State of Justice: February 2026 Cases in the Courts

Consumer Protection 

Washington 

Scott v. Amazon.com, Inc. 

A unanimous Washington Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling that dismissed wrongful death lawsuits against Amazon for advertising a series of products in conjunction with one another that some buyers purchased with the intention of ending their lives. Since 2022, at least ten families have sued the Seattle-based retail giant Amazon after their loved ones died by suicide after consuming commercial-grade sodium nitrite purchased on the retail giant’s platform. Sodium nitrate has been linked to deaths among teenagers and adults from 28 families. Last year, a lower appeals court dismissed the first lawsuit under the state’s product liability law, concluding the families could not move forward because their loved ones’ deaths were suicides. The Supreme Court’s ruling means Amazon must now answer the lawsuits. 

Criminal Justice 

California  

Sellers v. Superior Court 

 A unanimous California Supreme Court ruled that police must find a usable quantity of smokable marijuana to meet the probable cause standard that would permit them to search a vehicle, and that such evidence is insufficient for prosecutors to charge drivers with an open container violation. The ruling overturned a Court of Appeal panel and two other lower court judges that had allowed prosecutors to charge a driver with a violation of the state’s open container law after police noted a rolling tray and the driver’s nervousness, which they argued constituted probable cause to search her vehicle, upon which they found .36 grams of loose marijuana crumbs on the floor of her car’s backseat. The court disagreed, ruling the police lacked probable cause to search the car and the prosecutors lacked sufficient evidence to charge the driver with violating the open container law. The court remanded the case back to the lower courts for further proceedings. 

Michigan 

People v. Robinson 

The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that its decision in a prior case, which gives people charged with felonies the right to a probable cause hearing or to waive their right to undergo a probable cause hearing before their case proceeds to trial, does not apply to people who were convicted before the court released the decision in 2022. The court’s latest ruling affirmed a Court of Appeals ruling that upheld a man’s 2011 premeditated murder conviction, which he appealed on the grounds that he was not given the opportunity to undergo a probable cause hearing and did not waive his right to such a hearing. The court ruled that its decisions do not apply retroactively as a general matter, and the man’s case did not meet the legal threshold that would require the court to apply its ruling retroactively. 

Oregon  

State v. Roberts 

The Oregon Supreme Court unanimously ruled that prosecutors must dismiss criminal charges against people who are not assigned a court-appointed attorney in time to ensure their constitutional rights to be represented by an attorney and receive a speedy trial are not violated. The court ruled that prosecutors must dismiss misdemeanor charges within two months and felony charges within three months. The ruling is part of a years-long legal challenge that came in response to the state’s critical shortage of public defenders. 

Education 

Idaho  

Committee to Protect and Preserve v. State 

The Idaho Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the constitutionality of the state’s new private school choice refundable tax credit, allowing the program to remain in effect. Several nonprofit organizations, school districts, local governments, teachers unions, and parents had challenged the program’s constitutionality, arguing it violates a section of the state constitution that requires the legislature to establish a “general, uniform, and thorough system of public, free common schools,” as well as its public purpose doctrine, which requires that taxpayer dollars be spent solely on public purposes. The tax credit reimburses parents up to $7,500 per year for tuition at private schools and prioritizes lower-income families, which the petitioners argued has resulted in the legislature directing public funds away from public schools and toward private schools, in violation of the state constitution. The court rejected the argument that funding private schools undermines education as a public good and allowed the tax credit to remain in effect.  

Kentucky  

Commonwealth of Kentucky, ex rel. Coleman v. Council for Better Education, Inc., et al. 

The Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that a 2022 law enacted by the Kentucky legislature allowing private charter schools to operate in three counties is unconstitutional, ruling the law violates a provision in the state constitution that requires the legislature to “provide for an efficient system of common schools.” The unanimous court found the law violated the constitution by allowing tax-funded schools that could not be regulated by a voter-elected school board, allowing private companies to use taxpayer dollars to purchase and maintain private ownership of property and buildings, and utilizing testing and teacher certification standards that differ from those set by the legislature for public schools. The court also noted that Kentucky voters rejected a 2024 ballot proposal to amend the constitution to allow the legislature to fund nonpublic schools, and affirmed that schools funded by taxpayers must be public unless voters consent to a constitutional amendment. 

