State of Justice: April Keep Your Eyes On
Arizona – Battle to change how appeals judges are elected reaches Arizona Supreme Court
The Arizona Supreme Court will decide if state court of appeals judges should be elected by county or in statewide elections. The conservative think tank, the Goldwater Institute, asks the court to completely change the state’s selection method for court of appeals judges. The previous effort to change the selection method in the state legislature was unsuccessful, and now the conservative think tank is asking the court to move from selecting judges by county of residence to statewide elections. The current system requires candidates to run for election in their county of residence and splits the court into two divisions. Maricopa, Yuma, La Paz, Mohave, Coconino, Yavapai, Navajo, and Apache counties comprise Division One and have 19 judges. Of the 19, 10 come from Maricopa County. Five of the remaining nine judges must be from and retained by voters in each of the remaining counties, and four may be from any county in the division. Division Two is comprised of Pima, Pinal, Cochise, Santa Cruz, Greenlee, Graham, and Gila counties, with nine judges—four from Pima County, two from the remaining, and three from any. The Goldwater Institute brought the case on behalf of four voters, claiming the system violated the state constitution, and former state supreme court justice Andrew Gould argued the case on their behalf. Emma Mark represented the state solicitor general’s office and asked the court to uphold a lower court ruling blocking the effort to change the selection method.
California – California Supreme Court to Review PAGA Arbitration Split
After the California Court of Appeals delivered split decisions on employers’ arbitration authority in “headless” claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), the California Supreme Court will take up the case. PAGA allows employees to sue their employers for labor violations. Headless claims are cases where plaintiffs act in representative capacities. One appellate court found that employers may not force arbitration in headless PAGA claims; another found that PAGA plaintiffs cannot bring complaints in a representative capacity.
Colorado – Colorado Supreme Court accepts cases on leaving the scene of accidents, insurance
The Colorado Supreme Court will determine if prosecutors must prove defendants’ mental state and that they knew they were involved in an accident that caused death or injury in order to be convicted for leaving a crime scene. The case centers around Jason Brown, who was convicted of driving a large pickup truck drunk and running over two people sleeping in an alley. Brown’s charges included misdemeanor DUI and leaving the scene of an accident that resulted in death or serious injury. After his conviction, Brown appealed his charges, including fleeing the scene. Brown claimed he cannot be held liable without proof that he knew of the death or injury.
The court will also evaluate how insurers can dispute the cause of accidents if one party does not participate in the litigation. Following a car accident, Andrew Ortiz sued the other driver and Progressive, his insurance company, after it denied his claim. Because the other driver did not participate in the case, Ortiz won the case. The other driver was uninsured, so Progressive had to award Ortiz damages for the other driver’s actions. Progressive subsequently challenged that decision, claiming it had a right to at least dispute the other driver’s liability.
Colorado – Durango & Silverton land-use dispute aired to Colorado Supreme Court
Public Utilities Commission found La Plata County can regulate changes to a tourist attraction. La Plata claims the Durango and Silverton Narrow Gauge Railroad Company’s new railroad route violated county land use codes and ordered the company to stop using the route and related buildings and structures. The company claims the county does not have the authority to regulate the route or its operations, but rather the state utilities commission. However, La Plata had already asked the commission for authority, and the commission granted the county authority. The state supreme court will decide if the county rightfully went to the commission to determine if the commission or the county could regulate the use of the railroad and the commission’s authority to make that determination.
Georgia – This Georgia Case Could Decide the Future of Gullah Geechee Land on Sapelo Island
Sapelo Island residents sued McIntosh County officials after officials blocked residents from holding a voter referendum that would have prevented a zoning ordinance in a historic neighborhood from going into effect. After McIntosh County officials revised zoning laws to allow for the construction of larger homes in the Hog Hammock Historic District. Residents feared this ordinance would drive up the cost of living and displace them from the Gullah Geechee community, descendants of West and Central African people who were enslaved throughout the coastal southeast, on the Georgia coast. The residents collected signatures and asked a probate court to put the referendum on the ballot. County officials appealed to the superior court and successfully prevented the election, despite over 800 people already voting. Now, the state supreme court will determine the scope of the state constitution’s home rule provision and whether the county violated it.
