State of Justice: September Keep Your Eyes On
Colorado – Colorado Supreme Court To Decide What Limitations Period Applies To Colorado Minimum Wage Act Claims
After conflicting state and federal judicial opinions on Colorado’s Minimum Wage Act and Wage Claim Act, the Colorado Supreme Court will decide the statute of limitations on claims brought under the Wage Claim Act. The Wage Claim Act follows the federal statute of limitations (two to three years), but the Minimum Wage Act does not include a statute of limitations and follows Colorado’s general statute of limitations (six years). This contradiction between the texts has created confusion between courts, as some state courts have granted the longer six-year statute of limitations, but federal courts have limited it to two to three years.
Colorado – Colorado justices to examine whether defendants must reveal evidence in postconviction challenges
During Roberto Silva-Jacquez’ petition for postconviction relief, Silva-Jacquez intended to use expert witness testimony to dispute his conviction. The prosecution asked the trial judge to order the defense (Silva-Jacquez’s attorney) to disclose the details of the witness’ testimony. However, there is little guidance from the Colorado Supreme Court on if the state’s disclosure rule requiring advance notice of evidence in trials applies to postconviction trials as well. Silva-Jacquez’s attorney claims the lack of guidance allows for differential treatment of defendants depending on the jurisdiction.
Colorado – Colorado Supreme Court accepts cases on DNA exoneration, medical negligence, online reviews
The Colorado Supreme Court announced it will hear four appeals this month. The first case centers on Jamale Townsell’s conviction appeal. Townsell, supported by the Innocence Project, claims his trial counsel was ineffective and failed to investigate DNA evidence that could have exonerated him. The appeals court ruled 2-1 against Townsell, finding that he was not obligated to another attorney and failed to show the impact of the lack of DNA investigation. On appeal, the state supreme court will decide the standards trial judges will use to determine when to appoint postconviction counsel and if incarcerated defendants are required to explain how the DNA evidence would have impacted their conviction. The supreme court will also review what defines a “financial device” after a lower court overturned Garry Allen Hudson’s financial crimes conviction. The lower court found there was no proof the cards in Hudson’s possession during the time of arrest were capable of use. The prosecution believes this rule exempts intent and criminal liability.
Connecticut – Connecticut Supreme Court to consider disability benefits, defamation on first day of new session
The Connecticut Supreme Court’s fall term started this month, with the court already hearing arguments in multiple cases. Firstly, the court will determine the scope of and eligibility for disability benefits. In that case, a police office said he would not return to work after diagnoses with multiple medical conditions before retirement. 15 years later, following a stroke, the Workers’ Compensation Commission found that he was entitled to compensation because the stroke was brought on by his previous medical conditions. However, that decision was appealed saying the officer is not entitled to compensation because he had no intention of returning to work. In another case, the court will review a defamation lawsuit stemming from comments made on social media. The court will determine if the Facebook comments were truly damaging and defamatory or an expression of opinion.
Delaware – Delaware Supreme Court agrees appeal over Zantac cancer case claim
A case challenging pharmaceutical manufacturers has landed before the Delaware Supreme Court. Manufacturers GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) alongside other pharmaceutical giants like Pfizer and Sanofi are under scrutiny for their manufacturing of Zantac. Zantac was discontinued in 2020 due to lawsuits and claims that the drug’s active ingredient causes cancer if it degrades due to improper storage, like being left on shelves or at high temperatures for long periods of time. Plaintiffs, those who have been affected by the now discontinued drug, are suing to hold these manufacturers accountable. Their case hinges on including expert testimony linking Zantac’s active ingredient to cancer. The pharmaceutical companies are trying to prohibit the use of that expert testimony. The state supreme court will determine if that testimony can be included, potentially affecting the 70,000 current lawsuits.
Hawaii – Insurance Industry Insists It Has Right To Recoup Billions In Paid Wildfire Claims
Insurance industry providers for victims of the Maui wildfires are appealing a lower court decision barring the insurers from subrogation—suing the parties it alleges are liable for the wildfires to recoup the money paid in claims to victims—to the Hawaii Supreme Court. The fire victims’ settlement agreement cannot be finalized until this legal dispute is settled, so victims and insurers are asking the state supreme court to step in. If it cannot be resolved within nine months, the settlement will be terminated based on its terms.
