State of Justice: March 2026 Keep Your Eyes On
Alaska
Alaska Supreme Court considers limits of executive and legislative power, including on abortion
The Alaska Supreme Court is reviewing a case involving the state constitution’s confinement clause, which requires that “[b]ills for appropriations shall be confined to appropriations.” The case stems from a dispute between the state legislature and Gov. Mike Dunleavy. Dunleavy controversially issued an executive order restructuring public union dues and requiring members to opt in annually to membership. Dunleavy was sued over it and used public funds to hire a DC law firm to defend himself. In that case, the supreme court found that Dunleavy acted illegally. The state legislature attempted to defund the contract in the state’s budget bill by cutting the Department of Law’s outside legal help budget and creating a special department for that lawsuit. The legislature has used this maneuver before, limiting the use of Medicaid funding on abortion-related care. Dunleavy vetoed the parts of the budget related to his defense and paid out the contract. As a result, the legislature sued. They lost in the lower court, but the supreme court heard oral arguments in early March. The court must now determine whether Dunleavy acted illegally in vetoing and continuing to spend, or whether the legislature overreached in eliminating the funding.
Top Alaska court takes up lawsuit challenging trans-Alaska gas pipeline law
In a case brought by Our Children’s Trust, a nonprofit leading a number of climate change lawsuits in state and federal court, the Alaska Supreme Court may determine if the state constitution conflicts with the law that allowed for the construction of a trans-Alaska pipeline. Our Children’s Trust argued that creating any pipeline would harm fishing and hunting due to increased natural gas production. They further argued that the project would triple the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. The state department of law defended the lawsuit, arguing that this is a legislative issue and that the courts should not have the power to review it. Our Children’s Trust lost in the lower court.
Alaska Supreme Court considers case of prisoner drugged against his will
The Alaska Supreme Court will determine if the Alaska Department of Corrections violated a prisoner’s rights and department policy when they medicated a prisoner with psychiatric drugs against his will. The ACLU of Alaska argued on behalf of Mark Andrews, who alleges the prison unjustly drugged him against his will for over seven years. Current department policy allows for forcible medication only if the individual is gravely disabled or an imminent threat to other prisoners. Department policy also mandates that prisoners have the right to a hearing every six months and the right to appeal. However, as the ACLU argued, Andrews was denied access to hearings or appeals while being medicated against his will. There are currently 22 incarcerated individuals in Alaska who are being drugged against their will by the state.
Colorado
Colorado Supreme Court to hear appeal over gender-affirming care for minors
After the Children’s Hospital of Colorado paused providing gender affirming healthcare to minors over concerns of losing Medicaid funding, parents of trans youth sued the facility for discrimination. A lower court denied the parents’ claim. Now, the parents are appealing their case to the state supreme court.
Maine
After the state house advanced a bill seeking to apply ranked-choice voting to state elections in addition to federal elections, which already use ranked-choice, Maine state lawmakers have asked the Maine Supreme Judicial Court to weigh in on the measure’s constitutionality. The lawmakers’ request to the court comes after a 2017 advisory opinion from the court that found expanding ranked choice voting to state elections would violate the state constitution. However, after making a series of changes to the bill’s language, lawmakers are asking the court to weigh in again.
Michigan
Michigan Supreme Court weighs Line 5 tunnel dispute
The Michigan Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case challenging Enbridge’s construction of the Line 5 pipeline. The proposed pipeline would run through the Straits of Mackinaw and be encased in a tunnel beneath the lakebed. Flow Water Advocates, one of the groups opposing the construction, claims state regulators failed to consider the state’s public trust doctrine, which protects waters for public use, when approving the Line 5 plan. Enbridge argued that the tunnel would mitigate spill risk and improve safety. Opponents argued for rerouting or eliminating Line 5. The court has not indicated when it will release its decision.
Mississippi
Mississippi’s Black voters brace for elections ruling that could gut Supreme Court clout
After a federal judge found that Mississippi’s supreme court districts violated the Voting Rights Act and diluted Black voters’ power in elections, a pending decision by the U.S. Supreme Court may overrule that judge’s finding. Last year, federal district court Judge Sharion Aycock ordered the state legislature to redraw three of the nine supreme court districts. In the state’s history, there have only been four Black justices on the court of nine, and none of them served concurrently. However, the case before the U.S. Supreme Court could overturn Section 2 of the VRA, which underpinned Aycock’s decision.
Missouri
Protesters gather as Missouri Supreme Court hears arguments over new congressional maps
The Missouri Supreme Court will decide if the state’s new congressional maps are constitutional. The state legislature recently redrew the state’s maps to give conservatives control of seven of the state’s eight congressional districts. Opponents of the new maps, the Missouri Voter Protection Coalition, argued the legislature violated the state constitution by redrawing the maps ahead of the state’s 10-year census. State lawmakers maintained that they acted lawfully.
Missouri House passes bill limiting judges’ power to rewrite ballot summaries
The Missouri state house passed a law that would significantly limit judges’ ability to rewrite ballot summaries. The bill would give the secretary of state three chances to rewrite ballot summaries before turning the matter over to state courts as well as mandate if an appellate court overturns a trial court judge, the trial court judge must revise the language, not the appellate court. Under current law, the court rewrites the language and sends it back to the secretary of state if it finds an issue. In January, the state supreme court overturned a nearly identical bill that sought to eliminate judicial review of ballot summaries. Opponents of the new bill call it reactionary not only to the court’s January decision but also past decisions finding issue with ballot summaries about abortion access and private school tuition vouchers.
Ohio
Gender transition care for minors in Ohio to be considered by Supreme Court
The Ohio Supreme Court heard oral arguments on HB 68, which prohibits doctors from prescribing gender affirming care to minors, on March 24 and March 25. HB 68 has been in effect since 2024. The court will decide whether the Ohio Constitution protects parents’ rights to seek gender-affirming care for their children. Medical providers and parents of transgender children argue that the right is protected under the Health Care Freedom Amendment and the due course of law clause, which is similar to a due process clause.
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Supreme Court hears arguments over Philadelphia’s ghost gun ban
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will determine if Philadelphia’s ban on ghost guns violates state statute 6120, which prohibits local governments from regulating the ownership, possession, transfer, or transportation of firearms and reserves that regulatory power for the state. Ghost guns are untraceable, unserialized firearms that are typically assembled with separate components or kits.
Utah
The Utah Supreme Court may review HB 392, a state law that allows the state, in any civil case in which it’s a party, to move venues to a three-judge panel. Following the passage of the law, the state attorney general sought to change venues from the trial court to the three-judge panel in four separate cases. Of note, one of the cases involves a challenge to the state’s abortion ban, and another is challenging the state’s recent redistricting. In those cases, the groups are challenging the law before the supreme court and asking the court to intervene before the cases can proceed with the new panel.
Wyoming
Wyoming’s new six-week abortion ban prompts lawsuit
Despite the all-Republican state supreme court overturning abortion bans in January, the Wyoming state legislature passed a new abortion ban, prohibiting abortion after a heartbeat is detected. Gov. Mark Gordon (R) promptly signed it into law, prompting a new lawsuit in state court challenging the ban. While at the trial court, the issue is likely to land before the state supreme court again. `
