison Hatfield, entered the office of Marty Sullivan, director of the Administrative Office of the Courts. Sullivan was attending a national conference out of state at the time but allegedly returned to find his office “disheveled.” Baker claims that she had gone to Sullivan’s office to arrange a tour, found he was not there, looked around at some architectural drawings leaning against a wall, and then left. According to Baker, Hudson, and Hatfield later accompanied her back to the office, but they never went further than looking at the drawings, and no one moved anything in the office. Regardless, their actions left some employees unsettled, and the incident was reported to the Arkansas Supreme Court Police. In response, the Supreme Court voted to implement new rules restricting access to the Justice Building offices for justices and Hatfield. This comes on the heels of ethics complaints filed against Justice Hudson by her fellow members of the Arkansas Supreme Court over a public records dispute in September, in which Baker had sided with Hudson.
Embattled New Hampshire Supreme Court justice claims attorney general suing her has conflict of interest
In a continuation from previous State of Justice newsletters, New Hampshire Supreme Court Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi, who has been indicted for interfering in her husband’s criminal investigation, now claims that the state Attorney General John Formella should be disqualified from her case. Formella was previously the personal attorney for Governor Chris Sununu. Sununu appointed Hantz Marconi to the Supreme Court in 2017, and Hantz Marconi has since been accused of attempting to sway Sununu in her husband’s case. Given Sununu’s likely major role in the case, as well as his and Formella’s previous working relationship, Hantz Marconi’s lawyers allege that Formella’s involvement in the case constitutes a conflict of interest. State prosecutors warn that prohibiting the Attorney General from leading the Department of Justice in a case would set an unworkable precedent. They also point out that Sununu is set to leave office before Hantz Marconi’s case goes to trial.
-
Vacancies
Alaska Governor appoints private practice lawyer to supreme court
Gov. Mike Dunleavy (R) appointed Doyon Utilities LLC lead attorney Aimee Anderson Oravec to fill the supreme court vacancy left by retiring Chief Justice Peter Maassen, creating a female majority on the court for the first time in history. Maassen is leaving the court effective January 10 as he turns 70 years old, the mandatory retirement age for Alaska judges. Justice Susan M. Carney is set to take his place as chief justice. Oravec’s appointment marks Dunleavy’s fourth pick to the court.
Oravec has been practicing law in Alaska for nearly 26 years, with experience in both private practice settings in Fairbanks and Anchorage. She also served as an attorney member of the Judicial Council for six years, from 2012 to 2018. Oravec must stand for retention election in 2028.
Arizona Commission sends governor five candidates for supreme court appointment
The Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments sent Gov. Katie Hobbs (D) a list of five candidates to fill the supreme court vacancy left by Justice Robert Brutinel, who retired on October 31, 2024. Brutinel’s retirement allows Hobbs to flip a seat on the Republican-dominated court. The candidates are Court of Appeals Judges Maria Elena Cruz and Andrew Jacobs, Deputy Solicitor General Alexander Samuels, Department of Economic Security General Counsel Nicole Davis, and Principal Assistant Tucson City Attorney Regina Nassen. Of these candidates, three are women, one is Afro-Latina, and one is Black. Additionally, Cruz, Jacobs, and Samuels are Democrats, while Davis and Nassen are Independents. Hobbs will have 60 days to make her pick, the first by a Democratic governor in nearly two decades. The list was whittled down from one of 17 initial candidates, with Cruz receiving unanimous support from all 15 members of the commission. If selected, Cruz would be the first Latina and first Black justice on the largely white court.
Arkansas Governor appoints two conservatives to secure supreme court majority
Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R) appointed Cody Hiland and state solicitor general Nicholas Bronni to fill vacancies on the supreme court. Bronni takes the Position 6 place of Justice Karen Baker, who won the chief justice spot last month, setting her up to succeed retiring Chief Justice John Dan Kemp on January 1, 2025. Hiland, who has served in Position 2 since 2023, when appointed by Sanders to fill the spot vacated by the deceased Justice Robin Wynne, moves to Position 3 to replace Justice Courtney Hudson, who was recently elected to Position 2. Hiland and Bronni will serve the remainder of Hudson and Baker’s Position 3 and 6 terms, respectively. They have committed themselves to “originalist” interpretations of the law. These two appointments are Sanders’ only to the court, while all other current justices were elected.
