State of Justice: November 2024
-
Colorado votes to create an independent board to enforce state judicial ethics
In response to an alleged cover-up by Colorado Supreme Court justices of judicial misconduct, sexism, and harassment, in which a committee found that many employees of the Judicial Department feared retaliation for reporting misconduct, Representatives Mike Weissman and Mike Lynch, along with Senators Bob Gardner and Julie Gonzales, proposed Amendment H, a constitutional change to amend the state’s process for disciplining judges. Amendment H moves to create an independent board to decide on recommendations from the state’s Judicial Discipline Committee regarding findings of a judge’s misconduct. Previously, the state supreme court had the power to make final decisions regarding the committee’s recommendations. The board would be composed of four district court judges, four attorneys, and four citizens appointed by the supreme court and the governor, with confirmation by the state Senate. Amendment H also makes public the disciplinary proceedings for formal charges. On November 5, 78% of Colorado voters approved Amendment H. The measure received wide bipartisan support and reflects Coloradans’ desire to improve accountability among judges by taking the issue of their discipline largely out of the hands of the Colorado Supreme Court.
Maine Supreme Court justice to face disciplinary proceedings for failure to recuse
Maine Supreme Judicial Court Justice Catherine Connors is set to face disciplinary proceedings after the Committee on Judicial Conduct concluded that, given her prior work as an attorney representing banks and banking interests, her failure to recuse herself from two foreclosure cases violated the ethics code. After oral arguments for the two cases, Connors wrote to the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee asking if she needed to recuse herself. The committee found that she did not need to recuse. However, the Judicial Conduct Committee disagreed, citing the facts that, in one of the cases, Connors joined the majority in overturning a precedent from a case she had lost when representing a bank and, in the other, one of her former clients had filed a “friend of the court” brief. Connors is the first Maine Supreme Court justice to face disciplinary proceedings. Now, it is up to her colleagues on the court to decide how to handle her case.
New Hampshire Supreme Court justice’s law license suspended amid felony charges
New Hampshire Supreme Court Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi’s law license was formally suspended after Hantz Marconi was indicted on charges alleging that she interfered with Gov. Chris Sununu’s investigation into her husband, Geno Marconi. Investigators allege that she met with Sununu, as well as Steve Duprey, director of the Pease Development Authority, and Chief Justice Gordon McDonald, several times about her husband’s case. Marconi himself is accused of seeking retaliatory action against a member of the Pease Development Authority board of directors. He entered a ‘not guilty’ plea and waived his arraignment. For her interference, Hantz Marconi was indicted for seven charges, several of which constitute felonies. Hantz Marconi’s lawyers sought to have her charges dismissed, citing First Amendment free speech rights and judicial immunity. She was placed on administrative leave from the Supreme Court back in July.
Oklahoma Supreme Court justice recuses herself from Bible mandate case
Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice Dana Kuehn recused herself from a case involving State Superintendent Ryan Walters’ mandate to put a Bible in every public school classroom. Joined by advocacy groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, more than 30 parents, teachers, and faith leaders filed a lawsuit asking the state supreme court to halt the mandate. Kuehn’s filing stated that her need to recuse stemmed from the involvement of the Board of Education’s legal representation, citing the Oklahoma Code of Judicial Conduct rule prohibiting the “appearance of impropriety.” The Board of Education is represented in this case by three attorneys from the Tulsa firm Norman Wohlgemuth, one of whom clerked under Kuehn in 2022.
Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation files complaint against former state supreme court justice
Wisconsin’s Office of Lawyer Regulation filed a 10-count complaint against former state supreme court Justice Michael Gableman. Gableman spread election conspiracy theories and worked for Republicans who led an investigation into President-elect Donald Trump’s loss in the 2020 election. The complaint accuses Gableman of making false statements, disrupting a court hearing, questioning a judge’s integrity, making derogatory remarks about opposing counsel, violating open records law, and more. During his investigation, Gableman found no evidence of widespread fraud. The investigation drew bipartisan derision and cost taxpayers more than $2.3 million.
-
Vacancies
Carney to head Alaska’s first majority-female supreme court
Alaska Supreme Court justices elected Justice Susan Carney to serve as the next chief justice of the court, replacing the retiring Chief Justice Peter Maassen. Massen will leave office in January as he turns seventy, the state’s mandatory retirement age for justices. Carney first joined the bench after being appointed to the court in 2016 to replace Justice Dana Fabe. She will be the longest-serving justice on the court once Maassen retires. To take Carney’s place, the Alaska Judicial Council submitted three names for Gov. Mike Dunleavy (R) to choose from: assistant attorney general Kate Demarest, Anchorage Superior Court Judge Josie Garton, and utilities lawyer Aimee Oravec. Oravec received a unanimous nomination from the council. Dunleavy has 45 days to make his selection, which will make the court majority female for the first time in history. Once he does, the wave of retirements that the Alaska Supreme Court has been experiencing since 2020 will end.
Eight Arizona Supreme Court applicants advance to screening panel interviews
The Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments narrowed down the list of candidates to replace retired Justice Robert Brutinel on the state supreme court from 17 initial applicants to eight semi-finalists. The remaining candidates are Maria Elena Cruz, Nicole C. Davis, D. Andrew Gaona, Andrew M. Jacobs, Doreen N. McPaul, Regina L. Nassen, Alexander W. Samuels, and Amy D. Sells. The commission is seeking public comments on the candidates ahead of its interviews with them, scheduled for December 9. After these interviews, it plans to select at least three applicants to forward to Gov. Katie Hobbs (D) for her final decision. Hobbs will be the first Democrat in over 15 years to appoint a justice to Arizona’s supreme court.
