Plus: Victims’ rights, youth sentencing, and more ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

[link removed]

Last week, a Wyoming trial court ruled

[link removed]

in a 186-page opinion that the state was underfunding its public schools in violation of the state constitution and ordered the state legislature to modify the school funding system. Local coverage described the ruling as a bombshell

[link removed]

that was already putting pressure on lawmakers to address school funding shortfalls. And at a time when the Trump administration is asserting unprecedented influence over public education — often without legal basis — the ruling was also a striking reminder that most educational policy is actually set and implemented at the state and local levels.

The Wyoming ruling drew on decades of state precedent going back to 1980, when the Wyoming Supreme Court first declared

[link removed]

that public education was a fundamental right under the state constitution and held that the state’s then-existing school finance system violated the right to equal protection in the state’s constitution. In subsequent litigation

[link removed]

that lasted from 1992 until 2008, the court ordered a series of further changes to the state’s school financing system. In last week’s decision, the Wyoming trial court found that the state had failed to satisfy the minimum standards established in that line of cases by neglecting to adequately fund salaries for teachers, cover critical services like nutritional programs, and account for inflation, among other things.

The principles governing the right to education in Wyoming reflect a demanding — and at least to me, inspiring — view of what states owe to their students. According to the state supreme court, the Wyoming Constitution requires that education funding be “the best that we can do

[link removed]

,” not merely “as best [the legislature] can amidst other competing priorities,” and that the quality of education in the state must be

[link removed]

“both visionary and unsurpassed.”

Grand declarations of principle, of course, can mask Sisyphean challenges

[link removed]

in using litigation to realize educational excellence. While most state courts have ruled that education rights are judicially enforceable, what follows has often been

[link removed]

lengthy iteration between courts and state legislatures, sometimes spanning decades, about what constitutes compliance.

But even with these challenges, this Wyoming case — and similar lawsuits recently filed in Kentucky

[link removed]

and on appeal in New Hampshire

[link removed]

and North Carolina

[link removed]

— have been very much on my mind over the past few weeks as President Trump has issued sweeping executive orders and other policy changes targeting education. Recent orders seek to promote

[link removed]

“patriotic” education and bar schools from teaching about concepts like structural racism or recognizing transgender identities. The U.S. Department of Education announced

[link removed]

in February that it has terminated more than $600 million in teacher training grants that promoted “divisive ideologies.” Other orders seek to direct

[link removed]

more resources toward vouchers and charter schools.

State Court Report’s Erin Geiger Smith recently interviewed

[link removed]

Suffolk University law professor Joshua Weishart, an expert on education rights, about how Trump’s actions are affecting education and what it might mean for the states. According to Weishart, “the federal government has no direct authority over curriculum matters,” but pressure from the administration can give states and localities an excuse to “self-censor and preemptively change their programs.” On the other hand, states also have the power to push back. As one example, they can “include DEI in their academic standards and curricula.” We must “pay closer attention to the interplay of federal and state law,” Weishart argues.

When it comes to school funding, potential federal cuts would be devastating. States receive an average of 10 percent of their funding from the federal government, according to Weishart, but in some states the percentage can be as high as 20 or 25. States are among the entities challenging

[link removed]

such funding cuts in federal court, and the extent to which cuts will fully materialize remains to be seen. But ultimately, state constitutions impose obligations on states to provide an adequate education, regardless of what support comes from Washington. Weishart’s ultimate assessment: The current pressure from the federal government “puts enormous strain on the whole state government, from the legislature to the judiciary. It’s not going to be pleasant or welcome.”





High-Stakes Supreme Court Elections in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania

“At a time when state supreme courts and their elections are getting more attention than ever, ideological court majorities are up for grabs in both Wisconsin and Pennsylvania,” writes State Court Report founding editor Douglas Keith, detailing how the races could affect high-profile decisions and break spending records. Read more

[link removed]

In Reproductive Rights Litigation, New State Hurdles to Standing

The Georgia Supreme Court remanded a state abortion ban challenge to the trial court to determine if plaintiffs, including medical providers, meet the state’s new, stricter standing requirements. It’s a reminder that “procedural hurdles may prove as important as the interpretation of state constitutions,” writes University of California Davis law professor Mary Ziegler. Read more

[link removed]

Justices Battle for Control in the Arkansas Supreme Court

“The Arkansas Supreme Court is engaged in a public power struggle over who has the ultimate authority to make administrative decisions for the institution — a constitutional confrontation pitting the state’s newly elected chief justice against the majority of her colleagues,” writes journalist David Brown. Read more

[link removed]

Protecting Youths in the Criminal Justice System

Sentenced to 80 years to life in prison at 18 years old and released after 21 years, Gene Downing now works at the Council for Court Excellence. Policymakers, advocates, and communities must speak out about the “injustice of treating kids like adults and change how young people are treated,” Downing writes. Read more

[link removed]

The Utah Constitution Is “Distinctively Undistinctive”

