State of Justice: April 2026 Keep Your Eyes On
Alabama
In 2023, the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH) adopted new regulations around birthing centers. Birthing centers are an out-of-hospital option that provide birth support and midwifery services. ADPH’s new regulations require that birthing centers have a medical director or physician oversee the facility and be within 30 minutes of a hospital. The ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project filed suit in state court on behalf of the centers, arguing the centers are essential for improving maternal and infant health and reducing both maternal and infant mortality rates. A lower appellate court ruled against the centers. Now, the case is being appealed to the state supreme court.
Florida
FPL rate hike to be reviewed by the Florida Supreme Court
Florida Power and Light’s $7 billion rate hike is being reviewed before the state supreme court. The rate changes are being challenged by the Office of the Public Council, a legislatively appointed advocate for all utility customers, with support from a coalition of advocates ranging from representing the utility customers. Business and retail interests lobbied the power company for the rate changes. As a result, approximately 12 million customers across the state have already been affected after the new rates went into effect earlier this year. The supreme court has previously castigated the power commission for a lack of transparency. Now, the court will review the commission’s decision.
Massachusetts
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to Hear College’s Wage Act Lawsuit
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court agreed to review a case brought by two former Amherst College employes claiming the university violated the state’s Wage Act by paying them monthly instead of biweekly. The Wage Act requires that exempt employees must be paid at least semi-monthly. However, Amherst did not begin paying employees a bimonthly basis until six months after the lawsuit was filed. Last October, a lower court judge dismissed the case, finding Amherst was shielded from accountability under a budget bill signed into law by Gov. Maura Healy (D). Now, the court must determine if the university is exempt from these claims.
Michigan
Michigan Supreme Court to hear House GOP appeal over stalled bills
The Michigan Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in May in a case centering on nine bills, passed by both chambers under Democratic control, that were never sent to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) to be signed into law after the state house switched to Republican control. GOP leaders argued it should not have been their duty to finish the previous legislative session’s responsibilities. As a result, Democratic senators challenged the state house’s inaction. The court of claims ruled in favor of the Democratic lawmakers but did not order the legislature to forward the bills, fearing interference with legislative affairs. The supreme court’s decision could significantly shift the judiciary’s oversight over the legislature.
Missouri
Missouri Supreme Court to Hear Arguments to Suspend House Bill 1’s Gerrymandered Maps
The Missouri Supreme Court will review whether a lower state court erred in dismissing a case brought by the ACLU of Missouri and two Jackson County voters. The appeal challenges House Bill 1, a redistricting bill, seeking to delay its effective date until the maps can be put to a statewide referendum. Voting right advocates claim the secretary of state is attempting to delay the referendum process so that HB1’s maps will be in effect for the 2026 November election. The court’s decision will have massive implications for the 2026 elections. If the court allows the maps to take effect before a voter referendum, voters could potentially use illegitimate maps if a later referendum rejects them.
Montana
Montana Supreme Court Hears Arguments Over Ballot Initiative Restrictions
Montana has a long tradition of allowing residents to propose ballot initiatives that could become law after signature gathering and a statewide vote. However, citizen-led ballot initiatives became increasingly important for protecting individuals’ constitutional rights, like in 2024 when voters approved a ballot initiative protecting abortion access in the state. The legislature subsequently passed a series of changes to the proposal process that democracy advocates claim are unconstitutional. These changes included a legislative review of the proposal language before signature gathering, as well as a $3,700 filing fee for a ballot initiative. Now, the state supreme court will decide the restrictions’ constitutionality.
Nevada
ACLU Challenges Las Vegas Police-ICE Pact at Nevada Supreme Court
The ACLU of Nevada is challenging the 287(g) agreement between the Las Vegas Police Department and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The agreement gives Las Vegas police and ICE overreaching power over detainees. The agreement allows for Las Vegas police to flag foreign-born detainees for ICE review and grants ICE the power to hold the individuals past their release date for up to two days. The court has not announced if it will take up the case yet.
New Mexico
New Mexico Supreme Court to take up Rep. Dow’s appeal to stay on ballot
After a district court judge found an incumbent state legislator’s petition did not meet legal standards, Republican state representative Rebecca Dow’s ability to appear on the primary election ballot is in the hands of the state supreme court. Dow represents House District 38, a closely divided swing district. A Democrat write-in candidate, David Mooney, announced his campaign and needs 50 votes in the primary election to appear on the November ballot. If Dow is found to be disqualified from the race, Republicans can file as write-in candidates beginning June 25. Still, state law prohibits any candidate who filed in the primary election from running as a write-in candidate, meaning that Dow cannot run as a write-in.
North Carolina
NC Supreme Court agrees to hear Attorney General’s lawsuit against DuPont and Chemours.
The North Carolina Supreme Court will determine whether Attorney General Jeff Jackson has the authority to sue DuPont and Chemours over chemical contamination of PFAS, or “forever chemicals,” in drinking water and groundwater. The corporate giants are challenging Jackson’s ability even to enforce state law and seek justice for affected residents, claiming he lacks the authority to file suit rather than environmental regulators. While the case originally started under now-Gov. Josh Stein’s (D) leadership of the North Carolina Department of Justice, Jackson continued the litigation after succeeding Stein.
Ohio
GOP judge wants Ohio Supreme Court to block abortion rights amendment
The Ohio constitution protects individuals’ right to make their own decisions around their reproductive healthcare. However, a county court judge is attempting to challenge the law on the basis that it circumvents his ability to deliver judicial bypass decisions. Currently, state law requires that minors either have parental consent or a judicial bypass decision—a decision from the court permitting the minor to receive abortion care. The judge claims that since the constitutional amendment took effect, he received no bypass requests, and the amendment adversely affects his ability to deliver those decisions.
Texas
Abbott doubles down, calls on Texas Supreme Court to remove Wu from office
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) is asking the state supreme court to remove Rep. Gene Wu, a Democrat representing Houston and chair of the Texas Democratic Party, from office. Wu led Democratic lawmakers in the state house in efforts to leave the state, preventing official business from being conducted during a special legislative session called by Abbott to redistrict the state’s maps. As a result of the lawmakers’ actions, each was fined over $8,000. Wu then led a fundraising effort with the state house Democratic caucus campaign to pay the fines. While state house rules prohibit using campaign funds to pay fines, Wu argued that state law permits reimbursement of costs arising from political processes or in-office expenses. As a result, the battle between the Democratic lawmaker and conservative governor will be decided before the state supreme court.
Wyoming
Transgender Woman Challenges ‘What Is A Woman Act’ In Wyoming Supreme Court
In 2025, Wyoming passed the What is a Woman Act. The law creates a limited definition of sex based on an individual’s reproductive system at birth. It also mandates that any state agency that collects information for anti-discrimination purposes must identify individuals based on their sex at birth. KR, a transgender woman, is challenging the law before the state supreme court, and the state attorney general is defending the law. After changing her name and receiving gender-affirming surgeries, KR sought to change her sex marker on her birth certificate, but due to the law, a district court judge blocked KR’s request. Now, she is fighting before the state supreme court.