These appointments come during a time of internal dispute for the court, as Baker and Hudson face backlash from their fellow justices over an unauthorized entry into an administrative office in the Justice building and Hudson’s ongoing public records dispute.
Three judges nominated to fill Nebraska supreme court vacancy
The Nebraska Judicial Nominating Commission for the Fifth District of the Nebraska Supreme Court announced its recommendations for three current judges to fill the District 5 vacancy left by incoming Chief Justice Jeffrey Funke. Funke was appointed by Gov. Jim Pillen (R) to take the place of Chief Justice Michael Heavican, who retired on October 31. The Nebraska Supreme Court is comprised of six associate justices, who each serve specific judicial districts, and a chief justice who serves the entire state. For the District 5 spot, Pillen will choose between Nebraska Court of Appeals Judge Lawrence Welch, Jr., District Judge David Bargen, and District Judge Jason M. Bergevin. All three candidates are first-time judges, with Welch serving since 2018 and Bargen and Bergevin since 2022. Their potential nominations would not impact the conservative control of the court.
Oklahoma Supreme Court Vacancy Draws 14 Applicants
Fourteen candidates are vying for the spot left vacant by Justice Yvonne Kauger, who in November became the first Oklahoma Supreme Court justice to lose a retention election. Kauger, 87, has served on the court since 1984 in Position 4, which represents the northwest section of the state. The candidates are: Aric Ammaron Alley, Scott Robert Biggs, Donna Lynn Dirickson, Louis Alvin Duel, Jr., Spencer Tracy Habluetzel, Paul Arthur Hesse, Travis Verl Jett, Michelle Kirby-Roper, Mithun Suresh Mansinghani, Nisha Moreau, Jon Keith Parsley, Lawrence “Lance” Schneiter IV, Chelsea Celsor Smith, and Stuart Lee Tate. Of these candidates, eight are sitting judges, one is a former legislator, and one is the former solicitor general. The Judicial Nominating Commission will narrow the applicant pool to three finalists, whom they will pass on to Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) to pick an appointee. This will mark Stitt’s fourth appointment on the nine-member court.
Texas’s longest-serving supreme court justice to retire
Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Nathan Hecht prepares to retire from the court on December 31, 2024. His departure comes soon after his 75th birthday, at which point Hecht reached the mandatory retirement age for justices. Hecht was first elected to the supreme court in 1988 and was re-elected for six-year terms another four times. In 2013, Gov. Rick Perry (R) appointed Hecht to replace retiring Justice Wallace Jefferson as chief justice of the court. With 35 years of service as a supreme court justice, Hecht has the longest tenure of any justice in the court’s history. When Hecht was first elected, the Texas court had a Democratic majority, whose decisions Hecht often dissented from. Still, over time, Hecht saw the court become one of the most conservative in the country. Gov. Greg Abbott (R) will choose Hecht’s successor, who can be a sitting justice or an outside applicant. This will be Abbott’s sixth appointee to the Texas Supreme Court.
West Virginia Supreme Court chooses its next chief justice
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia elected its chief justice for 2025, Justice William Wooton. Wooton will succeed Chief Justice Tim Armstead. Armstead served as chief justice in 2024 and 2020. It will be Wooton’s first time heading the court. The West Virginia Supreme Court rotates its chief justice annually, with the justices on the court voting among themselves to determine their leader. The court also selected Justice Haley Bunn to succeed Wooton as chief justice in 2026, as well as to serve as acting chief justice if necessary. Justice Wooton is the sole Democratic judge on a Republican-dominated court.