As part of our 50-state series

[link removed]

about state constitutions, Brigham Young University political scientist Adam Brown writes that drafters of Utah’s 1895 constitution “consciously signaled a break from Utah’s controversial past.” Still, amendments and court decisions show even a document meant to follow the crowd can be full of surprises. Read more

[link removed]

Dispute over Victim’s Diary Broadens “Marsy’s Law”

Interpreting South Dakota’s victims’ rights amendment, the state’s high court held that criminal defendants couldn’t subpoena a victim’s diaries to support their case. According to University of Utah law professor Paul Cassell and law student Haley Green, the decision highlights that defense attorneys should consider victims’ interests even “as they work to protect the interests of their own clients.” Read more

[link removed]

No State Actor, No Problem

Unlike federal courts, state courts have often interpreted state constitutions to encompass obligations for private parties, holding a hospital responsible for retaliating against speech and a company for sex discrimination, among many examples. “When constitutional provisions are articulated in broad, inclusive terms, they lend themselves to interpretations that transcend the traditional public-private divide,” writes Carlos Chevere-Lugo, an adjunct professor at St. Mary’s School of Law. Read more

[link removed]





What Else We’re Reading

State Court Report compiled

[link removed]

resources that help demystify state courts and constitutions. These tools include a searchable database of all 50 state constitutions, scorecards on state court transparency, maps detailing state abortion access, our own database of state court cases, and more.

Our March preview

[link removed]

of state supreme court oral arguments in Arizona, Georgia, Missouri, North Dakota, and Oregon includes litigation over controversial ballot-counting rules, a minimum wage hike, and dark money contributions.





You May Have Missed



Abortion care resumed in Missouri after a trial court there found

[link removed]

that certain medical facility licensing requirements violated Missouri’s recently passed amendment protecting abortion. State Court Report has covered

[link removed]

similar litigation that occurs after voters approve a constitutional amendment.

The North Carolina Supreme Court denied

[link removed]

, in a 4–2 ruling, the state elections board’s request to bypass

[link removed]

the intermediate appeals court in a dispute over certification of last year’s state supreme court race. A trial court ruled in favor of the board against the losing candidate, who is seeking to have more than 60,000 valid votes thrown out, State Court Report has explained

[link removed]

.

Robert Roberson, fighting his death sentence for murder based on “shaken baby” syndrome, filed a new application with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals arguing

[link removed]

, with supporting reports, that “unreliable and outdated scientific and medical evidence was material to his conviction.” Professor Quinn Yeargain details

[link removed]

the unusual way the Texas Legislature is involved in the case.





Notable Cases

Cuomo v. New York State Commission on Ethics and Lobbying in Government

[link removed]

, New York Court of Appeals

Ruled 4–3 that the state government’s ethics commission does not, as former Gov. Andrew Cuomo alleged, violate separation of powers principles, reversing the lower court. The lawsuit stemmed from the commission’s investigation of Cuomo’s $5.1 million book deal. // ABC News 10

[link removed])%20%E2%80%94%20New%20York%27s%20Court,the%20Legislature%20too%20much%20authority.

Brown v. Wisconsin Elections Commission

[link removed]

, Wisconsin Supreme Court

Rejected, in a split decision, a conservative-backed challenge to a Wisconsin city’s use of a mobile voting truck for in-person absentee voting. The court found that the plaintiff did not have standing to sue, noting that the relevant statute required him to show that he was “aggrieved,” and that the plaintiff did not allege that permitting the mobile voting truck made it more difficult for him to vote or affected him personally whatsoever. // Associated Press

[link removed]

Connor v. Oklahoma

[link removed]

, Oklahoma Supreme Court

Reversed a district court’s denial of the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission’s motion to dismiss a discrimination claim brought by the former general counsel of the commission. The commission claimed that she failed to comply with the notice provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act, but the lower court had found that the notice requirements did not apply due to conflicts between the law and state antidiscrimination statutes. The Oklahoma high court, reaffirming that the liability limitations in the law apply to both constitutional torts and statutes, ruled that no irreconcilable conflicts exist.

You can find briefs and opinions from notable state constitutional lawsuits in our State Case Database

[link removed]

.





Virtual Event

[link removed]



Clerking on a State Supreme Court

[link removed]

Monday, March 17, 3 p.m. ET

State courts decide the vast majority of cases filed in the United States each year, and state high courts are answering some of today’s most compelling legal questions. What is it like to clerk on a state high court, and what do law students need to know when applying for a state clerkship? Join State Court Report for a conversation with sitting state supreme court justices about clerks’ responsibilities, the application process, and the career paths of former clerks. RSVP today.

[link removed]











[link removed]

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271

646-292-8310

tel:646-292-8310

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Support Brennan Center

[link removed]



Did you get this message forwarded from a friend? Sign up here

[link removed]

.

View Online

[link removed]

Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here

[link removed]

to update your preferences.

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]