Hawaii Judicial Selection Commission searches for the next supreme court chief justice
The Hawaii Judicial Selection Commission posted a vacancy for the chief justice position currently held by Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald, who is set to retire next year as he turns 70, the mandatory retirement age for justices in Hawaii. Applicants for the position must be residents and citizens of Hawaii who are licensed to practice law in the state, with at least ten years of experience preceding their nomination. The chief justice position is a ten-year term, after which the Commission can choose whether to retain the current justice. The Commission will publish the list of all applicants on its website for public comment before forwarding a list of four to six names to Gov. Josh Green (D) for his nomination. Once Green nominates a candidate, they are subject to confirmation by the state Senate. This will be Green’s third nomination to the five-person supreme court.
Justice Jeffrey Funke takes his place as chief justice of the Nebraska Supreme Court
Following an investiture ceremony on November 22, Justice Jeffrey Funke of the Nebraska Supreme Court has officially assumed the role of chief justice, succeeding Chief Justice Michael Heavican, who retired last month. Funke was appointed by Gov. Jim Pillen (R) from a list of five candidates to succeed Heavican. He has served on the Supreme Court since 2016, when Gov. Pete Ricketts (R) appointed him. Funke will face a retention election in November 2028. His appointment, in addition to Pillen’s upcoming appointment to fill Heavican’s vacancy, stands to maintain conservative control of the court, which currently has only one liberal justice.
Justice Dustin Rowe to take over as chief justice of the Oklahoma Supreme Court as Kauger prepares to leave the court
Justices on the Oklahoma Supreme Court elected Justice Dustin P. Rowe to serve a two-year term as chief justice of the Oklahoma Supreme Court starting January 1, 2025. Rowe, who takes over from his colleague, current Chief Justice M. John Kane, IV, was originally appointed to the court in 2019 by Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) to replace Justice Patrick Wyrick. He will face a retention election in November 2028.
Meanwhile, the Oklahoma Judicial Nominating Commission opened applications to fill Justice Yvonne Kauger’s seat on the court after she became the first supreme court justice to lose her retention election this month. Two other liberal supreme court justices up for retention elections barely held onto their seats, and Stitt praised the decision not to retain Kauger. Kauger’s, 87, term technically doesn’t end until January 12, 2025, but she plans to retire on December 1. The Judicial Nominating Commission is accepting applications until December 20, after which it will select three candidates to submit to Stitt for nomination. Applicants must be at least 30 years old and have a minimum of 5 years of experience as a licensed attorney or judge prior to appointment. Justice Kauger’s seat represents District 4 of the state, otherwise known as the northwest and panhandle section, so applicants must also have been a qualified elector of District 4 for one year immediately prior to appointment. Interest in the position is expected to be high. This will mark Stitt’s fourth appointment to the court.
Elections
Partisan
Republicans sweep Alabama elections to maintain total control of the state supreme court
Republican Associate Justice Sarah Stewart is projected to win the race for chief justice of Alabama’s highest court. Stewart, first elected to the court in 2018, defeated Democrat Greg Griffin, a Montgomery County circuit judge. Stewart will replace current Chief Justice Tom Parker, who is retiring after finishing his final term with the state’s mandatory retirement age of 70 for judges. Also up for election were Republicans Chris McCool, Tommy Bryan, Will Sellers, and Jay Mitchell, all of whom ran unopposed for Places 1 through 4 on the court. All justices on the Alabama Supreme Court serve six-year terms.
Recounts begin for North Carolina Supreme Court race
On November 20, North Carolina county election boards began their recounts in the state supreme court race between Republican Appeals Court Judge Jefferson Griffin and Democratic incumbent Justice Allison Riggs. It is the only statewide race to conduct a recount, which Griffin requested after the race came down to a difference of 625 votes out of over 5.5 million. Griffin had a lead of around 10,000 votes on election night, but absentee and provisional ballots counted since then drastically changed the standings. Griffin subsequently filed election protests challenging the validity of more than 60,000 ballots across the state, attempting to disenfranchise those voters. The recounts should be completed by November 27, at which point the results will become official.
Republicans make significant gains on the Ohio Supreme Court with potentially major consequences for abortion access
The Associated Press projected that Republicans won all three Ohio Supreme Court races in the recent election, increasing their majority on the court from 4-3 to 6-1. In doing so, the Republican candidates ousted two incumbent Democratic justices. They secured a third open seat, though results remain unofficial until certified by local county boards of elections and the Ohio secretary of state. Republican Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judge Megan Shanahan defeated incumbent Democratic Judge Michael P. Donnelly. Incumbent Republican Judge Joseph Deters ran for the seat of his colleague, incumbent Democratic Judge Melody Stewart, and won. And finally, Republican Judge Dan Hawkins won against Democratic Judge Lisa Forbes to claim Deters’ open seat. The court has been under Republican control since 1986, and Republican lawmakers recently changed the supreme court’s elections from nonpartisan to partisan in 2021, meaning candidates would appear with a party affiliation next to their name on the ballot. Former Professor Jonathan Entin at Case Western University’s School of Law speculated that these results may have ramifications for abortion access in the state, which Ohio voters enshrined last year through a constitutional amendment. A state judge recently struck down the state’s fetal heartbeat law, considering the amendment, but a more conservative supreme court may rule otherwise.