Elections
Mississippi
Following the November 2024 Presidential election, other state supreme court elections were held in various states. In Mississippi, State Senator Jennifer Branning (R) defeated state supreme court incumbent Justice Jim Kitchens (D) in a close run-off election to grasp a seat on the Mississippi Supreme Court. With 99% of Mississippi votes counted, Branning received 50.4% of the vote compared to Kitchens’ 49.4%. Before being elected to Mississippi’s highest court, Branning previously served as a private practice attorney and state legislator. Branning was first elected to the Legislature in 2015, serving as chair of the Senate Elections and Transportation Committee.
North Carolina
North Carolina’s state Supreme Court election also came down to a narrow vote between its candidates. Incumbent Justice Allison Riggs (D) defeated North Carolina Court of Appeals Judge Jefferson Griffin (R) by a mere 734 votes from over 5.5 million votes cast. However, these narrow election results sparked controversy, leading to a statewide machine recount of ballots from a small sample of voting sites and precincts across North Carolina.
Solely contesting the Supreme Court election results, Judge Griffin’s campaign then claimed that votes cast during the election were done so by unregistered voters, as some voters in the state were registered under a defunct, outdated registration form that required voters to input their Social Security number or driver’s license. Conservative challengers also argued that some ballots should be discarded because they were cast by individuals who are ineligible to vote, such as military personnel and missionaries who have not resided in the state, despite these voters being eligible to vote under North Carolina law.
Local county election boards heard arguments regarding these election results, resulting in a few ballots being reviewed. By a 3-2 vote, the Democratic-majority North Carolina State Board of Elections voted to dismiss Griffin’s attempt to throw out 60,000 votes for the state Supreme Court election, concluding there was no reasoning to reverse the election outcome. The majority determined that the dismissal was fitting due to the total number of ballots challenged as ineligible in each race being smaller than the leads that Justice Riggs held.
Missouri
In light of legal battles involving the state courts, conservative Missouri and Kansas judges are calling on the state Supreme Court to protect “conservative values”. This action arises from Missouri and Kansas judges implementing reproductive rights as a constitutional amendment in their respective states after the November 2024 election.
Due to the higher courts’ decisions to enshrine certain policies, GOP lawmakers in both states have called for implementing changes. For instance, Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach has stated that a change is “necessary”; Missouri State Senator Cindy O’Laughlin has introduced an amendment to change the process from appointment to election. This revamping of the state Supreme Court appointment process is concerning, as it threatens a conservative majority and potentially threatens the current laws in place to protect reproductive freedom and other inclusive and democratic legislation.
In both states, justices are appointed by a panel of lawyers and other legal experts, who provide the governor with three finalists to choose from. The governor then appoints one of the finalists to the court. Every 12 years, justices are up for retention elections in Missouri, whereas Kansas requires retention elections once every six years. O’Laughlin’s plan would require state Supreme Court and Appeals Court judges to be chosen in non-partisan elections for six-year terms, allowing them to campaign as Republicans or Democrats.
Kansas GOP lawmakers have sought to change the appointment process of state Supreme Court and Appeals Court judges for quite some time. While Republicans have continuously expressed support and attempted to change their appointment process, Democrats have opposed these actions, arguing the current selection method is efficient and that changing it would politicize the confirmation process and the judiciary.
-
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvanians will decide whether state supreme court Justices Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty, or David Wecht will retain their seats for another ten years, setting the stage for another political battle when election season arises. Currently, Democrats hold a 5-2 majority. If voters decide to oust the three left-leaning justices, Republicans will have an opportunity to begin an interim vacancy appointment process.
Wisconsin
Wisconsin Democrats are also gearing up for a spring 2025 state supreme court election to maintain their Democratic majority after a tight race in 2023, which flipped the court’s partisan control to Democrats for the first time in 15 years.
The April 1 election will pit Republican and former Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel against Democrat Susan Crawford, a judge who has previously represented teachers in a lawsuit that attempted to overturn the anti-collective bargaining law. This election is crucial, as it comes in the wake of a Wisconsin judge’s ruling to restore collective bargaining rights, placing union rights at the center stage as the primary political issue throughout this election.