Election Administration 

Alaska  

Alaska Policy Forum v. Alaska Public Offices Commission; Yes On 2 for Better Elections; and Protect My Ballot 

The Alaska Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the state’s campaign finance regulations do not violate the First Amendment. The case resolved a lawsuit brought by a nonprofit organization against the state of Alaska and organizers of a recent successful ballot campaign to strengthen the campaign finance regulations. The organization filed the lawsuit after the state fined it for failing to comply with the regulations, which require people and organizations that spend money to influence elections in Alaska to report their expenditures to the state and disclose their identity on campaign materials. The court ruled that the regulations do not unconstitutionally burden free speech rights and ordered the organization to pay the fines.  

Utah  

League of Women Voters of Utah v. Utah State Legislature 

A panel of Utah Supreme Court justices denied an appeal by the legislature that asked the court to stay a district court’s ruling ordering a remedial congressional district map to take effect. The appeal stemmed from an August 2025 ruling that invalidated the congressional map drawn by the legislature in 2021 because it split the Democratic-leaning Salt Lake County into four solidly Republican districts; the remedial map created a Democratic-leaning congressional district around Salt Lake County. The court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the legislature’s request because some aspects of the case remain pending in lower courts. 

Executive Power and Civil Liberties 

Vermont  

Echeverria and Pratt v. Town of Tunbridge 

The Vermont Supreme Court ruled that municipalities are authorized to maintain legal trails – former public roads that are no longer used for vehicular traffic – including where they cross private property. The dispute arose when two landowners sought to block their town from maintaining two legal trails that crossed their land for use by local bicyclists. The court held that legal trails are public rights-of-way, a status that gives municipalities the authority to maintain and preserve the trails for public use. 

Virginia 

Mast, et al. v. A.A., et al. 

In a first-of-its-kind decision, four of seven Virginia Supreme Court justices ruled that a U.S. Marine and his wife will keep custody of an Afghan orphan, citing legal finality despite the Afghan government’s objection and decision to reunite her with her family. The court found that, under Virginia law, any challenge to the adoption must have been filed within six months—even if fraud was involved—so the adoption remains valid.  

Voting Rights 

Nebraska  

Essink v. Evnen 

The Nebraska Supreme Court denied a motion to prohibit the secretary of state from releasing sensitive data contained in the state’s qualified voter file to the federal Department of Justice (DOJ). The motion was part of a petition filed by a Nebraska voter that seeks to stop the DOJ from obtaining Nebraska voters’ private data in its quest to obtain voter data from all states. The DOJ has stated it intends to audit voter rolls to ensure only qualified individuals are registered to vote and to search for evidence of so-called “non-citizen voting.” The petitioner’s motion asked the court to stop the secretary of state from complying with any of the DOJ’s requests until the court has had a chance to hear oral arguments in the case and decide on its merits. The court denied the petitioner’s request to block the secretary of state from cooperating with the DOJ but granted a motion to expedite the appeal, setting oral arguments for March 31, 2026. Nebraska Secretary of State Bob Evnen released the state’s qualified voter file to the DOJ the day after the court’s decision. 

Virginia 

McDougle v. Nardo 

The Virginia Supreme Court cleared the way for a special election on April 21, in which voters will be asked to approve a proposed state constitutional amendment. If approved, the amendment would allow the state legislature to bypass the state’s redistricting commission and draw congressional maps more favorable to Democrats in response to the President calling for partisan gerrymandering in Republican strongholds. This procedural decision allows the April 21 referendum to go forward. If passed, the amendment could shift the balance of power in Virginia’s congressional delegation, potentially giving Democrats 10 of 11 congressional seats instead of the current balance of 6 of 11 congressional seats. 

Workers’ Rights 

Connecticut  

Del Rio v. Amazon.com Services, Inc. 

The Connecticut 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 class action suit brought by Amazon workers who were not paid for the time they spent waiting to undergo security screenings, which the company required its workers to complete at the end of each shift before they were permitted to leave its premises. 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, but the court determined that the state’s wage laws offer more protections than federal wage laws and unambiguously require employers to pay workers for any time they are required to spend on the company’s premises whether or not they are working.