Illinois – Illinois Supreme Court hears Jussie Smollett’s appeal
Actor Jussie Smollett appealed his case before the Illinois Supreme Court. The court will determine if his conviction violates his Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy. Smollett was convicted of coordinating a fake hate crime against himself. After initial charges against Smollett under Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx were dropped, a state court ruled Foxx mishandled the case and assigned a special prosecutor to the case. Smollett was then found guilty. A state appeals court previously ruled against Smollett.
Maine – Plaintiff asks Maine high court to reconsider challenge of Democrats’ budget maneuver
William Clardy is appealing the Maine Supreme Judicial Court’s previous dismissal of his case challenging the way Democratic legislators passed the budget bill. Legislative Democrats previously passed a budget on a party line vote and then temporarily adjourned their session. Gov. Janet Mills then signed the budget into law before the fiscal year started on July 1 and called the legislature back into special session. When budgets are passed with two-thirds support, they can go into effect immediately. But in this case where the vote was less than two-thirds support, the budget goes into effect 90 days after the legislative session ends. By adjourning early and Mills calling them back, Clardy and other Republicans claim this maneuver allowed Democrats to pass a budget without any Republican support.
Maryland – Wells Cove water rights dispute splashes in front of Maryland Supreme Court
Two Eastport, MD residents are appealing a lower court’s dismissal of their claims for water use and access to Wells Cove, a local inlet now situated on a condominium property, to the Maryland Supreme Court. The residents’ claims hinge on a 1992 agreement from condominium owners granting public access to the cove since a public path and space, built in 1986, predated the condominiums. In 2021, a new agreement was reached that allows the public to use the walkway at limited times but not enter the water. The state supreme court has not said when it will decide if it will hear the appeal.
Massachusetts – Karen Read appeals case to Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Karen Read, a woman accused of hitting her boyfriend with a car and leaving him to die, appealed her case before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Read’s trial ended in a mistrial in July, and the trial judge set a new date for another trial. Read’s attorney filed a motion to dismiss with the trial judge claiming two of three charges violate Read’s protection against double jeopardy. The judge rejected the claim because Read was not formally acquitted but found in a mistrial. A justice on the Massachusetts Supreme Court Judicial Court ruled the arguments for the appeal must be heard by the full seven-member court before it makes a decision to take the case.
Massachusetts – New Hampshire residents take on Massachusetts gun laws at high court hearing
Montana – Montana Supreme Court hears oral arguments about ‘executive privilege’ in O’Neill v. Gianforte
The Montana Supreme Court will determine if executive privilege exists in the state and if so, what protections it provides the governor and other agency officials. A resident’s request for agency bill records, which contain staff feedback on legislation, was denied because the governor claimed executive privilege and withheld the records. The governor was denied this privilege in a trial court decision. The governor’s attorneys claim publicizing feedback could impact the governor’s ability to make decisions without fear of retaliation. The resident’s attorney argues this violates residents’ constitutional right to know. The court’s decision will profoundly impact government transparency and accountability in the state.
Nebraska – Nebraska’s Supreme Court to decide if those with felony convictions can vote in November
In July, Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers (R) released an opinion claiming a 2024 law restoring the voting rights of people convicted of felonies immediately following the completion of their sentence violates the state constitution two days before the law was supposed to go into effect. Hilgers also claimed that a separate 2005 law restoring voting rights two years after the completion of sentence is unconstitutional. Following that opinion, Secretary of State Bob Evnen (R) ordered all election officials to stop registering people convicted of felonies who have not been pardoned by the Nebraska Board of Pardons, comprised of Evnen, Hilgers, and Gov. Jim Pilen (R). In July, the ACLU filed a lawsuit, on behalf of three residents across political parties, challenging Evnen’s directive, illustrating that he the Evnen does not have the authority to nullify the laws and in turn, unlawfully denied the plaintiff’s right to vote. The court is expected to deliver a decision, which could impact over 7,000 people. before the final voter registration deadline on October 25.