-
A coalition of civil rights and legal advocacy organizations filed a legal challenge to California’s death penalty, arguing that its racially discriminatory application violates the state constitution. The California Supreme Court’s request for further briefing signals serious consideration of the claim, which is supported by decades of empirical evidence and a broad array of legal and legislative allies.
Florida – Florida Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments Challenging Non-Unanimity Sentencing Standard
Earlier this month, the Florida Supreme Court heard arguments in Jackson v. Florida, a case challenging the constitutionality of the state’s 2023 law allowing non-unanimous jury death sentences. Represented by the ACLU, Jackson argues the law violates the U.S. Constitution under Ramos v. Louisiana, which struck down non-unanimous criminal convictions.
Georgia – Georgia Supreme Court could reverse multi-million-dollar wrongful death lawsuits against cities
In 2023, a jury awarded $35 million to the family of Joshua Chang, holding the city of Milton liable for a 2016 fatal accident. Milton then filed an appeal before the Georgia Supreme Court. The case centers on sovereign immunity, which protects state and federal governments from being sued. Because of this, cities across Georgia are involved in the case, warning the court that its potential ruling could expose municipalities to costly lawsuits over roadway conditions outside travel lanes. At this time, the court has not yet decided whether to take the case.
Georgia – AG Carr urges state Supreme Court to reject DA Willis’ appeal in Trump case
After a 2-1 Georgia Court of Appeals ruling disqualified Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from the Trump election interference case due to a conflict of interest, Willis appealed to the state supreme court. Now, Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr is urging the state Supreme Court not to hear Willis’ appeal. Carr argues the disqualification was correct and criticizes the use of “lawfare” in politics, as the case remains stalled during the pretrial appeals process. Willis, who maintains she did nothing wrong, argues that the Court of Appeals erred by disqualifying her over the appearance—not the existence—of a conflict of interest.
The Idaho Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a lawsuit challenging Boise City Council’s approval of Interfaith Sanctuary’s move to a new State Street facility. The case focused heavily on whether the council properly found a legal error in Planning & Zoning’s earlier denial. Justices questioned both sides on the interpretation of the city code, with the case now pending a decision that could determine the shelter project’s future.
Illinois – Grayson to remain jailed as state Supreme Court considers release request
The Illinois Supreme Court declined to release former police deputy Sean Grayson while considering an appeal on his pretrial detention in the fatal shooting of Sonya Massey, a Black woman who was shot and killed by police while experiencing a mental health crisis in her home. The court will keep Grayson jailed as the case before it questions the state’s SAFE-T Act provisions on public safety and detention. The SAFE-T Act contains pretrial detention provisions that allow judges to detain individuals who have been charged with certain crimes while they await trial, provided the individual is a threat to a person or the community and there are no other less restrictive methods that could ensure public safety. Prosecutors and Massey’s family supported Grayson’s continued detention, emphasizing community safety despite an appellate court’s earlier ruling questioning the initial detention.
Indiana – Indiana Supreme Court wrestles with possible exception to open records law
The Indiana Supreme Court heard arguments over whether a white paper submitted by HealthNet to the state’s Family and Social Services Administration as part of a Medicaid dispute should be exempt from public records disclosure under the deliberative-material exception. During oral arguments, justices expressed concern that a broad exemption could undermine transparency. The case seeks clarity on the scope of the exemption in Indiana’s public records law, particularly whether documents from third parties used in agency decision-making qualify as confidential advisory material.
Iowa – Iowa Supreme Court hears appeal to ‘non-English voting materials’ ruling
The Iowa Supreme Court is reviewing a challenge to a 2002 law that prohibits county auditors from providing voting materials in languages other than English, following a 2021 judge’s ruling blocking that restriction, with the state appealing the decision. The court has not yet announced when it will issue a ruling.