Texas’s highest courts keep total Republican control
In the recent election, all Republican candidates for both the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court secured victories. For the Court of Criminal Appeals, three conservative candidates — David Schenck, Gina Parker, and Lee Finley –defeated Republican incumbents in the primaries and subsequently defeated their Democratic opponents in the general election by significant margins. These candidates received endorsements from Attorney General Ken Paxton and garnered support from his base, although only Schenck possessed prior judicial experience. Their election fulfills a promise made by Paxton to exact political retribution against the previous judges, who ruled in 2018 that his office could not unilaterally prosecute allegations of voter fraud after Paxton attempted to prosecute a Jefferson County sheriff. For the Texas Supreme Court, it was the Republican incumbent Justices Jimmy Blacklock, John Devine, and Jane Bland who prevailed over their Democratic opponents, Harris County District Judges DaSean Jones and Christine Vinh Weems, as well as Texas Fifth District Court of Appeals Judge Bonnie Lee Goldstein, respectively. Even though no Democratic judge has been elected to the Texas Supreme Court in 30 years, Democrats were hopeful that public backlash to the court’s recent abortion rulings might help change things. Ultimately, despite the work of the Find Out PAC in exposing the roles of Blacklock, Devine, and Bland in the rulings, the incumbent justices were re-elected.
Nonpartisan
Kentucky
In Kentucky’s Supreme Court race, Democrat Pamela Goodwine, a court of appeals judge, won the 5th District seat by defeating her opponent, Erin Izzo, thereby flipping the previously vacant seat. This result highlights the shift to Democrats’ political influence in the state of Kentucky, especially considering Gov. Andy Beshear’s reelection, where he retained his position as Kentucky’s only statewide Democratic official.
Throughout her campaign, Goodwine highlighted her extensive judicial background, referencing her 25 years of experience serving on the court of appeals. In contrast, her Republican opponent, Izzo, emphasized her commitment to protecting the constitution and relying on her Republican values, including being a staunch defender of gun rights. Goodwine’s victory reflects Kentucky voters’ growing support for experienced judicial candidates and underscores a broader trend of Democratic resilience in the state’s key elections.
Michigan
With the re-election of Michigan Supreme Court Justice Kyra Harris Bolden and the election of University of Michigan law professor Kimberly Ann Thomas, Michigan made history by becoming one of the few states with a female majority on its state supreme court. In addition to being a former law professor, Thomas was also the director and co-founder of the Juvenile Justice Clinic. She taught in the Civil-Criminal Litigation Clinic, specializing in trial and appellate practice, youth justice, and criminal sentencing law.
In 2023, Bolden made history by becoming both the first Black woman to serve on the Michigan Supreme Court and the youngest justice to hold the position. The female majority on the Michigan Supreme Court reflects progress toward gender equality within the judiciary, with the potential to promote greater equity beyond the courtroom.
Minnesota
Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Anne McKeig broke barriers for Native American representation, as she is the first Indigenous woman to serve as a state supreme court justice. During a talk at the Michigan Tribal–State–Federal Judicial Forum, McKeig discussed her journey to Minnesota’s Supreme Court, recounting the challenges she faced as a law student at Hamline University, serving as a county judge in Minnesota, and being appointed to the supreme court by former Governor Mark Dayton.
McKeig illustrates the importance of embracing cultural heritage and the significance of people from underrepresented backgrounds serving in leadership roles at the highest level. Her involvement and participation in the Michigan Tribal–State–Federal Judicial Forum fosters a collective understanding of the importance of culturally significant legal issues and encourages. It encourages more respectful and informed judicial decision-making. The Justice’s career not only represents a historic achievement in representation but also showcases how diversity can enhance the justice system.
Mississippi
In a series of closely watched and unusually high-spending judicial races, Mississippi voters helped reshape the state’s supreme court, with four seats on the ballot. The most contentious race was between incumbent Justice Jim Kitchens and State Senator Jenifer Branning. Kitchens, a moderate with 16 years of experience on the bench, faced off against Branning, a Republican-aligned state senator who received major support from conservative political action committees (PACs), business interests, and the state GOP. The race drew over $1.3 million in campaign contributions, marking it as one of the most expensive judicial contests in state history.
Branning’s campaign heavily emphasized her ideology as a “constitutional conservative”, warning that Mississippi’s Supreme Court could potentially be “dominated by liberal judges” unless voters elected her. On the other hand, opponent and incumbent Justice Jim Kitchens relied on the importance of judicial independence, including his controversial decision to dissent in a 2021 ruling that abolished Mississippi’s voter-led ballot initiative system, which was consistently brought up during his campaign. However, in a close runoff election, state Senator Branning eventually secured her victory, securing 50.6% of the vote and ousting Justice Jim Kitchens from his seat, thereby shifting the ideological balance of Mississippi’s highest court further to the right.