Idaho – Idaho Supreme Court hears road validation appeal
After Shoshone County resident Joe Avery blocked access to a road that intersected with his property, other residents asked the Shoshone County commissioners (BOCC) to review the road to determine if it constituted a public highway. BOCC denied the request multiple times, and after the denial, the petitioners appealed to the state district court. The district court ruled in favor of BOCC. The petitioners claim BOCC ignored evidence that supported the belief that the roadway was a public highway and did not provide substantial evidence to support their rulings. The Idaho Supreme Court will determine if BOCC was correct to deny the road validation requests or if they must reopen the issue.
Illinois – Seventh Circuit certifies pollution exclusion question to Illinois Supreme Court
Questions in federal litigation surrounding Griffith Foods International and Sterigenics US’s ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions and resulting injuries are before the Illinois Supreme Court. Griffith and Sterigenics received permits from the state environmental protection agency for their operations and resulting emissions. However, the permit didn’t limit the amount of emissions. Subsequent health reports for Willowbroook, Illinois, the surrounding village, found increased cancer rates in the community. Over 800 residents sued the companies for bodily injury. Griffith and their insurer denied commercial liability coverage to the company because of a pollution exclusion clause in the policy. Griffith sued in federal court to determine if the insurer has a duty to cover them because an agency permitted their pollution. The federal district court found in favor of the plaintiffs. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit then ordered the Illinois Supreme Court to determine if emissions under a regulatory permit fall under the scope of a pollution exclusion in a commercial general liability policy.
Kansas – JoCo job candidate refused to get COVID-19 vaccine. KS Supreme Court hears her case
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Kaitlin Keeran applied for a job with Powerback Rehabilitation. Powerback offered her the job, contingent upon proof of vaccination. Keeran claimed to have a religious exemption against the vaccine. Powerback asked further questions about her history with vaccines and ultimately rescinded her offer because of her vaccination status. Keeran claims that she should have been exempted under state law that mandates employees must grant religious exemptions without further question. However, federal law at the time mandated that certain facilities must have vaccinated staff to receive Medicare and Medicaid funding. The state supreme court will determine the constitutionality of the state law and whether it conflicts with federal law.
Kentucky – County clashes with police union over no-knock warrant ban in Kentucky Supreme Court
A police union is challenging a county’s ban on no-knock warrants. Following the death of Breonna Taylor, the state legislature passed the bill to regulate the use of those warrants, and Lexington-Fayette Urban County subsequently passed a law completely banning the use. The union argued that those types of warrants are necessary for officers’ safety. At the same time, the state maintains that the law is constitutional, as the state law did not prohibit further regulation. The court’s decision could have significant implications for local police reform and accountability.
Maine – A Maine judge might not release people from jail until the state’s top court weighs in
ACLU of Maine sued the state for failing to fulfill its Sixth Amendment constitutional duty to provide indigent counsel due to the massive backlog of indigent defense cases and lack of public defenders. Superior court Justice Micheala Murphy is evaluating the indigent defense commission’s plan to address the backlog. However, in a previous hearing, Murphy stated her intent to release defendants who waited over two weeks without meeting an attorney to be released from jail. All charges will be dropped if the person has been without counsel for over 60 days. The state commission appealed this case to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, the state’s highest court of appeal, and asked the court to block the defendants’ release until the supreme court hears the case.
Maryland – MD top court takes up appealability of child support, alimony orders
After Jennifer Adelakun’s requests for child support and alimony from her ex-husband were denied, she appealed her case to the state supreme court. In the hearings, the justices questioned Adelakun, pointing to the lack of evidence that the child’s needs are not being met, so the additional funds are necessary.
Massachusetts – Massachusetts high court wonders: Is it legal to get drunk in a camper?