Kansas – Kansas faces ‘constitutional crisis’ with rural attorney shortage, Supreme Court justice says
Kansas Supreme Court Justice K.J. Wall warned that the state faces a “constitutional crisis” due to a severe shortage of attorneys in rural areas, where just 21% of lawyers serve 45% of the population, many of whom are over 60 years old. A newly released report from the Rural Justice Initiative Committee outlines this crisis and recommends measures such as loan repayment programs, professional support networks, and outreach efforts to attract and retain attorneys in rural Kansas.
Kansas – Kansas Supreme Court again strives to build momentum for pretrial detention reform
The Kansas Supreme Court established a 15-member advisory committee to advance reforms aimed at balancing defendants’ rights with public safety by improving pretrial supervision and detention practices, following 19 proposals from a 2020 task force. The committee, led by Chief Justice Karen Arnold-Burger, will develop best practices, assessment tools, and data collection methods to reduce reliance on pretrial detention—especially for nonviolent offenses—and promote alternatives like diversion programs and increased access to defense counsel.
Maryland – Judge Agrees To Pause WWE Ring Boy Lawsuit Until Massive Maryland Supreme Court Decision
A Maryland judge paused the WWE sexual abuse lawsuit against Vince and Linda McMahon, awaiting the state supreme court’s decision on the constitutionality of the Maryland Child Victims Act, which could determine whether the case can proceed.
Maryland – Sentence reduction sought for Adnan Syed as court reconsiders murder conviction
Adnan Syed, convicted at 17 for the 1999 murder of Hae Min Lee and released after nearly 24 years, is seeking a sentence reduction to remain free while the Maryland courts reconsider vacating his conviction amid disputes from Lee’s family over the lack of new evidence. His attorneys argue the Juvenile Restoration Act supports reducing his sentence, allowing him to fight for full exoneration outside prison.
Michigan – Supreme Court order complicates conversation as paid family leave bills move to Senate floor
Michigan lawmakers advanced a bill to create a state-level paid family leave program providing up to 12 weeks of paid leave for caregiving and serious health issues, amid ongoing tensions with a separate paid sick leave policy reinstated by a recent Michigan Supreme Court ruling. The court’s decision restored the Earned Sick Time Act, which mandates paid sick leave for businesses, prompting debates over how the two policies will interact and concerns from Republicans and business groups about costs and regulatory burdens.
Michigan – Supreme Court order complicates conversation as paid family leave bills move to Senate floor
Members of the Senate Housing and Human Services Committee voted to advance the Family Leave Optimal Coverage Act, or FLOC, a policy creating a state-level paid family leave program that would allow employees to take up to 12 weeks of paid leave for various circumstances, including domestic violence, maternity leave, or caregiving. However, GOP lawmakers raise concerns over implementation costs and its impact on small businesses, as well as the legislation’s potential conflict with Michigan’s Earned Sick Time Act, a piece of legislation that provides paid and unpaid sick leave to employees.
Minnesota – Minnesota Supreme Court balks at bid to strip reporter protections in DAPL lawsuit
As part of its ongoing lawsuit against Greenpeace International for protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2016, Energy Transfer LP is attempting to obtain unpublished information gathered by Minnesota news organization Unicorn Riot. Unicorn Riot heavily covered the pipeline protests. Energy Transfer LP, to strengthen its case against Greenpeace, argues it is “entitled” to Unicorn Riot’s unpublished information. Union Riot already won at the lower and appellate levels, with judges finding the new outlet’s information protected under the Minnesota Free Flow of Information Act, which protects the information journalists gather. The supreme court justices were reluctant to believe Energy Transfer’s argument considering the state law.
Minnesota – Transgender powerlifter’s discrimination lawsuit headed to Minnesota Supreme Court
After U.S.A. Powerlifting denied Jaycee Cooper, a transgender woman, the opportunity to compete in the U.S.A. Powerlifting women’s division, Cooper sued the powerlifting organization for discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Cooper won at the trial court level, but the state court of appeals partially overturned that decision. Now, the Minnesota Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in her case this month.
