State of Justice: February 2026 Keep Your Eyes On
Alaska
Alaska Supremes want input on how to fix Grand Jury rights controversy
In Alaska, the grand jury’s rights to investigate and indict public officials for corruption or wrongdoing are hotly contested and are now up for public comment. The controversy stems from a series of rule changes made by the Alaska Supreme Court in 2022 and the state Department of Law’s subsequent actions to alter the grand jury process. In 2022, a grand jury held an investigation into corruption in the Department of Law, and during the investigation, the supreme court stepped in and severely undercut the jury’s right and ability to investigate and indict any crimes uncovered during the investigation. As a result of the new rules, the state department of law holds discretion over whether citizen complaints of wrongdoing should be investigated by grand juries. Advocates argue the new rules violation the grand juries’ constitutional right to investigate and indict. Now, the supreme court is asking for public comment through April 6 on its newly revised rules.
Arizona
Court battle over DEI training at Arizona State University advances to state Supreme Court
The conservative group The Goldwater Institute and a professor at Arizona State University are challenging ASU’s inclusive communities training for professors before the state supreme court. The lawsuit follows a vote by the state board of education to eliminate DEI from the curriculum. The plaintiffs are asking the court to revisit a lower court decision finding no right to challenge the practices under the state’s anti-DEI statute. In 2021, the legislature passed a bill barring DEI training to public employees or any public funds being directed towards those programs.
California
California Supreme Court has had a vacancy for over three months. Here’s how it impacts cases
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) still has not named a nominee to succeed retired Justice Martin Jenkins on the state supreme court. Jenkins left the court in October 2025. In the interim between a justice’s retirement and the governor’s nomination, the remaining justices invite a lower court judge, selected in alphabetical order, to join them in hearing cases. However, the temporary justice does not write opinions and, most of the time, will join a majority or dissenting opinion. Because of that, the caseload is deferred to the remaining six justices, which not only adds delays and more work but also decreases the number of voices to discuss opinions, research, or review of lower court decisions.
Florida
Florida Supreme Court asked to revive recreational pot push
Smart and Safe Florida, the sponsor of a constitutional amendment to legalize recreational use of marijuana in Florida, is asking the state supreme court to review the state’s decision to throw out over 70,000 signatures that were gathered. The state dismissed signatures from inactive voters as well as signatures that were gathered by non-residents. Smart and Safe Florida argues that the state did not inform them that only active voters’ signatures would be counted. An appeals panel found partly in favor of Smart and Safe Florida, reversing a lower court decision and allowing the inactive voter signatures to count, but not those gathered by non-residents. The appeal before the supreme court centers on whether the non-resident gathered signatures may be counted. The court may also revisit claims that the court’s earlier refusal to review ballot language is now appropriate for reconsideration because the court’s acknowledgment that the lower courts erred in throwing out signatures.
Idaho
‘Fundamentally bad’: Critics say new Idaho bill would hamper courts
A conservative Idaho state senator just proposed a bill that would block individuals appointed to the supreme, appellate, or district courts from running for their appointed seat in the next election. That individual could run for election in subsequent elections but would need to sit out of the first election following their appointment. Currently in Idaho, if an interim vacancy emerges, the governor selects an appointee from a shortlist provided by the judicial nominating commission, and the appointee serves the remainder of the term. The bill is currently awaiting a committee hearing in the state senate.
Kansas
Kansas lawmakers want to reveal more about the people picking Supreme Court justices
A Kansas Senate committee will vote on a bill seeking to make some information about Supreme Court Nominating Commission members and prospective applicants to vacancies available to the public. Currently, under a rule set by the state supreme court, all records related to the commission are confidential and may be released to the public at the commission’s discretion. The commission is comprised of nine members, five attorneys and four non-attorneys. The chair is an attorney, and the remaining members represent the state’s congressional districts. The governor appoints the non-attorney members and lawyers vote on the attorney members. Concurrently, there is proposed constitutional amendment that voters will consider in the August 4 elections that would change the state’s judicial selection process from gubernatorial appointment to partisan election.
