State of Justice: March 2026 Cases in the Courts

Executive Power and Civil Liberties  

Alabama    

Jennings v. Smith  

The Alabama Supreme Court ruled that a state law allowing police officers to stop and question people they reasonably suspect of criminal activity also allows officers to demand physical identification if they receive what they deem is an “incomplete or unsatisfactory oral response” when asking people to identify themselves. The court issued the advisory opinion in a matter under consideration by a federal district court stemming from a confrontation that began when a woman called police because an unfamiliar man was in her neighbors’ yard. The man told responding officers that he was “Pastor Jennings” and was watering his vacationing neighbors’ flowers. Police arrested him after he refused to show them physical identification and charged him with obstructing governmental function. He subsequently sued the city and its police department for false arrest. 

Colorado  

People v. Torres  

In a 5-2 opinion, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that police did not coerce a man suspected of criminal activity into making incriminating statements by repeatedly telling him that he had to waive his Miranda rights to discuss a warrant and statements made by another suspect with detectives, and also telling him that a judge would consider whether he cooperated when sentencing him, which might determine whether he would be freed from prison before his then-unborn son became an adult. The majority ruled that the man freely waived his rights after they were read to him and could have stopped speaking at any time, and allowed charges related to human trafficking, possession of drugs, and weapons to proceed. The two dissenting justices wrote that the detectives’ references to the man’s unborn child and possible leniency during his sentencing exploited his emotions and rendered his statements involuntary.  

Maryland 

Cutchember v. State and Hicks v. State 

The Maryland Supreme Court affirmed two appeals court rulings that determined that evidence collected as a result of vehicle searches in two separate cases remained admissible. The petitioners in the two cases had argued the evidence should not be admitted due to the passage of a 2023 law prohibiting law enforcement officers from stopping or searching people or vehicles based solely on the odor of cannabis. The law went into effect on July 1, 2023, and the two petitioners, whose vehicles were stopped and searched in January 2023, asked the court to find that the law should apply retroactively. The court ruled that, before July 1, 2023, judicial precedent permitted officers to initiate stops or searches based on the presence of a cannabis odor, and that the relief the petitioners requested was unavailable for searches conducted prior to that date. 

South Dakota    

In re: The Request of South Dakota Governor Larry Rhoden for an Advisory Opinion in the Matter of the Interpretation of the South Dakota Constitution Regarding the Lieutenant Governor’s Power to Vote on Final Passage of Legislation in the Case of a Tie While Serving as President of the Senate.  

In response to a request for an advisory opinion issued by the state’s governor, the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed that the lieutenant governor is empowered to cast tie-breaking votes when the state senate is deadlocked. The court’s opinion held that articles in the state constitution that authorize the lieutenant governor to act as president of the senate and empower the legislature to pass laws by a majority of votes do not conflict, but rather can be read together to grant tie-breaking power to the lieutenant governor. 

Democracy and Voting Rights  

Colorado   

In re Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause for Proposed Initiative 2025-2026 #158  

The Colorado Supreme Court determined that a ballot proposal seeking to enshrine a definition of “fees” in the state constitution and requiring voter approval to implement fees above a certain threshold cannot appear on ballots, ruling the proposal violated the state constitution by attempting to amend two separate subjects. The initiative’s organizers had argued that the definition of “fees” must be established in order to present the question of whether to require voter approval for new fees to voters. Still, the court wrote that the organizers’ attempt to define “fees” departed from judicially established definitions and must be presented to voters separately from the question of whether to require voter approval for new fees. 

Florida    

Pines v. DeSantis  

The Florida Supreme Court unanimously rejected a petition brought by two Florida voters that sought to block the state’s governor and secretary of state from changing how congressional elections are administered in Florida. The petition asked the court to prohibit the governor from calling a special legislative session to redraw the state’s congressional district maps and block the secretary of state from moving the candidate filing deadline back by six weeks to allow candidates to file paperwork establishing campaigns for the new districts. The court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to prevent the governor from exercising his authority to convene special legislative sessions or to usurp the secretary of state’s authority to interpret the state’s election laws.  

 Texas  

Coleman v. Adams  

The Texas Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s order extending polling hours on primary election day, after the state switched from centralized voter sites to separate locations for Democratic and Republican for the primaries caused confusion, long lines, and hundreds of voters being turned away. The Texas Supreme Court’s order blocking the lower court judge’s order required election officials to separate nearly 2,500 ballots cast by voters who were not in line by 7 pm and exclude them from the final tally of votes cast. 

Montana   

Kendrick v. Knudsen  

In a 5-2 opinion, the Montana Supreme Court ruled that a ballot proposal that seeks to protect Montanans’ rights to enact laws and constitutional amendments through citizen initiatives does not violate the state constitution. The attorney general had argued that the proposal would change more than one subject in the constitution, improperly usurp the authority of the state’s legislative and judicial branches, and trample due process rights by limiting timelines for potential legal challenges. The court rejected the attorney general’s arguments and ordered the attorney general to prepare language describing the ballot proposal to be forwarded to the secretary of state’s office. 

LGBTQ+ Americans  

South Dakota  

In the Matter of the Petition of Sigrid Kristiane Nielsen for an Amended Birth Certificate  

The South Dakota Supreme Court upheld a lower court order that denied a transgender woman’s petition to change the sex listed on her birth certificate. The petitioner alleged that the state violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution when it refused to issue her a birth certificate that reflected her gender identity, as it would for residents whose gender identity corresponds with the sex they were assigned at birth. The court ruled that no state law permits residents to change information on their birth certificates for reasons other than errors present at the time of their birth. 

Texas   

PFLAG, Inc. v. Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas  

The Texas Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s ruling that shielded the advocacy group PFLAG from a wide-ranging civil investigation by the state’s attorney general. The investigation sought to determine whether PFLAG is helping Texas healthcare providers circumvent the state’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors by seeking access to lists or referrals to gender-affirming healthcare providers maintained by PFLAG, as well as to its communications about such providers and alternative care options.  

The attorney general argued that an affidavit filed by PFLAG’s executive director as part of a legal challenge to the gender-affirming care ban had given his office a reasonable belief that the organization possessed information about providers’ attempts to circumvent the ban. The court agreed that the attorney general did not need concrete proof for a violation to issue the civil investigative demand. The court ordered PFLAG to release some of the documents to the attorney general’s office. It remanded other parts of the case back to a lower court to determine if PFLAG has the right to shield the disclosure of additional records through other legal means.  

Reproductive Rights  

Wyoming    

State of Wyoming v. Johnson  

The Wyoming Supreme Court denied a petition to reconsider its recent ruling that blocked the implementation of two state laws banning medication abortions and defining human life as beginning at the moment of conception. The court determined that the laws violated a provision of the state constitution that guarantees a fundamental right to make decisions about one’s own body. The attorney general’s office had asked the court to consider that it had wrongly determined the laws are unconstitutional by failing to consider that fetuses have a fundamental right to life. The court reiterated that it had already carefully considered the issues raised by the attorney general’s office when it denied the petition to rehear the cases.