Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public policy matters. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author. We welcome responses to the views presented here. To join the debate, please email us at [email protected].

Federalism is a central feature of our American system of government. In recognition of the importance of state government and law to our nation, the Federalist Society has long published summaries of important state court decisions from around the country in State Court Docket Watch. To keep up with even more state court decisions even more quickly, State Court Docket Watch will now be published as a bi-weekly newsletter. The newsletter will present brief summaries of important decisions made by state supreme courts in the preceding weeks, and will link to commentary on state court decisions. The most important decisions will be covered at greater length in separate articles.

The first SCDW newsletter is below. We welcome your feedback, submissions, and suggestions. Stay tuned from information about how to subscribe!  

State Court Decisions: April 10-24

  • The Governor of Wisconsin may partially veto provisions of an appropriations bill before signing it into law. The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld Governor Tony Evers’ partial veto of a spending bill that, through the strategic striking of words and numbers, extended a two-year school funding provision to 402 years.
  • In Wisconsin, employers are forbidden to engage in discrimination against an individual’s “arrest record”—a term defined as “information indicating that an individual has been questioned, apprehended, taken into custody or detention, held for investigation, arrested, charged with, indicted or tried for any felony, misdemeanor or other offense pursuant to any law enforcement or military authority.” The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the phrase “any . . . other offense” includes non-criminal offenses.
  • In 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court found mandatory life without parole sentences violate the Michigan Constitution when applied to 18-year-olds. In People v. Taylor, the court extended that holding to “individuals who were 19 or 20 years old at the time of the crime for which they were convicted.”
  • Michigan’s Whistleblowers Protection Act (WPA) protects employees who report “a suspected violation of a law or regulation or rule promulgated pursuant to law of [Michigan], a political subdivision of [Michigan], or the United States to a public body.” The Michigan Supreme Court held that the term “law” in the WPA includes the common law. Justice Brian Zahra dissented, arguing “law” under the WPA “refers to a violation or suspected violation of a statute, administrative rule, and perhaps a constitutional provision, but not the common law.”
  • Answering a certified question from federal district court, the Hawai’i Supreme Court held that county prosecutors act on behalf of the county, not the state, when prosecuting criminal violations of state law. The court’s opinion traced the history of Hawaiian prosecutorial power from 1844 to the present and “decline[d] to extend state sovereign immunity to county prosecutors.” “County prosecutors,” the court held, “are suable section 1983 persons.”
  • The Maryland Supreme Court held that state-issued checks are contracts, and that Maryland’s sovereign immunity as to claims by the holder of those checks had thus been waived.
  • The state of Oklahoma moved to terminate a mother’s parental rights, and a jury trial was set. The mother failed to appear for the trial, and the court, pursuant to a state statute, then held a non-jury trial in her absence. The mother challenged the constitutionality of the law in the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which upheld the law.
  • A man was convicted of illegally transporting beer with his airplane into a “dry” Alaskan village. As part of his sentencing, he was ordered to forfeit the airplane used in the commission of the crime. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled the forfeiture was not an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment.
  • The Fort Smith School District permits students who move into the district to play sports for one of the District's two high schools in their first year of enrollment. By contrast, if a student transfers from one District high school to another, the District does not allow that student to play sports for one year. The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled this policy runs afoul of a state statute, but not the Arkansas Constitution’s equal protection and parental rights guarantees. Three justices dissented as to the statutory holding.
  • In a state statute which limits municipal liability, the New Hampshire Supreme Court interpreted the word “highway” to include “pedestrian warning signs, crossing signals, and other traffic controls,” not just the surface of the road.
  • The Washington Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of a local initiative from Spokane that was designed to expand the city’s criminalization of camping. The court found the initiative fell “outside the scope of the local initiative power because it [was] impermissibly ‘administrative’ rather than permissibly ‘legislative.’”

State Courts in the News

NC Supreme Court Election Fight: “Bloodless Coup” or Election Administration Snafu? – FedSoc Blog