In another major judicial upset, incumbent Justice Dawn Beam lost her seat to David Sullivan, a public defender with no judicial experience. Beam had various controversial rulings during her time on the bench, as she had been one of the deciding votes that dismantled the Mississippi voter-led ballot initiative. She also voted to overturn a voter-approved medical marijuana law. Sullivan, whose father, Michael Sullivan, previously served as a Mississippi supreme court justice in the 1980s and 1990s, achieved victory, highlighting voter dissatisfaction and a desire to restore trust in the courts.
Montana
Montana elected two new justices to its supreme court: Cory Swanson (R) will take over the Chief Justice position upon the retirement of Chief Justice Mike McGrath, whereas Katherine Bidegaray (D) will replace Associate Justice Dirk Sandefur. Both candidates won their races by a margin of around eight percent. Though Montana elects its state supreme court justices in non-partisan elections, Swanson and Bidegaray received support from conservative and progressive-aligned groups, respectively.
Both races featured significant outside spending, as Bidegarary received support from the ACLU Montana Voter Fund, Earthjustice Action, the Montana Federation of Public Employees, and political committees affiliated with the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, highlighting social justice issues such as reproductive health and environmental justice at stake. Conservative groups, including the Republican State Central Committee and national Republican judicial initiatives, backed Cory Swanson.
Washington
Sal Mungia (D), a former trial and appellate court lawyer, will serve as Washington’s newest member of the Supreme Court. Backed by progressive organizations and the majority of the current Washington Supreme Court Justices, Mungia won 50.05% of the vote against Republican candidate Dave Larson (R), a judge for the Federal Way Municipal Court, by approximately 22,000 votes, accounting for just a 0.7% difference. Mangia will replace Justice Susan Owens, who will retire at the end of the year due to reaching the mandatory retirement age of 75.
Retention
Arizona voters choose to retain two supreme court justices but reject ballot measure
Conservative Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King were up for re-election in November to the state supreme court. Earlier this year, Bolick and King joined the majority in a 4-2 decision that enforced a trigger ban from 1864 that criminalized performing abortions except in instances to save the mother. The law effect was affected once the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in the Dobbs v. Jackson decision. Since that decision, state lawmakers and voters have acted to protect the right to abortion in the state. Regardless, Bolick and King faced backlash for their role in the ruling, and abortion rights supporters sought to oust the two to allow Gov. Katie Hobbs (D) to appoint their replacements, potentially changing the 9R-0D partisan balance on the court. However, Bolick and King still seem likely to hold onto their seats, having won 58% and 59%, respectively, so far. At the same time, Proposition 137, a ballot measure proposing to eliminate retention elections for judges outside of extraordinary circumstances, was shot down by voters, showing that Arizonans still want the option to remove judges they deem no longer worthy to serve on the bench.
DeSantis’ picks to remain on the Florida Supreme Court
Florida Supreme Court Justices Renatha Francis and Meredith Sasso both received the requisite percentage of votes to remain on the court for another term. The justices were appointed to the court in 2022 and 2023, respectively, by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) and have both taken reliably conservative stances on issues like abortion and recreational marijuana use, including supporting Florida’s six-week abortion ban. Under the merit-retention system in place in Florida, supreme court justices must be elected by voters in the first general election following their appointment and every six years thereafter. Florida voters have never voted to remove a sitting justice. Francis and Sasso will not face another retention vote until 2030.
Anti-abortion Indiana Supreme Court justices elected to another term
This year, three Indiana Supreme Court justices were up for retention election, and all three were re-elected. Chief Justice Loretta Rush, as well as Justices Mark Massa and Derek Molter, faced online opposition to their re-election. This came in response to their votes to uphold Indiana’s near-total abortion ban. However, these efforts ultimately fell short, and all three received at least 68% of the vote in favor of retention. In the 54 years of Indiana’s judicial retention system, no judge or justice has ever lost their retention election. Massa and Molter will be up for re-election again in 2034, but Rush will be forced to retire before then as she reaches the state’s mandatory retirement age for justices, 75, in 2033.
Iowa Supreme Court Justice David May holds onto seat
Iowa Supreme Court Justice David May, who was appointed by Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) in 2022, was up for his first retention vote in this election. Iowans have voted to remove justices before, in 2009, when three supreme court justices, including the chief justice, lost their retention elections after they ruled to legalize same-sex marriage. Speculators guessed that this election could follow that example, after May contributed to a 4-3 ruling to uphold the state’s ban on abortion after 6 weeks of pregnancy. Nevertheless, May received more than 63% of the votes in favor of his retention and stands to remain on the court until 2032 at least, when he must face a retention election again.
Missouri Supreme Court justices win retention elections
Justices Ginger Gooch and Kelly Broniec of the Missouri Supreme Court were re-elected to their spots on the court. Both justices were appointed one year ago by Gov. Mike Parsons (R), after which time they must face retention elections for a twelve-year term. Leading up to this election, the two justices faced efforts to unseat them following their dissent in the 4-3 state supreme court decision to allow Amendment 3, an abortion rights amendment, to appear on the ballot this November.
Zamora secures another term on the New Mexico Supreme Court
Justice Briana H. Zamora of the New Mexico Supreme Court has won retention by wide margins, according to initial election results posted by the Secretary of State’s Office. Zamora was appointed to the court in 2021 by Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) to replace retiring Justice Barbara J. Vigil. As per the protocol in Missouri for appointed supreme court justices, Zamora ran in the first general election in the year after her appointment and was elected to her seat on the court in 2022. With this retention vote, Zamora has secured her spot on the court until 2032, when she will be up for re-election.