Maryland
Maryland Supreme Court to hear case on if student can sue Towson University over 2021 shooting
The Maryland Supreme Court will hear a student’s case against Towson University. The student, Catherine Torney, was one of three victims in a shooting that occurred at an unsanctioned campus party in 2023. Torney subsequently sued the university for negligence and lost at the lower and appellate courts. Now, the state supreme court has agreed to review Torney’s case and decide whether she had grounds to sue.
Massachusetts
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to take up White Stadium case
Residents and advocacy groups are challenging Boston’s redevelopment plan for a local soccer stadium. The plan is a partnership between the city, public schools, and the soccer clubs behind the stadium. Opponents of the plan claim it violates the state’s public parkland use laws, which require legislative approval for changing the use of public parklands. A lower court judge dismissed their claims. Now, the state’s highest court will review their case.
Massachusetts
AG Campbell asks SJC to toss out DiZoglio lawsuit on auditing the Legislature
Massachusetts State Auditor Diana DiZoglio asked the state’s highest court to intervene and force the legislature to hand over documents related to her audit of their expenditures in early February. In 2024, voters approved giving DiZoglio power to audit and investigate the state legislature. However, state house and senate leaders have refused to cooperate, claiming it violates the separation of powers. In her appeal, DiZoglio also asks the court to appoint a special assistant attorney general in the state auditor’s office. This comes after failed attempts to convince the state attorney general to appoint someone to that position. In response, Attorney General Andrea Campbell claims DiZoglio violated the state constitution by going around the attorney general’s office.
Michigan
Do child predator sting operations amount to entrapment? High court to decide
The Michigan Supreme Court will determine if the Genesee Human Oppression Strike Team’s (GHOST) operation practices qualify as entrapment after hearing oral arguments last month. The case centers on Jayneel Jade, the defendant. Jade sought escort services online and arranged them with an undercover GHOST agent. During their conversations, the GHOST agent claimed to be underage, and despite initially having reservations, Jade agreed to meet at a hotel. Subsequently, Jade was arrested and charged. Jade’s attorneys argue that the officer’s behavior leading up to the arrest qualifies as entrapment. The lower courts ruled in favor of the government, finding the GHOST team simply presented Jade with an opportunity to commit a crime, and Jade acted on the opportunity. The supreme court’s ruling, however, could have statewide implications since the GHOST team and their operation procedures have served as a blueprint for similar taskforces and prosecutions across the state.
State Supreme Court takes up warrantless DNA test in gruesome Burton murder case
David Serges, a man convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, had the appeal in his murder conviction heard by the Michigan Supreme Court. Serges and his attorneys allege that police violated Serges’ rights and executed a warrantless search when they tested blood on his pants without a warrant or consent when he was arrested on an unrelated charge. Serges’ attorneys also raised an additional claim that his previous counsel failed to raise in previous appeals. The lower courts found in favor of the government, finding that Serges had no reasonable expectation of privacy while in police custody as a jail detainee.
Michigan Supreme Court says state cannot bypass the lower courts in fight over work project funds
After Michigan House Republicans cut to the designated $645 million in state work project funds, the state attorney general alleged Republicans engaged in an unconstitutional process to slash the funds. Subsequently, the Republican house speaker sued the state in the court of the claims. However, the state sought an injunction from the appellate and supreme court after the court of claims issued a denial. The supreme court ordered that it will not issue an injunction until the court of claims makes its decision.
Missouri
Missouri Supreme Court weighs wrongful conviction payout
The Missouri Supreme Court will determine who must pay Michael Holmes, a man who was wrongfully convicted and later exonerated. In 2016, Michael won a judgment against the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department after suing for wrongful conviction. However, by the time the judgement was rendered, the police department had switched control from under the city to the state. Now, the state is arguing that Holmes’ earlier judgement is not guaranteed by the State Legal Expense Fund. The court must decide if the state is required to pay Holmes.
Missouri Republican anger about state Supreme Court leads to cancellation of judiciary speech
Because the Missouri Supreme Court struck down a bill that sought to prevent courts from rewriting ballot measure language, the court’s chief justice was unable to deliver the annual state of the judiciary speech due to retaliation from conservative state house leaders. Republican state house members also made denigrating comments, attacking the court and the justices’ decision-making. The members’ comments come at a time of hyper-partisanship surrounding the courts, not only with increasing spending in judicial elections but also increased violence toward and heightened attention and scrutiny of the courts at all levels. While some are upset with the court’s role here, others argue that the court’s function is to maintain checks and balances and prevent overreach by the legislature.
