State of Justice: April Cases in the Courts
Civil Liberties
Connecticut
Erica Lafferty, et al. v. Alex E. Jones, et al.
The Connecticut Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of a judgment against prominent conspiracy theorist Alex Jones in a defamation suit that resulted in a $1.4 billion verdict against Jones for his sustained characterization of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as an elaborate hoax. The court’s decision not to hear the appeal left in place the 2022 judgment in favor of families of the victims of the shooting, which Jones has since acknowledged was “one hundred percent real.”
Consumer Protections
Oregon
Bellshaw v. Farmers Insurance Co.
The Oregon Supreme Court reversed two lower court rulings worth $23.6 million in favor of plaintiffs in a class action suit brought against an insurance company over allegations that the company violated the state’s anti-steering laws, which require insurance companies to notify customers that they have the right to choose their own repair facility prior to informing customers of the company’s preferred repair facility. The majority agreed with the insurance company’s assertion that its disclosure language had been approved by the director of the state’s Department of Consumer and Business Services. It remanded the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.
Bohr v. Tillamook County Creamery Association
The Oregon Supreme Court allowed a class action lawsuit involving allegations of false advertising against the state’s largest dairy company to proceed. The decision overturned a lower court ruling that had halted the suit, which was brought against the dairy company by an animal rights organization on behalf of a customer because the company advertised its products as made from milk produced by cows that graze on farms in its namesake county while actually sourcing the majority of the milk from cows housed in large factory farms hundreds of miles away.
Criminal Justice
Colorado
In re People in the Interest of J.D.
In a 4-3 opinion, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the state’s Department of Human Services may evaluate juveniles to determine whether they are competent to stand trial without first obtaining an order from a judge. The three dissenting judges wrote that the legislature did not intend for the government to make such assessments without judicial oversight.
Idaho
State of Idaho v. Ammon Edward Bundy
The Idaho Supreme Court upheld the criminal trespass conviction of a perennial protester who protested the state’s COVID-19 era public health measures by refusing to vacate reserved seats in a hearing room in the state capitol building, affirming lower court rulings that held the criminal trespass statute is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, does not violate the state constitution’s separation of powers doctrine, and can properly be applied to public property.
Michigan
In a 5-1 ruling, the Michigan Supreme Court dismissed a man’s conviction on three felony firearm charges, concluding that police lacked probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle he was occupying after detecting the smell of marijuana emanating from it. The court held that a 25-year precedent that characterized the smell of marijuana as grounds for probable cause is no longer good law in light of the state’s 2018 passage of a constitutional amendment that legalized the possession and use of marijuana for recreational purposes.
The Michigan Supreme Court unanimously invalidated the sentences of more than 250 people serving life sentences for crimes committed when they were 18 years old, holding that such sentences violate state and federal constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. The decision expands a previous holding that found life sentences are unconstitutional when applied to those convicted of crimes committed as juveniles. Those affected by the ruling will receive resentencing hearings, and the court will soon consider whether to expand the ruling to people convicted of life sentences for crimes committed as 19- or 20-year-olds.
Minnesota
State of Minnesota v. Ryan James Martens
The Minnesota Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of a man who challenged his conviction for child sexual assault because his victim was no longer a minor by the time the abuse was reported. The court ruled that mandated reporters are required to file reports if they believe a child was abused within the past three years, even if the victim has since become an adult.
Missouri
In re: Circuit Attorney, 22nd Judicial Circuit ex rel. Christopher Dunn
In a 4-3 ruling, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the state’s attorney general may proceed with his appeal of a lower court ruling that vacated a man’s life sentence for a murder conviction due to alleged witness tampering by police officers and prosecutors. The court held that the state has a statutory right to appeal the lower court’s decision to vacate the life sentence over the objections of the circuit attorney, who had filed the motion to vacate the sentence. The man serving a life sentence had been exonerated and released after maintaining his innocence during the 34 years he spent in prison.
Nebraska
State of Nebraska ex rel. Hilgers v. Evnen
The Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that lawmakers intended parole eligibility provisions to apply retroactively when they enacted a criminal legal reform law to address the state’s ongoing prison overcrowding crisis in 2023. The ruling, which came as the result of a suit brought by the state’s attorney general against the secretary of state on the grounds that the law’s accelerated parole eligibility provisions violated the state constitution, will allow people sentenced prior to the law’s passage to access resources meant to facilitate meaningful rehabilitation that could result in earlier release.
Digital Privacy
New Hampshire
The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that the right to spousal privilege, which precludes prosecutors from compelling spouses to testify about private conversations between each other, does not prohibit prosecutors from introducing evidence of such conversations obtained through other means. The court’s decision will allow prosecutors to introduce an audio recording of a conversation between a former employee of the state’s Division for Children, Youth and Families; her husband; and their attorney, which was captured on the couple’s personal iPad, as evidence in the former employee’s trial on charges of witness tampering and falsifying evidence in connection with her husband’s trial on charges of felonious sexual assault of a child.
Nevada
Doe v. The Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada et al.
The Nevada Supreme Court ruled that the identity of John Doe, a person conducting surveillance of local elected officials by hiring a private investigator to attach tracking devices to their vehicles, must be revealed. Doe had argued that their identity should remain private because the First Amendment protects their activity, but the court held that the activity was not written or spoken speech, and as such is “non-expressive in nature and not subject to First Amendment protection.” The court remanded the case back to a lower court to determine the process by which the private investigator Doe employed will reveal Doe’s identity to the court.