Michael Wurtzberger rented and slept in a U-Haul on a beach while on a fishing trip with a friend. Police found him parked illegally with the car radio on, surrounded by liquor bottles. Wurtzberger admitted to drinking beers earlier that night but said he didn’t intend to drive. Police arrested and charged him with operating a motor vehicle under the influence, but the law doesn’t define what constitutes operating. During oral arguments, the justices questioned the law’s applicability to unhoused individuals who may be living in their cars. Massachusetts Supreme Court justices may be poised to reshape the state’s DUI law.
Minnesota – The Indian Child Welfare Act is before the Minnesota Supreme Court again. Here’s why
Foster parents of twin Native children are asking the Minnesota Supreme Court to declare the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) unconstitutional after being denied adoption rights to their foster children. The IWCA intends to protect tribal sovereignty and prevent severing cultural ties to tribes. The foster parents are claiming the act is discriminatory and violates their Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The attorney for the Red Lake Nation raised that the foster parents are only bringing this case ultimately to have it appear before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Mississippi – Could defamation suit between Phil Bryant and Mississippi Today head to the state supreme court?
Former governor Phil Bryant plans to take his defamation case against Mississippi Today to the state supreme court. Mississippi Today released a series outlining former Gov. Phil Bryant’s role in a statewide welfare scheme that diverted $77 million away from welfare recipients towards private projects. Bryant sued the outlet after some top officials commented publicly about his potential role in the scandal. The Madison County circuit court dismissed Bryant’s case.
Nebraska – Nebraska Supreme Court hears arguments over Lincoln’s firearm restrictions
The Nebraska Supreme Court heard a challenge to Lincoln Mayor Leirion Gaylor Baird’s executive order banning weapons in parks, trails, and other public spaces. The plaintiffs claim it violates state law that allows for constitutional carry.
Nevada – Las Vegas neighbors signal appeal to Nevada Supreme Court in LDS temple suit
The Nevada Rural Preservation Alliance is challenging Las Vegas’ approval to construct a Latter-day Saints temple before the state supreme court. Some rural residents believe some of the building’s designs conflict with the interlocal agreement between the city and Clark County. A district court dismissed the residents’ case.
New Jersey – Was the state takeover of the Paterson police overreach or warranted intervention?
The New Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police is challenging Attorney General Matt Platkin’s takeover of the Paterson Police Department in 2023. Earlier that year, the Paterson Police Department fatally shot a Black man who called 911 and the police to his house during a mental health crisis. That shooting was the department’s eighth death since 2019. As a result, Platkin exerted increased oversight on the department and hired an outside consultant from New York to supervise them. Platkin claimed he had authority under the 1970 Criminal Justice Act. The state legislature subsequently passed Chapter 94, allowing the attorney general to supersede a law enforcement agency with an officer from outside the department. Paterson officials then sued the state, claiming the state did not have the authority under the state constitution’s home rule provision. Now, the state supreme court will review whether the attorney general had the authority under the act, as well as review Chapter 94.
New Mexico – New Mexico Supreme Court adopts bill of rights for adults under guardianship
The New Mexico Supreme Court adopted a Bill of Rights for Adults Who Have a Guardian, which lists 21 rights in areas of access to justice, core human rights, and decision-making, and outlines procedures that must be followed when problems arise in guardianship arrangements. The Working Interdisciplinary Network of Guardianship Stakeholders drafted and promoted the bill of rights. It will be distributed to district courts, which will work to notify guardians and adults under guardianship across the state.
The New York Court of Appeals will hear an appeal in the case of a father whose parental rights were terminated after the New York City Administration for Children’s Services concluded that the man’s wife was unable to care for their child due to her disability and that the man was unfit to parent his child due to his alleged lack of understanding of his wife’s disability. Attorneys for the man have argued that the state failed to make disability or language accommodations available to the man or his wife in violation of laws that protect parents from discrimination on the basis of their disability status and national origin.
New York – New York’s Top Court Eyes Standard of Review for Lowering Sentences Under 2019 State Law
The New York Court of Appeals will determine if an appellate court judge had the authority to lower a woman’s sentence under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act of 2019 (DVSJA). DVSJA allows the court to reduce domestic violence survivors’ sentences if they experienced prior trauma that contributed to their committing the crime. The current appeal centers on a woman convicted of fatally stabbing her boyfriend. The trial court denied her request to lower her 20-year sentence. Then on appeal, the judge lowered her sentence to eight years, and because of her time served, got rid of her probation period. As a result, prosecutors appealed the case to the court of appeals.