Oklahoma votes to retain two justices, remove one in a contentious supreme court election
Oklahoma made history this past election when voters opted to remove Justice Yvonne Kauger from the state supreme court, marking the first time a judge has lost their retention election in Oklahoma’s history. The two other supreme court justices up for re-election, Justices James Edmondson and Noma Gurich, both narrowly won another six-year term. Democratic governors appointed all three justices and were the targets of expensive campaigns against their retention. Over 3.4 million dollars went toward the supreme court races in this election, with groups like People for Opportunity and the 46 Action super PAC linked to Gov. Kevin Stitt (R), spending $1.8 million to oppose the justices’ retention, and groups like the Choctaw Nation and Protect Our Freedoms LLC, spending $1.5 million to support their re-election. This money largely went toward political advertising seeking to sway voters, which was, at least among the conservative groups opposing retention, full of lies. In the end, Kauger lost by a mere 7,000 votes, bringing an end to her 40-year tenure on the state’s highest court. Stitt will have the opportunity to pick her replacement from a list of nominees provided to him by the Oklahoma Judicial Nominating Commission.
South Dakota Supreme Court Justice Myren is likely to remain on court
South Dakota Supreme Court Justice Scott Myren seems to have won his first retention election, as of unofficial election results that show him with 80% support. Myren was appointed to the court by Gov. Kristi Noem (R) in 2021 to take the place of retiring Chief Justice David Gilbertson. According to North Dakota rules, state supreme court justices face a nonpolitical retention election three years after their appointment and then every eight years after. Myren is up for his next election in 2032.
-
Alaska – Alaska’s top court reviews permits for Donlin gold mine, a big Southwest Alaska project
Tribal governments and environmental advocates challenged the Donlin Gold Mine’s pipeline and water permits in an attempt to halt the mine’s construction in two separate lawsuits before the Alaska Supreme Court. The court now must determine if the state’s department of natural resources erred in giving the mine a pipeline permit to power the mine. Advocates argued the department did not evaluate all aspects of the mine’s environmental impacts cumulatively, not independently.
California – California Supreme Court greenlights new bar exam format
The California Supreme Court approved a new bar exam, set to launch in February 2025, replacing the traditional national exam with a more cost-effective, remote-friendly alternative developed with Kaplan. The move marks a major departure from the standardized NCBE model, and some law school deans have raised concerns about the exam’s readiness and effectiveness.
Colorado – Colorado Supreme Court to examine whether portion of anti-SLAPP law is unconstitutional
The Colorado Supreme Court will review whether the state’s anti-SLAPP law, designed to protect First Amendment rights, unconstitutionally creates a unique appeals process that bypasses established rules for county court decisions. The appeal process issue arose after a lower court dismissed a defamation suit under the anti-SLAPP law, prompting confusion over which court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The justices will also consider whether labeling someone a “sexually violent predator” and imposing lifetime registration constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
Colorado – Colorado Supreme Court to decide whether to retreat on landmark restitution ruling
The Colorado Supreme Court will hear five cases this week to determine whether its 2021 People v. Weeks decision, which holds that judges who fail to follow strict restitution procedures lose authority to impose such orders, should still stand. Prosecutors argue that Weeks is overly rigid and harms victims, while defense attorneys contend that the ruling simply enforces existing law and that any chaos stems from judicial noncompliance. The cases center on whether procedural violations, such as missing deadlines without a finding of good cause, invalidate restitution orders, with broader implications for judicial authority and rights.
Colorado – Colorado Supreme Court considers whether habeas petition can free zoo elephants
The Colorado Supreme Court heard arguments in a case on whether five wild-born zoo elephants at the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo should be considered ‘persons’ entitled to seek liberty through habeas corpus petition. The justices appeared skeptical, raising concerns about the broader implications for animals like pets and whether this issue would be better decided in the legislature.
Connecticut – CT Supreme Court considers whether people can sue for ‘wrongful life’
Two adults conceived through fertility treatment allege that a Connecticut doctor used his own sperm without their parents’ knowledge or consent. Their original lawsuit claimed negligence, but a lower court judge reclassified it as a “wrongful life” case and dismissed it, as courts have historically rejected such arguments. The plaintiffs are now appealing to the state supreme court, arguing that without civil liability, misconduct like this will go unpunished.
Hawaii – Kelly King asks Hawaii Supreme Court to void election results in Maui County Council race
Kelly King is asking the Hawaii Supreme Court to void her narrow election loss for the South Maui Council seat, claiming lawfully cast votes were wrongly rejected due to overly strict signature-matching. Her lawsuit cites an unusually high rate of ballot deficiencies and alleges the county clerk failed to follow proper standards.
Idaho – Idaho judge to decide if AG’s office will pay legal fees in open primaries lawsuit
An Idaho judge is considering whether Attorney General Raúl Labrador’s office must pay attorney fees after losing a lawsuit to block an election reform initiative from the 2024 ballot. The judge had already ruled Labrador’s challenge lacked merit and now must decide if it was unreasonable enough to warrant penalties.