North Carolina
Parents, educators ask for NC Supreme Court ruling over multi-billion Leandro lawsuit plan
Two years ago, the North Carolina Supreme Court reheard Leandro v. North Carolina, a case that has been working its way around and through the state’s judicial system since 1994. The court previously found that the state constitution guarantees every child’s right to a “sound and basic” education and ordered the state to ensure funding to resolve gaps in public education funding. Subsequently, a lower court ruled that $677.8 million is owed to students across the state to comply with the supreme court’s ruling. Then Republican state senate leader Phil Berger—a current supreme court justice’s father—and House Speaker Tim Moore sought to intervene and relitigate the lower court finding as to money owed to students across the state. The supreme court, as a result, reheard the case which could lead to the court overturning its previous ruling thereby undermining the state’s public education funding and weakening opportunities for education equity across the state. Yet, two years later, the state, parents, and students are still without an answer in the case.
NC Supreme Court issues order in stagnant Riggs-Griffin-related lawsuits
Despite the fact that Justice Allison Riggs was certified as the winner of the 2024 North Carolina Supreme Court election in May 2025 after a drawn-out legal battle in state and federal courts, there are still two lawsuits challenging the 2024 supreme court election being led by the Republican National Committee, the North Carolina Republican Party, and some voters. Subsequently, in an order released by the court, with Riggs recusing, the court gave the plaintiffs 30 days to explain what relief they are seeking.
Ohio
Ohio AG’s flavored vape crackdown goes to state Supreme Court
The Ohio Supreme Court agreed to hear the state attorney general’s appeal in a case challenging the state’s ability to ban e-cigarettes and flavored vapes. In 2024, state Attorney General David Yost filed lawsuits against multiple sellers of flavored tobacco and vapes under the state consumer protection law. However, lower and appellate courts have ruled against Yost, finding that federal law and regulations preempt the state’s attempt to regulate these sales.
Oklahoma
State Farm asks Oklahoma Supreme Court to block AG from intervening in customer lawsuit
The Oklahoma Supreme Court may hear a case challenging the claim that State Farm Insurance engaged in a plan to limit and deny hail claims across the state. State Farm is asking the state supreme court to intervene in a case, originally brought by one couple, in which the state attorney general is stepping in and seeking to help the couple. The case could have implications for hundreds of other claimants across the state.
Tennessee
Tennessee Supreme Court hears arguments in Legislature’s laws targeting Nashville
The Tennessee Supreme Court heard arguments in a case challenging the legislature’s ability to regulate local law. The case challenges the legislature’s attempt to seize control of the Metro Nashville Airport Authority and to reduce the size of the city council. The Democratic-led city and conservative controlled legislature have been at odds for a while. The city argued that under the state’s home rule the legislature cannot enact those laws without local authority. The court seemed sympathetic to this argument when discussing control over the airport authority, but skeptical when it came to the council legislation since it could impact more cities than just Nashville.
Wisconsin
Wisconsin Supreme Court justices call arguments against minority college grants ‘shocking’
The conservative litigation and advocacy group Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) challenged the state’s Minority Undergraduate Retention Grant program, claiming it discriminates based on race. The program has existed since the 1980s and sought to provide small financial grants to students of color. However, since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision overturning affirmative action, state Republicans have consistently attacked this program. The 2nd District Court of Appeals found in favor of the WILL, and the state attorney general appealed the case before the supreme court. The supreme court took up the case late last year and heard oral arguments in mid-February.
Wyoming
Wyoming Supreme Court hears arguments regarding school vouchers
Last year, after the Wyoming Education Association challenged the Steamboat Legacy Scholarship Act and Education Savings Account (ESA) program, a lower court judge ordered a preliminary injunction ad indefinitely paused the program. The ESA program was created by the state legislature by diverting $30 million of public funds to give parents $7,000 per child to send their kids to private schools or homeschools. The state supreme court heard oral arguments in challenge led by the state attorney general’s office seeking to reverse the injunction.
