State of Justice: April 2026 Cases in the Courts
Criminal Justice
New Jersey
Cowan v. State Parole Board
The New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the state’s parole board acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner when it denied parole to a man who had been incarcerated for more than 30 years at his first parole eligibility hearing in 2020 and determined he would not be eligible to seek parole for another 16 years and 8 months. The court ruled that the board failed to justify why it imposed such a long waiting period despite state law directing that incarcerated individuals who are denied parole should be granted another parole eligibility hearing within two years and three months, and ordered the board to set a new parole eligibility hearing within 120 days of its ruling.
Pennsylvania
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Lee
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the state’s constitution prohibits sentences of life in prison without the possibility of parole for people convicted of felony murder. Felony murder charges are leveled against people who are accused of committing a crime or partaking in the commission of a crime that results in someone’s death, even if the person charged is not personally responsible for the killing. The court ruled that such sentences violate the state constitution’s prohibition on cruel punishment, which goes further than the U.S. Constitution’s ban on punishment that is both cruel and unusual. The court did not address whether its ruling is retroactive and applies to people already serving life sentences for felony-murder convictions; instead, the court stayed the ruling for 120 days and urged the state legislature to enact legislation to address its implementation.
Texas
Ex Parte Clarence Curtis Jordan
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state’s highest court for criminal matters, overturned the death sentence of an intellectually disabled man who has spent more than 50 years on death row and did not have a lawyer for more than 30 of those years. The man has been diagnosed with an organic brain injury and a psychotic disorder and has been unable to participate in his defense, causing courts to determine that he was ineligible to be executed in the years following his 1978 conviction and death sentence. The court vacated the man’s death sentence and remanded the case to a lower court for a new “punishment proceeding,” where he will most likely be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.
Wisconsin
State of Wisconsin v. K.R.C.
In a unanimous opinion, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that police officers must read Miranda rights to children before interrogating them at school. The ruling came after a seventh-grade boy appealed his finding of delinquency on charges of fourth-degree sexual assault, arguing that statements he made to school resource officers and a vice principal during two separate interrogations were inadmissible because the officers had not informed him of his rights to refuse to answer their questions, speak to a parent or lawyer, or leave the room where the interrogation was being conducted. The ruling clarifies the constitutional and due process rights of children in Wisconsin.
Education
North Carolina
Hoke County Board of Education v. State of North Carolina
The North Carolina Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit challenging the state’s public education funding scheme that had been litigated in North Carolina courts for more than 30 years. When it was first filed in 1994, the case alleged that the state was failing to provide an adequate education by underfunding the state’s public school system. Three years later, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state’s constitution entitles every North Carolina child to a sound basic education, and later affirmed a trial court judge’s ruling that the state was not meeting its burden. The case continued to be litigated, with the parties agreeing in 2018 to hire a consultant to investigate the causes of the education system’s problems and, in 2021, to implement the consultant’s findings. When lawmakers failed to codify the findings into law, a judge ordered executive branch officials to write checks to fund the investigation’s recommendations, and the Supreme Court affirmed that order in 2022. The court’s most recent ruling in the case overturned the 2022 decision ordering executive branch officials to fund the changes, holding that the court lacked authority to require them to appropriate funds because such duties are a constitutional function of the legislature. The court also dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety rather than remanding it to a lower court for further proceedings because the state’s education system has changed significantly in the more than 30 years since the lawsuit was originally filed, and none of the plaintiffs who were named in the earlier lawsuits are currently students whose rights are at issue. In a dissenting opinion, one of the court’s justices wrote that he expects currently affected parties to file a new lawsuit making the same allegation that the state is failing to provide a sound basic education to its children.
Election Administration
California
Attorney General of the State of California v. Bianco
The California Supreme Court ordered a county sheriff who is seeking to become the Republican Party’s candidate for governor in November to pause his investigation into allegations of election fraud associated with a November 2025 special election. The sheriff seized nearly 1,500 boxes of ballots cast in the November 2025 special election in Riverside County after a local group alleged discrepancies in the ballot count and filed a complaint against local election officials. After election officials said the complaint was without merit, the state’s attorney general ordered the sheriff to halt the investigation, but the sheriff continued to seize ballots. The attorney general then asked the state’s highest court to intervene in the matter. The court’s order granted the attorney general’s request, directing the sheriff to stop seizing ballots and to preserve those that have been seized until the court can rule on the mounting legal challenges against the sheriff’s investigation.