Indiana – Supreme Court to hear wrongful termination case against South Bend Schools
The Indiana Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction over a case involving a worker who sued the South Bend Community School Corporation, claiming she was constructively discharged in retaliation for planning to file a workers’ compensation claim. The plaintiff was Connie Grabowski, an elementary school teacher who was injured after an incident involving a student whom the district suspected Grabowski had been harassing and bullying. The district offered Grabowski a disciplinary agreement that included loss of pay, reassignment, and training, but Grabowski resigned and filed suit instead. A jury awarded her $600,000, and the court of appeals affirmed the decision, but the school corporation appealed to the supreme court. The supreme court accepted the district’s petition to review whether the trial court erred in denying motions for judgment on the evidence and mistrial. Oral arguments are scheduled for January 23.
Indiana – Indiana Supreme Court case mulls whether counties can strip health insurance from elected officials
The Indiana Supreme Court is considering whether part-time elected officials are entitled to county-provided health insurance regardless of hours worked, in a case brought by Perry County Councilman Keith Huck after his coverage was revoked. The county argues it can treat part-time elected officials like any other part-time employees, while Huck claims elected officials are guaranteed insurance if it is offered. The justices raised concerns about statutory ambiguity, fiscal impacts, and whether loss of insurance constitutes irreparable harm.
Iowa – Iowa Supreme Court to decide if COVID-19 wrongful death lawsuits against Tyson can continue
The Iowa Supreme Court is considering whether wrongful death lawsuits filed by families of four Tyson Waterloo workers who died of COVID-19 can proceed, after a lower court dismissed them as workplace injury claims. The families alleged Tyson supervisors were grossly negligent, lied about the outbreak, and forced sick employees to work, contributing to the nation’s largest workplace COVID outbreak. Tyson argues the claims belong in the workers’ compensation system, but plaintiffs contend an exception applies due to fraud and recklessness.
Iowa – Iowa Supreme Court Hears Orange City Case On Searching Of Rental Properties
The Iowa Supreme Court is weighing whether Orange City’s mandatory rental property inspections every five years violate renters’ constitutional rights against suspicionless searches. Attorneys for renters and landlords argue the policy allows unlawful entries and disproportionately affects low-income and minority renters. The city defends the inspections as necessary for health and safety and claims there’s no evidence of police involvement.
Louisiana – Louisiana legislators who are attorneys could benefit from proposed laws (again)
Louisiana lawmakers are advancing two bills that would allow attorney-legislators to request court extensions when legislative duties conflict with legal obligations, aiming to replace a similar law struck down as unconstitutional. The new proposals, unlike the previous version, include safeguards such as allowing opposing counsel to challenge continuance requests and barring them in time-sensitive cases like domestic violence or custody matters. The effort follows a Louisiana Supreme Court ruling that criticized the original law for granting unchecked authority to attorney-legislators.
Michigan – Michigan’s PFAS drinking-water limits hang in the balance of supreme court case
The Michigan Supreme Court is weighing whether to uphold state drinking water standards for PFAS, following a lawsuit from chemical giant 3M that argues regulators failed to consider the financial burden on businesses. While the lawsuit targets the drinking water limits, 3M’s underlying concern is the costly groundwater cleanup obligations automatically triggered by those standards, which the company could face at hundreds of contaminated sites across Michigan. 3M also alleges that state regulators missed a key procedural step when crafting the new standards. State attorneys counter that cost analysis wasn’t legally required and that overturning the rules would jeopardize public health. The case has major implications for PFAS cleanup obligations and could affect protection for millions of Michiganders if both state and federal regulations are weakened.
Minnesota – Do cars count as public spaces? Minnesota Supreme Court takes up question in BB gun case
The Minnesota Supreme Court is weighing whether a private vehicle on a public road qualifies as a “public place” under state firearm laws. The case involves a man charged with having a loaded BB gun under his seat, with debate centering on whether the statute’s definition of public space includes cars. Justices questioned both sides on legislative intent and the balance between private space and public safety.
A Missouri judge upheld a strict voter ID law challenged by civil rights groups, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing and the law was allowed under a 2016 constitutional amendment. Advocates, including the ACLU and NAACP, plan to appeal, arguing the law disenfranchises low-income voters, seniors, and people of color without improving election security. They cite Missouri’s data showing over 200,000 voters lack the required ID.
Mississippi – Lawsuit to officially outlaw abortion in Mississippi may not have standing at the state Supreme Court
Two recent Mississippi Supreme Court rulings made it harder for individuals or groups to gain legal standing to sue, a trend now affecting a case brought by anti-abortion doctors seeking to overturn a 1998 state ruling protecting abortion rights. A lower court dismissed the doctors’ case, saying they couldn’t prove harm, and precedent suggests the Supreme Court may agree. Meanwhile, abortion providers, who would clearly have standing, have opted not to pursue a challenge, leaving Mississippi in a legal gray zone where abortion is technically legal but unavailable.
New Hampshire – How raising the retirement ages for judges could affect NH courts
New Hampshire voters will decide whether to amend the state constitution to raise the judicial retirement age from 70 to 75, a limit set in 1792. Supporters argue the change would retain experienced judges like former Justice Carol Ann Conboy, while critics worry it could extend the tenure of unfit or outdated judges. Legal experts suggest alternatives like competency evaluations or term limits, but acknowledge that a uniform age cap remains the most practical solution despite its limitations.