Minnesota – Duluth attempted murder case heads to Minnesota Supreme Court
The Minnesota Supreme Court agreed to review an attempted murder case involving Seneca Warrior Steeprock, who has been serving a 20-year sentence for a December 2020 shooting. This decision arose due to the Minnesota Court of Appeals finding that Steeprock’s constitutional rights were violated due to the state obtaining a DNA sample via court order instead of a search warrant.
Missouri – Missouri Supreme Court hears case challenging lifetime monitoring of sex offender
A sex offender is challenging a court decision that they be electronically monitored 24 hours a day, seven days a week for the rest of their life. Attorneys for the offender argue the state does not have a legitimate interest in monitoring the offender for the rest of her life especially considering little evidence of recidivism for female sex offenders. However, because she committed a crime against a minor, the state continued to push for lifetime monitoring.
Missouri – Anti-abortion lawmakers, activists call on Missouri court to rule against Planned Parenthood
Missouri voters approved Amendment 3 during the November 2024 election, which enshrined abortion access into the state’s constitution. Due to this outcome, the Amendment 3 campaign faced multiple lawsuits, suing over inflammatory and inaccurate ballot language due to claims the initiative would result in unregulated abortion care.
Nevada – Will Uber’s measure to cap attorneys’ fees be on the ballot? Nevada Supreme Court to decide
The Nevada Supreme Court is contemplating whether a measure to cap attorney fees is constitutional and can appear on the 2026 state general election ballot. Currently, there is no cap on attorney fees, but if the proposition is passed, a 20% cap will be placed on lawyer contingency fees for civil cases in Nevada, effective in 2027. Contingency fees provide opportunities for lower-income individuals to access legal representation, so lowering the cap could significantly limit people’s access to justice via the courts. As Uber has faced numerous lawsuits due to their lack of screening and background checks on drivers due to repeated accusations of sexual assault, critics have argued that Uber’s support is a strategic move to discourage lawyers from taking cases and making litigation less financially viable. Uber’s involvement in this case showcases the ongoing corporate influence in judicial courts.
New Hampshire – The $500 Million ConVal Question Back Before Supreme Court
The New Hampshire Supreme Court is deciding whether judges or elected officials have the power to determine how much money the state funds local schools, trying to decide whether taxpayers are required to invest in public education. The state is challenging the ruling on two issues, stating the judge overstepped its authority by setting a funding level for local schools that should be decided by the state legislature instead of the courts. The state also argues that the judge added extra costs, such as buses, and building maintenance, that are not included in basic education funding. If this power remains with the judges, then there could be more than $500 million increase in the taxpayers’ share of funding for education for New Hampshire residents.
New Hampshire – New Hampshire Supreme Court accepts case of inmate who wants to change name
James Covington, sentenced to and serving 30 years to life in a New Hampshire prison, sought permission to change his name to reflect his Islamic faith, but a New Hampshire judge rejected his request. Covington argues that this decision violates his constitutional right to practice his religion. It is uncertain whether the state supreme court will hear oral arguments regarding this decision or if the case will be sent to mediation, as the first petition was rejected. Now the high court is considering reviewing the case or seeking a settlement.
New Mexico – Alexee Trevizo case: New Mexico Supreme Court accepts Amicus Brief
In Alexee Trevizo’s case—a woman charged with first-degree murder and tampering with evidence after an autopsy declared her newborn’s death as a homicide—a lower court judge granted Trevizo’s motion to suppress any evidence obtained during a conversation between Trevizo, the police, and hospital staff. However, prosecutors appealed the motion to the New Mexico Supreme Court. Most recently, the New Mexico Supreme Court accepted legal documents from the ACLU of New Mexico and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists in favor on Trevizo. The new legal documents filed by these organizations raise concerns over Trevizo’s right to privacy and the legality of law enforcement in emergency rooms. Trevizo’s case has yet to go to trial.