LGBTQ+ Rights
Montana
Kalarchik v. State of Montana
In a 5-2 ruling, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed a lower court’s preliminary injunction that blocked the enforcement of a state law defining sex as based on a person’s biological sex at birth. The law prohibited transgender Montanans from amending birth certificates and driver’s licenses to match their gender identity. The court ruled the law violates the state constitution’s protection against equal protection and discrimination based on sex, noting that the state’s constitution offers stronger protections than the U.S. Constitution, and upheld the lower court’s ban on the law’s enforcement while the case is heard on its merits in a lower court.
Reproductive Rights
Montana
All Families Healthcare v. State of Montana
The Montana Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s order that blocked the implementation of a series of laws and agency rules that placed restrictions on abortion clinics, which would have the practical effect of forcing such providers to stop providing abortion care or close. The lower court determined that the requirements likely violate the Montana Constitution’s equal protection clause because it applies exclusively to abortion providers and not to providers that provide identical care for the treatment of miscarriages, as well as the constitution’s privacy provision that enshrines the right of Montana residents to make decisions about their own bodies and health. The ruling ensures the requirements will remain blocked while the lower court considers a challenge against them.
Voting Rights
Missouri
State of Missouri, et al. v. League of Women Voters of Missouri and Missouri State Conference of the NAACP
The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that a series of state laws that restricted the activities of nonpartisan civic engagement groups violates provisions in the state’s constitution that protect political speech and association. The laws placed limits on civic groups’ ability to register voters and encourage absentee voting and imposed penalties, including fines, imprisonment, and the loss of the right to vote. The court’s ruling permanently blocked the laws from taking effect.
Workers’ Rights
Illinois
Johnson v. Amazon.com Services, LLC
The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that employers must pay employees for all time they are required to spend on company premises, even if they are not working. The ruling came in a certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which is hearing a class action suit brought by Amazon workers who were not paid for the time they spent waiting to undergo brief medical screenings during the COVID-19 pandemic, which the company required its workers to complete before they were permitted to clock in for each shift. Amazon had argued that it should not have to pay the workers while they waited to be screened because it was for a short time and because the workers were not actively engaged in work during this time. The federal appeals court asked the Illinois Supreme Court to determine whether the state’s wage law incorporates the same exemption from paying workers for off-the-clock work activities that is found in federal wage laws. The court determined that the state’s wage law exceeds federal protections and requires employers to pay workers for any time they are required to spend on the company’s premises, whether or not they are working.
New Jersey
Lopez v. Marmic LLC
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the state’s wage and hour laws do not excuse employers from complying with the laws, instead requiring them to pay undocumented workers in accordance with the state’s wage and hour laws, despite federal laws that make it illegal for employers to employ undocumented workers. The court ruled that employers must comply with all minimum wage and overtime requirements regardless of a worker’s immigration status and confirmed that the state’s wage and hour laws provide greater protections for workers than federal law, regardless of immigration status.
Wisconsin
Estate of Carol Lorbiecki v. Pabst Brewing Company
In a 5-2 opinion, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that employers can be held liable for workplace injuries to independent contractors under a Wisconsin statute that requires employers to do “every other thing reasonably necessary to protect the life, health, safety, and welfare of such employees and frequenters.” The defendant, a beer-brewing company that had contracted a worker to perform steamfitting work in its brewery in the 1970s, argued that it did not control the nature of the steamfitter’s work and therefore should not be liable for the cancer caused by his exposure to asbestos in the brewery. The court found that the brewing company nonetheless controlled the working environment and was aware both that pipes in its facility were insulated with asbestos and that asbestos is harmful to human health, and affirmed a jury’s award for both compensatory and punitive damages to the worker’s estate.