Ohio – Same-sex parenting rights under scrutiny in Ohio Supreme Court case set for oral argument this month
The Ohio Supreme Court heard oral arguments that could reshape parental rights for same-sex couples. Priya Shahani and Carmen Edmonds were previously in a relationship for over a decade and were even going to marry each other. During their relationship, Shahani conceived three children using a sperm donor, and that donor was selected because he shared the same ethnicity as Edmonds. The children used hyphenated last names and were raised with both parents. After 11 years, the couple wanted to end their relationship legally. However, adoptive rights were never established because they were never officially married. Shahani then attempted to remove Edmonds’ last name from the children’s names and sought to end shared custody between the two of them. Edmonds argues that their relationship, under federal protections created by the Obergefell decision, constitutes enough to establish legal parenthood. Now, the court will determine whether Edmonds is entitled to those protections.
Ohio – Maumee asks Ohio Supreme Court to block recall effort of officials
Maumee residents are attempting to recall the city’s mayor and nearly all sitting council members. The group supporting the recall effort first raised objections with the city’s leadership over changes to sewer and rental ordinances in the city. The group also hopes to recall effort will eventually result in officials that will replace the city administrator. Maumee claims the city charter does not include a recall option. Maumee lost to the residents in its challenges with the county elections board, trial court, and appellate court.
Oregon – Is a steak knife a weapon? Oregon Supreme Court takes a stab at it
The Oregon Supreme Court will decide when an object constitutes a weapon. The question arose after Anthony Richard Cortez attended a probation meeting with a knife sticking out of his backpack, and his probation officer found Cortez’s possession of the knife violated his probation. Cortez’s attorneys are asking the court to define the difference between a knife, a tool, and a utensil. The justices’ decision could impact future criminal law in the state.
Oregon – Oregon gun owners appeal to state Supreme Court to review gun control Measure 114
Reviewing the constitutionality of Measure 114. Measure 114 was a voter-approved gun reform measure passed in 2022. It bans the sale, transfer, or manufacture of high-capacity magazines, requires permits to purchase a gun, and requires background checks before a gun’s sale or transfer. Gun owners claim the law is an infringement on their Second Amendment rights. Gun owners successfully blocked the law at the trial court level, but the state court of appeals overturned the lower court’s decision. Now, gun owners are asking the state supreme court to step in and rule on the matter.
Pennsylvania – Pennsylvania Supreme Court to rule on warrantless searches for private land owners
Private hunting club owners are challenging game wardens’ ability to enforce hunting and game laws on private property. Under the current law, game wardens may walk onto marked private property to regulate game laws without a warrant. A local hunt club is now asking the state supreme court to revisit those powers and step in to protect private property.
South Carolina – SC Supreme Court declines to halt proceedings for state treasurer’s removal
The South Carolina Supreme Court declined to halt efforts by the state legislature to remove the state’s treasurer from office, dismissing a lawsuit brought by the embattled state treasurer that sought an injunction into an investigation by the state senate into whether the treasurer willfully neglected his duties in connection with a $1.8 billion accounting error that the treasury department did not report for nearly a decade. The state legislature is attempting to use an obscure constitutional provision to remove the treasurer from office following his repeated refusals to resign and insistence that he will run for reelection in 2026. Two other top state financial officials have already resigned in connection with related accounting errors.
Wyoming – Wyoming Supreme Court mulls constitutionality of state’s abortion bans
The Wyoming Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that could almost completely eradicate abortion access in the state. The legislature recently passed a series of abortion bans, completely restricting access to medication abortion and eliminating access to nearly all abortions. The arguments centered on Section 38 in the state constitution, which states “[e]ach competent adult shall have the right to make his or her own health care decisions.” Abortion providers, as well as other supporters, brought the case challenging the bans. The court has until August 14 to issue a decision. While abortion remains technically legal in the state, access is severely limited.