North Dakota – McDermott appeals manslaughter conviction to state Supreme Court
Travis McDermott, a man who was found guilty of manslaughter and reckless endangerment, has appealed his conviction and has presented his oral arguments to the North Dakota Supreme Court. McDermott argues that his right to a fair trial was violated, as he was placed in shackles and handcuffs during his jury selection despite the judge’s outspoken opposition to these restraints. His lawyers state that the potential jurors seeing him restrained unfairly biased them against him and responded that they considered asking for a mistrial.
North Dakota – ND Supreme Court to discuss potential policy changes impacting stenographers, court recorders
The North Dakota Supreme Court is considering a proposed policy that would permit outsourcing transcripts to private vendors that utilize artificial intelligence. The justices plan to meet in late January to discuss and vote on the issue.
New York – Seneca Meadows to appeal Local Law 3-2016 reversal
Seneca Meadows Inc. (SMI) will ask the New York Court of Appeals to review a December 2023 ruling that reinstated Local Law 3-2016, which mandates the landfill’s closure by the end of 2025. SMI is challenging this decision, claiming that the town did not follow the proper guidelines to understand how closing the landfill might affect the environment.
Oregon – Oregon Supreme Court hears AGC suit against project labor agreements
The Oregon Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the legality of whether the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) can sign project labor agreements, which are agreements with unions that set terms and conditions on certain construction projects and guarantee that no strike or picket activity will disrupt it. This case arises from an Oregon construction group suing ODOT in 2023 when the state agency moved to implement a project labor agreement. ODOT and the union are fighting to keep their labor agreement because it ensures that major highway projects are staffed with union workers and require additional hiring of women, residents, veterans, and minority workers. Both groups argue that these terms protect jobs, prevent strikes, and promote fairness, training, and community benefits.
The Oregon Supreme Court will hear the case of defendant Jayme Casuga, who has challenged the constitutionality of a loophole policy that allows state agencies to hire and deploy defense attorneys instead of assigning specific public defenders when individuals in custody cannot afford counsel, despite the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing this right. They contend the law has been used to bypass the state’s duty to provide effective representation, shifting the burden onto defendants and exacerbating systemic inequities. Oregon’s loophole policy emerged as a response to a chronic shortage of defense attorneys, resulting in criminal defendants being left without legal representation. Therefore, legislators passed a law allowing defendants to either represent themselves without counsel or use private contact attorneys when public defenders are unavailable.
South Carolina – SC Supreme Court hears arguments in 1970s Charleston church sex abuse case
South Carolina’s highest court is evaluating whether a long-defunct state law protecting charities from lawsuits exempts the Catholic Diocese of Charleston from paying damages in a decades-old sexual abuse case at the former Sacred Heart Catholic School in the early-1970s. This charity immunity law formally protected nonprofits from being sued. However, the state supreme court abolished this rule in 1981, meaning it no longer has any legal standing in South Carolina. The Catholic Diocese of Charleston’s appeal centers on applying this outdated law to a case that began after its repeal. Since the law has been nullified, the Diocese should still be held liable in this case, making their legal defense flawed.
South Carolina – South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Case Law Update Series, Part III: Brailey v. Michelin North America
South Carolina’s appellate courts have been faced with several questions on workers’ compensation, producing opinions that will affect the handling of defending workers’ compensation claims. South Carolina’s appellate courts have been faced with several questions on workers’ compensation, producing opinions that will affect the handling of defending workers’ compensation claims. Specifically, the court is considering whether Michelin North America can deny workers’ compensation benefits by invoking employment application fraud, inquiring about Whether Michelin satisfied the “casual connection requirement” and whether the Cooper rule is applicable today, considering that the ADA limits what medical questions employers can ask before hiring, and that the Workers’ Compensation Act does not clearly support this kind of legal defense. The court eventually decided to overturn Cooper, stating that its enforcement post-ADA is harmful and can be addressed by legislative clarification.
