monthly, State Court Report Preview upcoming oral discussions in a prominent or interesting state court case.
In October, the state Supreme Court will address a wide range of issues, including the right to free speech to sham and record Montana police, the constitution of New York’s groundbreaking voter protection law, and restrictions on those who may have an abortion in Alaska.
Do police record safe speeches? – October 1st
Kalispell City vs DomanMontana Supreme Court
The Montana Supreme Court will consider the appeal of the defendant, who has seen traffic going and began recording his encounter on a mobile phone. He was arrested and argued with police and was accused of obstructing a peace officer, including calling one of the officers a “tyrant.” The defendant argues that his “tyrant” remarks were a speech protected under the First Amendment to the US Constitution and the Montana statements and expression provisions, and is an inappropriate basis for criminal charges. With Amicus’ support from the American Civil Liberties Union, he also argues that the disability laws applicable to his conduct are unconstitutional, as both federal and state free speech and press guarantees the right to record law enforcement agencies that fulfill their public obligations. Given the defendant had been filming peacefully from the public sidewalk, they argued, and officers overly restricted their rights by arresting him.
Take a look at the discussion here.
Do certain Texas studies legally allow gender maintenance care for minors? – October 7th
Pflag v. Attorney General’s OfficeTexas Supreme Court
The Texas Supreme Court will address information requests the state has made to PFLAG, an LGBTQ+ organization, as part of an investigation into whether health care providers are circumventing Texas’ ban on gender-maintaining care for minors. The request arises from the CEO of Affidavit PFLAG Loev. Texas – Previous cases where the ban was finally enacted – mentioned by a family member who feared that at the time, still legal care, had considered “contingency plans” and “alternatives to maintain care.” The PFLAG responded to research demand by suing to block it, and the state opposed it to implement it. The State High Court will consider whether the “justice” for the lower court is erroneous in attacking some of the requests for grounds for information relating to PFLAG membership and private communications, in violation of the First Amendment and the state’s constitutional speech and association rights.
PFLAG also has another appeal awaiting debate before the Texas Supreme Court. At issue is the validity of a temporary injunction upheld by the midterm court against the implementation of a governor’s order that investigates parents of child abuse suspected of providing gender-protective care to transgender children.
Check out the October discussion here.
Will a lawsuit proceed to stop future harm to immigrants? – October 8th
Michigan Immigration Rights Center v. GovernorMichigan Supreme Court
The Michigan Supreme Court will undertake the due process challenges by immigration legal support groups against the state’s alleged policy of refusing workers to undocumented workers based on immigration status. The group only seeks future relief, not damages for past harm, but to require future laws. The Intermediate Court stated that laws prohibiting claims against the state cannot proceed with litigation to prohibit claims against the state unless the plaintiff submits a request or notice of the claim within the year that exists from the time the claim exists. The court said the practices argued here caused injuries more than a year before filing first.
In its appeal to the Michigan High Court, the plaintiffs and Amicus groups (including the National Immigration Law Center and the National Employment Act protections) argue that it should not apply to future relief requests against state authorities. “They prohibit claims that seek to prevent future harm based on past injuries, they argue, that they broadly protect the state from accountability for continued and future unconstitutional violations, and can affect marginalized communities that order state courts to comply with constitutional laws, which can last for a long time and exacerbate harm.”
Take a look at the discussion here.
Does New York’s Voting Rights Act violate equal protection? – October 14th
Clark v. The town of Newburgh New York Court of Appeals
The New York High Court hears debate as to whether provisions of state voting rights laws, designed to mitigate election practices that reduce their ability to select candidates of their choice, known as vote dilution, violate federal or state equal protection requirements. Black and Hispanic residents argued that Newberg’s method of selecting townboard members had diluted their votes in violation of the law. The court found that the national law itself violated the US Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection by providing relief based on racial classification. However, the Court of Appeals overturned the decision and found the town failed to show that compliance with New York’s Voting Rights Act enforces violating federal equal protection requirements. The midterm court in part reasoned that the vote dilution provision would allow all racial groups, including white voters, including political subdivision minorities, to reflect on potential remedies that do not screen voters who do not organize voters based on race.
Take a look at the discussion here.
Does the Washington Campaign Disclosure Act violate freedom of speech? – October 28th
Washington vs. Meta PlatformWashington Supreme Court
The Washington Supreme Court will consider Meta’s free speech challenge to Meta’s fair campaign practices law. This generally requires companies running election-related ads to keep records of their advertising for public reviews.
The Court of Appeal rejected Meta’s claim that the law violated the First Amendment and was preempted by the Commonwealth Act of Federal Communications. The court applied “strict scrutiny,” a federal standard used to assess campaign disclosure requirements, to Washington state law, and concluded that the law is significantly related to the important government’s interests of notifying voters how those paying for advertising and advertisers are trying to influence elections.
The Brennan Center and other nonprofits will file Amicus briefs at the Court of Appeals stage, and the Washington Supreme Court will argue for a surge in political ads online and microtargeting, requiring transparency requirements.
Take a look at the discussion here.
Can non-physicists prohibit abortion? – October 29th
Alaska vs. Great Northwest Planning ParentsAlaska Supreme Court
The Alaska Supreme Court will implement the state’s ban on highly trained and licensed clinicians, such as doctor assistants and nurses, but non-medical people have two most common first sign surgeries: drugs and aspiration abortion. The trial court has found that by breaking the ban and limiting the availability of care without improving the health and safety of the patient, it violated the patient’s state constitutional privacy rights, previously recognized by the Alaska High Court. The ban also violates Alaska’s Equality Protection Clause, as the court treats patients differently based on reproductive choices, as it does not prevent these advanced clinicians from providing nearly identical care to people experiencing miscarriage. In its appeal, the state argues that the ban does not undermine the right to make sufficient reproductive decisions to cause strict scrutiny.
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, Oral debate in state courts to be monitored in October; sᴛᴀᴛᴇcᴏᴜʀᴛrᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (September 30, 2025), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/state-court-aral-arguments-watch-0
