monthly, State Court Report Preview upcoming oral discussions in a prominent or interesting state court case.
In May, the state Supreme Court will address a wide range of issues, including Pennsylvania’s entry into the greenhouse gas regional cap, a ban on misqualification for California’s LGBTQ+ long-term care residents, and a review within the Oregon Court of Appeals Guidline.
Long-term care facilities using priority pronouns in California – May 6th
California Attacks and StateCalifornia Supreme Court
The California Supreme Court will consider whether a law that makes long-term care facility staff misdemeanors “willfully and repeatedly” use of the preferential name or pronoun of a resident “willfully and repeatedly” violates free speech protection. The provisions that are part of the “Bill of Rights” for residents of LGBTQ+ long-term care facilities have been overturned by the midterm court. In its appeal, the state has a fascinating interest in protecting vulnerable residents from discrimination by the language of living, and argues that it is “substantially indistinguishable” from laws that exclude verbal discrimination such as workplace discrimination and sexual harassment. Law-challenging organizations argue that pronouns are not like racial admiration, but rather expressions of users’ beliefs about gender essentialism.
Several well-known organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Lambda Regal, have submitted Amikos Briefs to support the law.
Take a look at the discussion here.
Constitutional appeals within Oregon guidelines – May 8th
Statev. Adrian FernandezOregon Supreme Court
The Oregon Supreme Court will consider whether state laws that restrict the authority of an appeal court to review criminal penalties within the scope set by state guidelines prevent appeal review of state constitutional challenges to that judgment. The guidelines are established by the state Criminal Justice Committee with legislative approval. The Interim Court of Appeals refused to consider the defendant’s claim that within his scope a 20-month prison sentence was unconstitutional to his conviction for soliciting Minor Online.
In the Amicus overview, the ACLU argues that interpreting the law to eliminate appeal reviews on such issues violates the separation of power by obstructing the important functions of the judiciary, argues the legality of detention, and gives parliamentary control over the enforcement of the constitutional rights of the committee and parliament. Also, if judgments from committee guidelines that Oregon High Court has been treated differently from defendants set independently by Congress lead to different defendants, the Oregon High Court said that laws of nearly identical predecessors do not apply to decisions launched in Congress.
Take a look at the discussion here.
Are local emissions unconstitutional taxes in Pennsylvania? – May 13th
Environmental Protection Agency v. Pennsylvania Legislative Standards Agency. Bowfin Keycon Holdingsv. Pennsylvania Environmental Protection BureauPennsylvania Supreme Court
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will undertake the integrated challenges for participation in the state’s regional greenhouse gas initiative. The 11 state efforts to impose caps on the amount of carbon producers in each state can require continued allowances to continue to release, along with revenues that guide the environmental program to the state. LowerCourt said allowances will add taxes to taxes — as advocates argued, as the funds generated by the state, rather than management or licensing fees, are “severely unbalanced” with the costs of the state’s environmental regulator’s program and budget needs. The Pennsylvania Constitution allows only Congress to collect taxes, so the lower court has ruled that the governor enters the program through enforcement rules without legislative approval.
The state High Court previously allowed environmental nonprofits to intervene in the challenges to protect the program under Pennsylvania’s so-called “green amendment.” Characterizing the program as a tax does not take into account the public trust obligations of state agencies, and these nonprofits and other Amicusgroups argue to ensure the conservation of air and natural resources using allowance income.
Take a look at the discussion here.
Wyoming Adolescent Use of Essential Life Without Parole – May 13th
Hicks vs StateWyoming Supreme Court
The Wyoming Supreme Court will deal with whether a defendant under the age of 21 will sentence an automatic life sentence without the possibility of parole for a defendant who is violating the state constitution when the crime occurs. The U.S. Supreme Court sentenced such sentences to those under the age of 18 to violate the Eighth Amendment only. The prohibition of “cruel or unusual” punishment in Wyoming’s constitution has gone further, preventing the application of laws that require lifetimes serving prison sentences of 19 and 20 years. In support of a broader interpretation of the Wyoming Constitution than the federal version, they point out that states’ historic independent streaks and that state constitutions generally focus on individual rights and special protections against excessive punishment.
If the Wyoming High Court accepts their argument, it will recently join the Supreme Courts of three other states, including Michigan. Massachusetts goes further, interpreting the state constitution and sentences all life up to age 21, even at the discretion of the judge.
Listen to the discussion here.
The battle over the prosecution in Philadelphia – May 14th
Krasner v. SundayPennsylvania Supreme Court
Pennsylvania’s High Court hears debates over state laws that require the state attorney general to appoint jurisdiction over crimes within the local public transport system. Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner is challenging the law passed with bipartisan support, alleging it unconstitutionally sold jurisdiction over a portion of the office’s territory, disables the core prosecutor’s functioning functions, and violates the right of the person responsible for his supervisor’s responsibility to challenge his special officer.
Advocacy groups, including the NAACP, have argued that eliminating prosecutors from krasners, who have been elected twice by the majority, would negate the votes of his supporters. The lower court found that the state constitution did not grant power to the Philadelphia district attorney and found that the criminal defendant was not short of a position to assert the interests of the due process. State Court Report Previously I wrote about my efforts to slash each state legislator.
Take a look at the discussion here.
Sarah Kessler is an advisor and contributing editor State Court Report.
Erin Geiger Smith is a writer and editor of the Brennan Center for Justice.
Suggested Quotes: Sarah Kessler and Erin Geiger Smith, State court oral debate to be monitored in Maysᴛᴛᴇcᴏᴜʀᴛrᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (May 5, 2025), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/state-court-oral-arguments-watch-may-0