South Carolina – Former Atlantic Beach councilwoman appeals to the SC Supreme Court over election dispute
Former council member Josephine Isom filed an appeal with the South Carolina Supreme Court, claiming voter fraud during the November 2023 mayoral election against candidate John David. The case details whether the Municipal Election Commission (MEC) was right to throw out 14 to 16 votes that were allegedly cast by people who were not residents of Atlantic Beach. Town officials, including then-Mayor Jake Evans, raised concerns that voters used addresses of unfinished properties without occupancy certificates to vote, resulting in a request an investigation by the state’s Law Enforcement Division over voter fraud suspicions. The state supreme court must decide if those votes were justifiably thrown out and how it affects the results of the election, specifically if Isom is declared the winner.
South Carolina – Georgetown area restaurant ended up in the state Supreme Court. How did they get there?
A legal battle between Gulfstream Cafe and Georgetown County has been filed in the South Carolina Supreme Court due to a dispute over parking rights and the redevelopment of the Marlin Way Marina. According to Gulfstream Cafe, the restaurant lost parking access for its customers after the marina was rebuilt into a larger three-story complex, which increased traffic and demand for parking. The restaurant argues that the redevelopment has violated long-established easements and has led to unfair competition for parking. Gulfstream Cafe is accusing former Georgetown County Council member Steve Goggans, who served as the architect for the redevelopment process, of using his influence to secure approval for the project despite community opposition and competitive parking provisions. The outcome of the Supreme Court case could have wider implications for business zoning decisions and redevelopment oversight across South Carolina.
South Carolina – Murdaugh files appeal of double murder conviction with SC Supreme Court
Alex Murdaugh has filed an appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court, arguing that he did not get a fair trial for the murders of his wife and son. Murdaugh was convicted of killing his wife and son in 2023 and is currently serving two life sentences for these crimes. He claims his rights were violated due to jury tampering, alleging that former Court Clerk Becky Hill improperly leaned on jurors, urging them to “watch his actions and body language” and implying he was guilty, violating Murdaugh’s right to a fair trial. Furthermore, Murdaugh is also challenging the decision to allow evidence of his financial crimes, arguing that allowing the evidence in the murder trial does not have any real connection to the murders.
Texas – Texas Supreme Court hears Werner’s controversial nuclear verdict case
The Texas Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a controversial nuclear verdict case involving Werner Enterprises, which has a wide range of stakeholders calling for tort reform. This case arises from a lawsuit from a couple whose son was killed in a car crash with a Werner truck about ten years ago. Despite the Werner driver, Shiraz Ali, was declared innocent by state troopers, a Harris County jury in 2018 still found Werner 70% liable, awarding over $100 million in damages. The plaintiffs argued that Ali was an inexperienced worker, claiming that Ali should have either pulled over or slowed down due to hazardous weather conditions. Werner is challenging the verdict, saying it’s unfair to expect their driver to predict that a car would suddenly slide across the highway and that the jury was influenced by information about the company’s common practices, not just the crash itself. The court is also asked to decide whether companies should be protected from having unrelated information used against them in cases where they have already accepted responsibility for their driver. This case matters because the court’s decision could affect how future crash lawsuits are handled in Texas and whether companies can be blamed for events they cannot control.
Utah – Utah Supreme Court signals interest in death penalty challenge
The Utah Supreme Court is interested in hearing a case regarding a legal challenge filed by a group of Utah inmates against the state’s death penalty laws, arguing that lethal injections and firing squads violate their rights. The justices’ interest stems from this being a pivotal case that could reshape Utah’s death penalty system and clarify whether state constitutional protections go beyond federal limits. The court is examining whether Utah’s constitution provides broader protections than the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution and whether it allows incarcerated people to challenge execution methods without proposing alternatives, potentially allowing the court to redefine Utah’s capital punishment laws and change execution methods in the state.
National – The Death Penalty in 2024: Executions
There were 25 executions in nine states in 2024, being the tenth consecutive year with less than 30 executions. Indiana, South Carolina, and Utah conducted their first executions after a 10-year hiatus.
