Plus: Oral arguments to watch for this month ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

[link removed]

This month marks the third anniversary of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, in which the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and held that there was no federal constitutional right to abortion. The Court said it was returning decisions about abortion regulation “to the people and their elected representatives.” Strikingly, the decision didn’t mention state courts.

But it’s state judges who interpret the scope of state abortion restrictions and define state constitutional rights to abortion access. In the aftermath of Dobbs, a flood of state litigation challenged trigger laws and other bans that sought to immediately block abortions after federal protections disappeared. Since 2022, dozens of major rulings

[link removed]

have yielded widely varying

[link removed]

results.

This kind of litigation continues, and new legal issues have also emerged in the three years since Dobbs. Recent cases in Florida

[link removed]

and Missouri

[link removed]

— both covered by UC Davis School of Law professor Mary Ziegler in State Court Report — highlight some of the next generation questions to watch.

The first is what happens

[link removed]

after a state passes a constitutional amendment to protect abortion rights. In Missouri, voters passed an abortion rights amendment in November, making it one of 10 states to codify explicit abortion protections

[link removed]

in its constitution since Dobbs. A state law banning virtually all abortions is now unconstitutional. But Missouri still has restrictions on the books — such as onerous licensing requirements for clinics and a 72-hour waiting period — which providers say create substantial hurdles to abortion care. Does Missouri’s amendment limit the state’s ability to impose these kinds of restrictions?

Last week, the Missouri Supreme Court overturned a trial court injunction that had blocked these laws. As Ziegler explains

[link removed]

, it was a procedural ruling: The court held that the trial court had applied the wrong legal standard because it didn’t assess whether the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits. But while the court didn’t reach the substance of the claims, the practical effect of the ruling is to halt abortions. After the decision, clinics in the state canceled appointments and advised patients to travel out of state.

The case now goes back to the trial court, and any consideration of a new injunction is likely to take at least a month. A lot of uncertainty remains, but what’s clear, Ziegler argues, “is that simply passing a constitutional amendment protecting reproductive rights is not enough to guarantee access to abortion.”

Similar disputes are playing out elsewhere. In Arizona, a lawsuit challenging abortion restrictions under its 2024 abortion rights amendment was filed

[link removed]

last month. And in Michigan, a trial court recently entered a permanent injunction

[link removed]

blocking several abortion restrictions, including a 24-hour waiting period, under that state’s 2022 amendment. The court emphasized that the restrictions were “not consistent with the accepted standard of care and evidence-based medicine.”

The litigation in Arizona, Michigan, and Missouri all relates to whether state constitutions protect access to abortion. A recent intermediate appellate case in Florida, however, highlights a second emerging issue: how constitutions can be used to limit abortion access.

In Doe v. Uthmeier, a Florida appellate court struck down a state law

[link removed]

that allowed minors to bypass parental consent requirements with judicial approval. The court ruled that the procedure violated the rights of parents, denying them one of “the most basic due-process guarantees — notice and opportunity to be heard — on the question whether they must forfeit an important parental right that the state and federal constitutions secure to them.” The court based its ruling on the U.S. Constitution, while stressing that Florida’s constitution provides even broader protections for parental rights.

The next stop for this case is the Florida Supreme Court, and given the federal constitutional issues, it could ultimately be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition to the parental rights claims raised by the appellate court, Ziegler anticipates that the Florida Supreme Court may use the case to address fetal personhood rights under the state constitution. A “showdown” is brewing in Florida “over parental rights, abortion access, fertility care, and more,” Ziegler explains. Ultimately, the case “could reshape the state’s reproductive rights landscape.”





Religious Charter School Debate Back with States

The U.S. Supreme Court split evenly last month over whether approving a Catholic school’s charter application would violate the state and federal constitutions. The split — which had the effect of leaving in place the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling that such a charter was unconstitutional — “announces, pragmatically speaking, a permissive policy: States may, but need not, exclude religious schools from their charter programs,” writes Fordham University School of Law professor Aaron Saiger. Read more

[link removed]

The Role of History and Tradition in State Abortion Cases

“While state courts are not tethered to Dobbs or its brand of originalism, the influence it has had on state courts deciding abortion rights cases is undeniable,” write Diana Kasdan and Amanda Barrow of UCLA Law’s Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy. In multiple cases since the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated the federal right to abortion, state high courts have considered historical evidence and still embraced protections for abortion care. Read more

