State of Justice: June 2026 Cases in the Courts
Capital Punishment
California
The People v. Anthony George Bankston
In a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court reversed the death sentence of a Black man convicted of murder in 1991, marking the first time California’s Racial Justice Act was used to overturn a death sentence. The man had represented himself at his original trial, where a prosecutor compared him to a Bengal tiger—a story meant to show he was dangerous—during the sentencing portion of the case, which the court found was a racially biased way to argue for his execution. The Racial Justice Act, passed in 2020, allows prisoners to appeal their sentences if they believe racial bias affected the outcome of their case and specifically bans the Bengal tiger comparison by name. The murder conviction was not overturned, and the case was sent back to a lower court for a new sentencing hearing.
Georgia
State of Georgia et al. v. Federal Defender Program, Inc. et al.
The Georgia Supreme Court lifted a court order that had blocked the state from executing death row inmates under a Covid-era agreement, clearing a path for executions to resume. Georgia had agreed to pause executions in 2021 until a Covid vaccine was readily available to “all members of the public,” but the FDA has still not approved a vaccine for children under 6 months old, and lawyers for death row inmates argued this meant executions still could not resume. The court ruled that the condition had been satisfied, finding that while the FDA has not approved Covid vaccines for infants under 6 months, nothing legally prevents children of any age from receiving one if a parent requests it and a doctor approves, and that vaccines are generally not recommended for that age group anyway. The ruling means Georgia’s attorney general can now seek execution warrants for nine death row inmates.
Education
Iowa
In re Ezra L. Totton Scholarship
The Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the University of Iowa cannot repurpose a private scholarship that a donor specified should go to Black students majoring in the physical sciences, blocking the university’s attempt to redirect the funds to first-generation students instead. The university argued that the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, striking down affirmative action in college admissions, gave it legal grounds to redistribute the scholarship. The court found that because the scholarship comes from private funds rather than government money, donor intent is protected by law, and that it is up to the courts, not the university, to decide how the gift can be modified if administering it becomes impractical. The case was sent back to a lower court to determine how the funds should be handled, with instructions to consider the full terms of the donor’s will and possibly transfer the funds to another institution better able to administer the scholarship.
Election Administration
Arizona
State v. Ward, et al.
The Arizona Supreme Court rejected Attorney General Kris Mayes’ request to keep her prosecution of 18 Republicans charged with trying to overturn Arizona’s 2020 presidential election results moving forward, forcing the case back to the grand jury level. The case began in April 2024 when Mayes charged former Trump aides, lawyers, and supporters with forgery, fraud, and conspiracy for attempting to undo former President Joe Biden’s 10,457-vote victory in the state. Defense attorneys had successfully argued that the original grand jury was never shown the relevant portions of a federal law governing how presidential contests are certified, and a lower court ordered the case back to the grand jury. Mayes’ office said it will present the case in its entirety to a new grand jury rather than drop the prosecution.
Florida
Equal Ground Education Fund, Inc., et al. v. Secretary, Florida Department of State, et al.
The Florida Supreme Court ruled 6-1 to allow new congressional district maps drawn by Republicans to be used in the 2026 midterm elections, dealing another win to the GOP in a nationwide effort to redraw district lines mid-decade and protect the party’s slim U.S. House majority. Voters who sued argued that the new maps violate the Florida Constitution’s ban on partisan gerrymandering, noting that only 41% of voters in Democrat-held districts stayed in the same district under the new map, compared to 82% in Republican-held districts. The court did not rule on whether the maps were legal, instead saying it lacked the authority to intervene while the case works its way through lower courts. Republicans also argued that the anti-gerrymandering rules were invalid because another part of the same constitutional amendment conflicts with federal law, thereby voiding the entire amendment. The underlying lawsuit will continue in lower courts. It could continue into the 2028 election cycle, but the new maps will be used in the upcoming election.
Executive Authority and Civil Liberties
Louisiana
Gary Crockett v. State of Louisiana
In a 4-3 decision, the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld a state law eliminating the Orleans Parish clerk of criminal court, an elected position that was won by a New Orleans man who spent nearly 30 years in prison for a murder conviction that was later vacated. The man had won the election for the clerk’s office last year, but Republican lawmakers moved to abolish the position this spring, with Gov. Jeff Landry signing the bill into law and supporters claiming it was a matter of government efficiency. The court’s three Democratic justices dissented, saying the ruling gave lawmakers the power to nullify election results they disagreed with, while the conservative majority argued that eliminating the office was within the legislature’s authority. The ruling leaves the man with no path to taking office and also blocks a New Orleans City Council attempt to hold a special election that would have allowed him to run again.