New Hampshire – New Hampshire Supreme Court hears arguments on whether the education property tax is legal
Property taxpayers are challenging the current structure of the state’s education property tax (SWEPT), arguing that it unfairly allows wealthy towns like Newington to keep excess revenue instead of redistributing it to poorer districts, violating the state constitution’s requirement for uniform taxation. They also contend that exemptions granted to properties in unincorporated areas, through negative tax rates, create additional constitutional inequities. The state and its allies counter that SWEPT is a uniformly applied tax and that any redistribution decisions are legislative, not judicial, matters.
New York – Commencement of Child Victims Act at Heart of Federal Question Posed to NY’s Top Court
New York’s top court is weighing whether to extend the Child Victims Act’s two-year revival window by six months to account for a waiting period before it began. Judges appeared reluctant to alter the timeline, emphasizing that the legislative history set the start date on August 14, 2019. The case stems from a lawsuit filed four months earlier, raising questions about statutory interpretation and attorney error.
New York – News/Media Alliance Joins Amicus Brief Supporting Expanded Access to Police Personnel Records
On November 15, 2024, the News/Media Alliance and twenty-six other media groups filed an amicus brief urging the New York Court of Appeals to uphold public access to police personnel records created before the 2020 repeal of Civil Rights Law Section 50-a. They argue that full access is essential for transparency and accountability in cases of police misconduct.
North Dakota – ND Supreme Court hears oral arguments in motion to reinstate abortion ban
The North Dakota Supreme Court heard arguments about the state’s abortion ban, which a district judge struck down in September. The ban restricted doctors’ ability to perform abortions only if the mother’s life was in danger. The state is asking the supreme court to temporarily pause judgment on the case. Still, the district court and opponents to the abortion ban argue that the ban violates the rights of both physicians and patients, confuses doctors, and that staying the judgment and allowing the state to continue to enforce the law would be nonsensical.
North Dakota – Carbon Storage Laws Challenged In North Dakota Supreme Court
As part of broader legal battles over Summit Carbon Solutions’ Midwest Carbon Express CO₂ pipeline, the Northwest Landowners Association appealed their challenge to the pipeline to the North Dakota Supreme Court, arguing that a state law requiring dissenting landowners to participate in infrastructure projects if 60% of others agree is unconstitutional. The pipeline, which spans five states, already faced setbacks, including the South Dakota Supreme Court ruling denying eminent domain authority. Supporters argue carbon capture is critical for the ethanol industry’s future, while opponents are pushing back through legal and electoral channels, including a South Dakota referendum this November.
Ohio – Ohio Supreme Court justice, crime victim advocates want charges in pleas to be based on facts
Ohio Supreme Court Justice Michael Donnelly identified over six hundred cases that involved “factually baseless pleas,” where defendants pled guilty to lesser charges unrelated to the original offense, often in serious cases like sexual assault. Donnelly and victim advocates argue this undermines justice, weakens victim trust, and allows offenders to avoid appropriate consequences, such as sex offender registration. Though prosecutors defend the practice as sometimes necessary to spare victims trauma or secure convictions, Donnelly is pushing for stricter rules requiring that plea deals be grounded in facts.
Ohio – Ohio Democratic state Senator proposes removing party labels for judicial races
Since Ohio added partisan labels to state supreme court and appeals court races in 2021, Republicans swept every race, reversing earlier Democratic gains. Critics, like Sen. Bill DeMora, argued that this shift turned judicial elections into high-cost partisan battles, discouraged down-ballot competition, and misled voters about candidate qualifications. Supporters claim party labels boost voter participation, though evidence shows voters value information on candidates’ experience more than party affiliation.
Oklahoma – Oklahoma Supreme Court hears arguments in case to disqualify a member of the Corporation Commission
The Oklahoma Supreme Court heard arguments on whether Corporation Commissioner Todd Hiett should be disqualified from voting on certain utility rate and fuel adjustment proceedings cases due to alleged misconduct, following a report from The Oklahoman that Hiett was observed groping a man and being intoxicated at a conference in June, as well as accusations of drunk driving after a 2023 event in Oklahoma City. Hiett’s attorney argued that disqualification would amount to improper removal from office, which the court lacks jurisdiction to do. At the same time, the plaintiffs, three Republican lawmakers, clarified they are only seeking his recusal from specific cases. Several justices questioned the legal basis for the request and why the matter wasn’t pursued through legislative impeachment.
Oregon – Oregon Supreme Court weighs irrigation dam’s impacts on in-stream water rights
The Oregon Supreme Court is considering whether a proposed reservoir by the East Valley Water District violates in-stream water rights meant to protect cutthroat trout habitat. The irrigation district argues the project would not reduce stream flow and that regulators improperly applied subjective environmental factors beyond water quantity. Opponents, including state officials and environmental groups, contend the dam would undermine the ecological purpose of the in-stream right, potentially setting a precedent that threatens similar protections statewide.
Oregon – Oregon Supreme Court considers dispute over non-disparagement clause in divorce papers
The Oregon Supreme Court is considering whether a non-disparagement clause in a divorce agreement can override protections under the state’s anti-SLAPP law, which guards against lawsuits aimed at suppressing free speech. The case involves a dispute over whether public comments made during a political campaign violated the agreement and whether the agreement constituted a valid waiver of speech rights. Justices questioned whether such clauses can lawfully restrict speech related to matters of public interest.