[link removed]

The Strange Legal Standard Eroding Civil Rights In North Carolina

Since 2023, the North Carolina Supreme Court has rolled back civil rights under the state constitution, writes Kyle Barry of the State Law Research Initiative, and in doing so relied in their decisions on an odd and highly criticized rule: a requirement that claimants prove challenged statutes are unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. Read more

[link removed]

Virginia’s Constitution: An Influential and Resurgent Declaration of Rights

“Most provisions in Virginia’s 1776 Declaration of Rights have survived relatively intact,” but interpretation of the state’s current constitution, which took effect in July 1971, continues to evolve, as a 2023 state supreme court decision heralded “a new era

[link removed]

of independent interpretation of Virginia’s Bill of Rights,” writes Wake Forest University professor John Dinan. This essay is part of State Court Report’s 50-state series

[link removed]

on the nation’s constitutions. Read more

[link removed]

State Court Oral Arguments to Watch for in June

Each month, we highlight notable upcoming state supreme court arguments. For June, State Court Report’s Sarah Kessler and Erin Geiger Smith write about high courts in Hawaii, Oregon, South Carolina, and Washington taking up issues including partisan gerrymandering, fines and fees imposed on indigent defendants, and bans on flavored tobacco and online vision tests. Read more

[link removed]





You May Have Missed

Multiple Texas counties filed lawsuits

[link removed]

against the Texas attorney general, challenging a rule that allows his office to request local district attorneys’ case files in counties with populations greater than 400,000. State Court Report has written

[link removed]

about

[link removed]

efforts across the country to limit local prosecutors’ independence.

The North Carolina Supreme Court kept in place an appellate court’s decision allowing lawmakers to transfer appointment power for the state elections board from the governor to the state auditor. State Court Report wrote

[link removed]

about the ongoing lawsuit challenging the transfer, including why the change risks creating a precedent for partisan power grabs. The decision comes as the Trump administration sued

[link removed]

the state board, saying the state does not adequately verify voter identity — allegations that mirror those from candidate Jefferson Griffin in his failed attempt

[link removed]

to throw out votes cast in the 2024 state supreme court election.

Three Alabama landowners are challenging

[link removed]

a state law that allows state game wardens to enter private property without a warrant or consent. Joshua Windham, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, the organization representing the landowners, previously wrote

[link removed]

for State Court Report that multiple state courts have rejected the “open fields” exception to warrantless searches.





Notable Cases

Paxton v. Annunciation House

[link removed]

, Texas Supreme Court

Unanimously held that the Texas Constitution authorizes the state attorney general to bring an action to shut down a Catholic charity on the basis of allegations that it violated a state law against harboring undocumented immigrants. State religious freedom protections do not bar the claim from being filed, and the law is neither unconstitutionally vague nor precluded by federal immigration law. The case will continue in the trial court. // Courthouse News Service

[link removed]

Stephens v. State

[link removed]

, Georgia Supreme Court

Unanimously upheld, under the state’s right to bear arms clause, a law banning Georgians younger than 21 from carrying handguns in public, unless they have military training. The court declined to import federal Second Amendment standards into Georgia’s clause, noting that it distinctly and expressly grants the legislature power to regulate the manner in which firearms may be carried. // Georgia Public Broadcasting

[link removed]

City of Wenatchee v. Stearns

[link removed]

, Washington Supreme Court

Upheld the legality, under Washington’s private affairs clause and the Fourth Amendment, of a police stop that was based on information received in a 911 call. Such a stop is lawful when circumstances indicate that the tip is reliable and contains a factual basis to give the officer reasonable suspicion of a crime, even if the manner in which the caller gathered the facts conveyed in the tip is not established. // NCWLIFE

[link removed]

Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. State Corporation Commission

[link removed]

, Virginia Supreme Court

Unanimously held that a law permitting broadband service providers to install fiber optic cables across railroad property violates a state constitutional takings amendment when applied to a private company seeking to expand its network for financial gain. The Virginia amendment was enacted in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2005 holding in Kelo v. City of New London that a taking for economic development purposes satisfies the Fifth Amendment’s “public use” requirement for eminent domain. // Cardinal News

[link removed]

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

[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]

[link removed]