North Dakota – North Dakota Supreme Court hears 1st Amendment arguments over state senator’s Facebook blocking
State Senator Janne Myrdal (R) blocked Mitchell Sanderson on Facebook, and Sanderson sued Myrdal claiming it violated his First Amendment rights. A lower court judge permanently dismissed the case finding it lacked merit and factual support and ordered Sanderson to pay $4,000 in attorney fees to Myrdal. Now, Sanderson is appealing his case to the North Dakota Supreme Court, asking the court to throw out the case for different reasons. Sanderson claims he never properly served Myrdal. Myrdal’s attorneys claim that because Sanderson continued to engage in the lawsuit, he voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the court.
North Carolina – Top NC court tackles legal issues linked to pandemic
The North Carolina Supreme Court will hear a series of COVID-related cases next month. Two cases challenge Gov. Roy Cooper’s (D) authority and regulation over a shutdown. Another case challenges a state law shielding public universities from legal liability for halting their in-person instruction. In a separate case, students are seeking repayment for fees paid for services that were closed during the shutdown. The court will also determine if school districts are legally protected for the forced vaccination of a student without parental consent. Two other cases will determine if insurers must cover losses due to COVID shutdowns.
Ohio – Ohio Supreme Court case looks at parental rights for same-sex couples pre-Obergefell
Priya Shahani is asking the Ohio Supreme Court to review the scope of parental rights in the state for same-sex couples whose relationship predates the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. Shahani and her partner of 11 years, Carmen Edmonds, never got married because they knew the state would not recognize the marriage, as their partnership preceded federal legal marriage protections. During their relationship, they had two children that Shahani carried, and the children had hyphenated surnames. When the couple separated, there was a legal dissolution of their relationship along with a parenting schedule. Shahani removed “Edmonds” from the children’s names and filed to terminate their joint custody agreement after she claimed she continued to determine major decisions, expenses, and medical needs for the children. Edmonds and Shahani are now before the Ohio Supreme Court, as state law complicates the situation because the couple was never legally married, and Edmonds is not legally recognized as a parent. To be recognized as a parent, Edmonds would need a biological connection or relationship through adoption, which was unavailable because state law requires a legal second parent. The ACLU and National Association of Social Workers have filed briefs in the case ruling the court to find an amicable solution for both parents and children.
Pennsylvania – Court takes ‘naked ballots’ case over Pennsylvania mail-in voting
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will shape voting rights again this term as it deliberates over whether county election officials are required to provide provisional ballots to voters whose mail-in ballots were rejected. The ballots in question could be rejected for not including the secrecy envelope also called a “naked ballot” or another flaw. When two Bulter County voters were told their mail-in ballots were rejected because they did not include the secrecy envelope, they attempted to vote with provisional ballots but were rejected. The commonwealth court previously ruled in favor of the voters, and subsequently, the Republican National Committee and the Republican Party of Pennsylvania appealed to the state supreme court.
South Carolina – South Carolina Supreme Court to decide minimum time between executions
After four inmates facing the death penalty appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court, the state’s highest court will determine the minimum amount of time required between executing individuals on death row. Currently, the court can set executions within a week of each other. Now, the individuals, who are currently out of appeals, are asking the state to wait a minimum of three months between executions to allow more sufficient time for the individuals’ attorneys. Prosecutors have suggested setting the minimum to four weeks. Prior to South Carolina’s execution of Freddie Euguene Owens, the last time South Carolina executed an inmate was 2011. Since then, the state has adjusted execution protocol in lethal injection to one drug instead of three and reinstated the firing squad.
Texas – Texas Supreme Court to decide whether Austin has a charter election this year
The Texas Supreme Court will review whether Austin officials violated the Open Meetings Act when they set the city’s charter election. Plaintiffs claim officials failed to meet the Act’s requirements by not listing each proposed change to the charter and not providing enough notice of what would be discussed. Plaintiffs also argue they were not given enough time to speak on each item. Each attendee at the public hearing was granted three minutes to speak on the proposed amendments. Plaintiffs would have sought three minutes for each amendment.