Pennsylvania – Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Shivers
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is reconsidering whether unprovoked flight from police in a high-crime area, without additional evidence, justifies an investigative stop under the state constitution. In Commonwealth v. Shivers, the ACLU argues that such stops violate Pennsylvania’s broader search-and-seizure protections and disproportionately harm individuals, especially in communities with tense police relations, who may flee out of fear rather than guilt. The case challenges the state’s prior alignment with the U.S. Supreme Court’s narrower Wardlow standard, which holds that the Fourth Amendment does not bar stopping people in high-crime areas who engage in unprovoked flight from the police, and asks the court to return to its more protective precedent.
South Carolina – Planned Parenthood South Atlantic v. Wilson
In a challenge to South Carolina’s 2023 abortion ban, the ACLU argues that the law, by its own definition of “fetal heartbeat,” should not apply until around nine weeks of pregnancy, when a fetus, not an embryo, is present. The state claims the ban applies at six weeks, relying on legislative intent rather than statutory text. The ACLU contends that this interpretation expands criminal liability beyond what the law permits, violating due process and undermining basic principles of statutory construction.
South Carolina – Alex Murdaugh’s ‘Egg Juror’ Challenges S.C. Supreme Court
A dismissed juror from the high-profile Murdaugh trial is petitioning the South Carolina Supreme Court to release sealed records related to her removal, arguing that withholding them without explanation violates her First Amendment rights. The juror, removed hours before the guilty verdict, claims she was targeted as part of a conspiracy involving now-disgraced court officials, including a clerk accused of jury tampering. Her attorney insists the court must either unseal the files or justify keeping them sealed to meet constitutional transparency standards.
Tennessee – Tennessee Supreme Court to hear case on sealed documents
The Tennessee Supreme Court will hear a case challenging the sealing of court records related to a judge’s competency following health concerns, after a lower court denied a media outlet’s request to access the documents without explanation. The case raises critical questions about judicial transparency, particularly since no written order was filed to justify the sealing, a requirement under open government law. Media and transparency advocates argue that sealing records without proper justification undermines public trust in the courts.
Utah – Utah Supreme Court asking for public comment on bar exam proposal
The Utah Supreme Court is considering a proposal to allow law graduates to become licensed without taking the bar exam, instead completing a 240-hour supervised apprenticeship with a licensed attorney. Supporters argue this path could provide more practical training and an equitable alternative to the traditional two-day test. Similar alternatives exist in states like Oregon and Wisconsin. Public comment on Utah’s proposal is open until December 19th.
Vermont – Vt. high court to rule on who has authority over state’s public trails
The Vermont Supreme Court will decide who has control over a trail that is town-maintained but crosses through private property. The decision could signifigantly reshape public access rights throughout the state with consequences for recreation, landowners, and municipalities.
Washington – WA Supreme Court weighs controversial step to solve public defense crisis
The Washington Supreme Court heard closing arguments on a proposal to significantly reduce public defender caseloads by up to two-thirds to address attorney shortages and prolonged delays in assigning counsel. Supporters argue that excessive workloads violate defendants’ constitutional rights and deter lawyers from entering public defense, while opponents warn of increased costs, fewer prosecutions, and strain on local budgets.
West Virginia – More Sports Cases Appealed To State Supreme Court
The West Virginia Secondary School Activities Commission (SSAC) filed two more petitions for Writ of Prohibition with the state’s highest court seeking to block conflicting lower court rulings that have halted the Class A high school volleyball playoffs. The dispute stems from contradictory court orders involving Tyler Consolidated, St. Marys, and Trinity, leaving one regional spot unresolved and halting the tournament. The SSAC argues that only the state’s highest court can resolve the legal deadlock, which has postponed competition despite other classes having already completed their championships. Similar disputes are also delaying the state football playoffs, with further rulings pending.
Wisconsin – Wisconsin Supreme Court to hear arguments in lawsuit over Meagan Wolfe’s ‘holdover’ appointment
The Wisconsin Supreme Court is set to hear arguments over whether the state’s top elections official can remain in her role beyond her expired term, amid partisan conflict stemming from the 2020 election. The case tests the precedent set in a 2022 ruling that allowed appointees to stay in office until a successor is confirmed, a decision previously opposed by the court’s liberal justices but now being used to defend the current administrator’s position. Legal experts warn that the dispute reflects a broader breakdown in norms between the state’s executive and legislative branches and raises concerns about the increasing politicization of the appointments process.
Wisconsin – Wisconsin Supreme Court grapples with an 1849 state law and the legality of abortion
The Wisconsin Supreme Court is weighing whether to revive an 1849 law construed as an abortion ban, after a lower court ruled it applies only to non-consensual acts like feticide. During oral arguments, liberal justices sharply criticized the push to enforce the outdated statute, questioning its lack of exceptions and potential harm to patients. The case reflects broader legal and political tensions surrounding abortion access in the state following the fall of Roe v. Wade, and a separate case on whether the state constitution protects abortion rights is also pending before the court.
Wyoming – Ruling keeping abortion legal appealed to Wyoming Supreme Court
Two abortion bans in Wyoming are now headed to the state supreme court after a lower court struck them down for violating a constitutional amendment that protects individuals’ rights to make their own health care decisions. The ruling blocks both a near-total abortion ban and a separate medical abortion ban, prompting an appeal by state officials. Supporters of abortion access hope the high court’s review will bring long-term clarity and halt what they describe as a costly, ongoing legislative battle over reproductive rights.