Environmental Protections
Maine
Eastern Maine Conservation Initiative et al. v. Board of Environmental Protection
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court unanimously ruled that permits for a proposed land-based fish farm near the Atlantic coast were consistent with requirements laid out by state law, clearing the way for the project to move forward. The ruling dismissed a lawsuit brought by groups representing local fishermen and property owners that alleged state regulators failed to consider potential impacts that discharging treated wastewater into a bay near the proposed fish farm may have on wildlife in the bay.
Firearm Protections
Pennsylvania
Gustafson v. Springfield, Inc.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the constitutionality of a law passed by Congress in 2004 that protects firearm manufacturers from being held liable for injuries or deaths caused by firearms they produced. The decision dismissed a lawsuit brought by the parents of a 13-year-old boy who was shot to death by a 14-year-old friend against the manufacturer of the firearm and the store that sold it, ruling that both were protected from liability by the 2004 law.
Legislative Redistricting
Illinois
Mccombie et al. v. The Illinois State Board of Elections et al.
In a 6-1 opinion, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that Republicans legislators in the state’s House of Representatives waited too long to file a lawsuit that challenged legislative district maps that were adopted in 2021. The lawmakers had asked the court to strike down the maps because they alleged the districts lacked compactness in violation of the state constitution, resulting in a partisan gerrymander that has favored Democrats. The court ruled that the legislators had erred in waiting until several election cycles had taken place with the maps in effect to bring their lawsuit.
LGBTQ+ Rights
Mississippi
In an 8-1 ruling, the Mississippi Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s ruling that denied a transgender teenager’s petition to change their legal name to align with their gender identity. The teen filed their request to change their name, with consent from both parents, in 2023, when they were 16 years old. A county chancery judge denied the petition on the grounds that the name change would not be in the teen’s best interest. The teen appealed their case to the state’s highest court, which upheld the chancery judge’s ruling.
Property Rights
Arizona
Aroca, et al. v. Tang Investment
In a unanimous opinion, the Arizona Supreme Court overturned a precedent in a case from more than 100 years ago that required homeowners to pay off all debt before they could clear a lien on their property, holding that lienholders cannot keep liens on property after the six-year statute of limitations to sue for unpaid debts has expired. The ruling strengthens the rights of property owners in Arizona.
Qualified Immunity
New Mexico
Ferlic v. Mesilla Valley Regional Dispatch Authority
In a unanimous opinion, the New Mexico Supreme Court clarified a question that was posed to the court by a federal district court that asked it to determine which state law should apply in a case that sought damages for the alleged wrongful death of a teenager who suffered a fatal episode of heat stroke after a series of mistakes made by the 911 dispatcher delayed first responders’ arrival to the scene. The state’s highest court ruled that the federal court should apply a state law that provides immunity for dispatchers except where damages were caused by negligence; the implicated regional dispatch authority and the state’s department of public safety, who are defendants in the case, had urged the court to apply a different law that provides immunity except for intentional acts.
Workers’ Rights
Iowa
Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors Inc. d/b/a Toyota of Des Moines et al.
The Iowa Supreme Court ruled that an employer violated state laws governing the use of random drug testing in workplaces by failing to exempt employees who were not scheduled to work on the day of testing from the pool of employees who could be selected to undergo a random drug test as the law required, instead requiring alternate employees who were not originally in the pool to undergo tests in place of workers who were absent on days they were selected to be tested. The ruling affirmed legal protections for workers subject to random drug testing in their workplaces.
New Hampshire
Appeal of New Hampshire Department of Corrections
The New Hampshire Supreme Court unanimously ordered the state’s Personnel Appeals Board to reconsider its reinstatement of a corrections officer who was terminated by the Department of Corrections, ruling that the board violated its own policy when it ordered the department to return the officer to work without first granting the department a hearing where it sought to introduce evidence to support its argument that its termination of the officer, who was fired for allegedly using an illegal chokehold on an inmate, was justified. The court ordered the board to hold the hearing that the department had requested.
New York
Schulze v. City of Newburgh Fire Department
The New York Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that municipalities that overpay supplemental disability benefits cannot recover those funds from retirement benefits paid through the state’s workers’ compensation scheme. The court clarified that state law allows municipalities to recover such funds from wages, but not benefits, finding that the controlling state law was clearly intended to differentiate between wages and benefits and for benefits to be excluded from reimbursement avenues in the event of overpayment.
Oregon
Oregon-Columbia Chapter AGC v. ODOT
The Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the state’s Department of Transportation violated the state’s rulemaking process when it excluded a business association from the creation of an administrative rule to determine how the department would negotiate project labor agreements following the passage of a new law governing the scope of such agreements in 2021. The business association challenged the rule, and lower courts asked the state’s highest court to consider the case due to the novelty of the questions presented by the business association’s challenge to the new law. The court ruled that the department violated the law by failing to engage a public notice-and-comment period during the rulemaking process, invalidating the rule and a community workforce agreement the department negotiated with various trade councils and labor unions in accordance with the requirements of the invalidated rule.
South Dakota
Christiansen, et al v. Major General Morrell
The South Dakota Supreme Court issued an unprecedented ruling in a case brought by members of the state’s Air National Guard against the adjutant general that alleged the adjutant general violated several federal laws when he denied the members’ claims for employment benefits after they were involuntarily deactivated from service. The court ruled that the adjutant general failed to provide a sufficient legal basis for denying the claims and determined that the members are entitled to the accrued benefits.