Texas – Texas Supreme Court decision could kill hemp, delta-8 industry due to confusion with pot
After hemp was legalized in Texas, the growth and sale of Delta-8 THC products along with other hemp-based products skyrocketed. Conservative lawmakers attempted to ban Delta-8 but failed to do so. The Texas Department of State and Health Services (DSHS) attempted to ban selling smokeable hemp products, declaring that Delta-8 is illegal in the state. Now, the Texas Supreme Court will determine if DSHS had the authority to issue this ban. Conservative authorities and medical marijuana sellers claim that shops are selling Delta-8 products with a THC concertation higher than the legal limit, while Texas hemp farmers, growers, and some veterans’ groups are arguing that the sold Delta-8 has minimal psychoactive components, that DSHS does not have the authority to ban it – that only the legislature does), and that the state should not outlaw Delta-8 because some individuals are exploiting law enforcement’s difficulty to differentiate between Delta-8 and marijuana. As such, this is, in effect, a battle between regulators and big medical cannabis industry entities versus Texas’ hemp farmers and growers.
Utah – Utah Supreme Court considering whether climate lawsuit filed by 7 children should be dismissed
Following a growing trend across the country, seven Utah youths filed a lawsuit against their state for their policies around the environment and fossil fuel usage. The young people claim Utah’s current policies maximizing and supporting the fossil fuel industry harm their future and violate their constitutional rights. After a lower court dismissed their claim, the plaintiffs appealed to the state supreme court. Now, the Utah Supreme Court will decide the fate of their case, the scope (or lack thereof) of the state’s climate protections, and in turn, its constituents’ health rights.
Washington – Watchdog org appeals public records case to Washington Supreme Court
Following closed-door negotiations between Washington’s government and the state government employees’ union that secured nearly a billion dollars in salary and benefits increases, Citizen Action Defense Fund (CADF), a local watchdog group, sued to obtain the records and deliberations under the Public Records Act. A trial court ruled in favor of CADF, but when the government appealed, the appellate court reversed the lower court’s opinion and sided with the state government. Now, the Washington Supreme Court will determine whether these kinds of negotiations qualify under the Public Records Act and the scope of its deliberative process exemption.
Wisconsin – Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear case about DNR ability to make businesses clean up toxic spills
The Wisconsin Supreme Court will determine if the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) can use the state’s spills law to force polluters to test for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs) and clean up any contamination. PFAs are manmade chemicals that are slow to degrade and have been linked to substantial health complications and cancer. Manufactures challenged DNR’s use of the law, claiming the agency neglected to go through the formal rule making process to declare PFAs as hazardous. Manufactures won at the trial and appellate level. Now, the state supreme court will determine the scope of DNR’s enforcement rights.
Wisconsin – Wisconsin Supreme Court justices question merits of case brought by election activist
Wisconsin Voter Alliance (WVA), a group that previously spread misinformation and conspiracy theories about the 2020 election results and challenged the 2020 election results in court, urged the Wisconsin Supreme Court to grant public access to guardianship records in addition to voters’ other private, personal information to investigate the state’s voter file. The group alleges that the number of ineligible voters does not match the number of individuals on the state’s voter registration list. The group wants to use the guardianship records to identify when a judge ruled a person incompetent to vote. The state supreme court justices, however, were skeptical of this claim during oral arguments, with some justices naming WVA’s motivations to unjustly influence voting practices, instill fear and distrust in the state’s voter file maintenance, and suggest illegitimacy of election results Wisconsin – The Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear a case on the future of the state’s elections leader
In 2023, legislative conservatives voted to fire the Wisconsin Elections Commission administrator Meagan Wolfe. The state attorney general then challenged that vote in court saying the legislature had no authority to fire Wolfe because she was a holdover and was not reappointed. The legislators changed their position stating the vote was symbolic and are asking the court to appoint an administrator the state senate can vote on. After losing in the state circuit court, legislators directly appealed to the state supreme court. The court will likely not issue a ruling until next year.