New Jersey
Alex Rosetti v. Ramapo-Indian Hills Regional High School Board of Education
In a unanimous decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that government officials cannot hide public records by using personal email accounts for government business, finding that logs of personal emails used for government business must be turned over under the state’s Open Public Records Act. The case began in January 2023 with a request for email logs from members of a regional school board in Ramapo, New Jersey, and the board refused to provide logs from members’ personal accounts, arguing it had no obligation to do so and that searching private email servers would be too difficult. The court ruled that emails about government business are government records, regardless of where they are stored, and that any government-related emails from personal email addresses must be disclosed. Any personal emails unrelated to official government business are still protected. The court warned public officials to stop using personal email accounts for government business, saying the entire dispute could have been avoided if board members had used their official accounts from the start.
Ohio
The State Ex Rel. Center for Media and Democracy Et Al. v. Office of Attorney General Yost
The Ohio Supreme Court voted 6-1 to block a lower court’s order requiring former Attorney General David Yost to turn over records and sit for a deposition as part of a public records lawsuit. A transparency watchdog sued Yost in 2020 after he refused to release records related to his involvement with two conservative legal organizations, arguing the documents were personal records rather than public records. The court’s Republican majority ruled that the lower court had gone too far in allowing discovery, finding that in a public records case, before a judge can force a government official to hand over disputed documents, the court can only ask for evidence about whether those documents are public records in the first place, rather than diving into the documents themselves. The case was sent back to the lower court to redo the discovery process under that narrower standard, while the lone Democratic justice dissented, arguing the lower court had acted appropriately given what she described as the attorney general’s shifting and evasive responses.
Firearm Restrictions
Indiana
Smith & Wesson Corp., et al., v. City of Gary, Indiana
In a 4-1 vote, the Indiana Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from the City of Gary, effectively ending a 27-year-old lawsuit against major gun manufacturers. Gary filed the lawsuit in 1999, arguing that gun dealers and manufacturers contributed to gun violence in the city by allowing negligent sales practices such as illegal straw purchases, where someone legally buys a gun on behalf of a person who cannot. The case survived multiple dismissal attempts over the years but was dealt a fatal blow when the Republican-controlled state legislature passed a 2024 law that gave only the state attorney general the power to bring such lawsuits and applied that rule retroactively to just before Gary originally sued. With no path left in state court, gun violence prevention advocates plan to shift the focus to public campaigns and legislative pressure, while supporters of the decision argued manufacturers should not be held responsible for the criminal actions of third parties.
Native Americans
Oklahoma
State of Oklahoma ex rel. Stitt v. City of Tulsa, et al.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that a settlement agreement between the City of Tulsa and the Muscogee Nation is unenforceable because Tulsa signed it without getting the required approval from the state’s Joint Committee on State-Tribal Relations and the governor. The agreement grew out of a 2023 federal lawsuit in which the Muscogee Nation argued Tulsa no longer had the authority to prosecute tribal citizens for crimes committed on reservation land, and the resulting settlement would have had Tulsa drop all pending cases against tribal members and stop prosecuting them going forward. The court found the agreement was a new contract rather than an extension of an older agreement. That state law requires both the governor’s and the committee’s approval before any such deal between a city and a tribal government can take effect. The ruling does not permanently block the agreement, and Tulsa’s mayor said the city plans to work with the legislature to pursue a path forward.
Reproductive Rights
Nevada
Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, Inc. v. State of Nevada
The Nevada Supreme Court unanimously blocked enforcement of a 1985 state law that required doctors to notify the parents of a minor seeking an abortion, reversing a lower court that had allowed the law to take effect. The law had never been enforced and was declared unconstitutional in 1991, but a federal judge allowed it to be revived following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, and a state judge then ruled it could stand. The court found the law was unconstitutionally vague because it gave doctors no clear rules on how to notify parents or what counted as a reasonable effort to do so, and left physicians facing possible criminal charges without fair notice of what the law required, forcing them, as the court put it, into an impossible choice between denying urgent care or risking prosecution. The case was sent back to the lower court with instructions to issue a preliminary injunction blocking the law while the legal challenge continues.
Workers’ Rights
New York
Waldy Quinones Garcia v. Monadnock Construction, Inc. et al.
New York’s highest court ruled that the 2022 Justice for Injured Workers Act applies to lawsuits filed before the law was passed, including cases going back to at least 2020. The case involved a construction worker who was injured on the job and filed both a civil lawsuit and a workers’ compensation claim. When the workers’ compensation board ruled he had not suffered a qualifying injury, the construction company tried to use that ruling to win the civil lawsuit as well. The court rejected that argument, finding that the 2022 law, which bars courts from automatically using workers’ compensation decisions to determine the outcome of a separate civil case, could be applied retroactively because it did not deprive the company of any legal right it had at the time it acted. The ruling means injured workers who filed civil lawsuits before 2022 can still have their cases heard in full, even if a workers’ compensation board previously ruled against them.
