monthly, state court report Preview upcoming oral arguments in prominent or interesting state court cases. The state Supreme Court is scheduled to take up issues in January regarding search and seizure laws, access to courts and funding for private schools.
Can the Missouri Attorney General appeal a preliminary injunction when litigants in other states cannot? — January 7
Nicholson vs. StateMissouri Supreme Court
The Missouri Supreme Court will consider whether a 2025 state law that allows the state attorney general to immediately appeal preliminary injunctions that prevent the state from enforcing the law violates Missouri’s Equal Protection Clause. Other Missouri litigants do not enjoy the same instant appeal rights. The lower court said it applied a strict standard of review in its decision because it found the law violated the fundamental right to access the courts. On appeal, the state argued that the state constitution’s “open court” clause only protects plaintiffs’ right to sue, and because the law does not prohibit plaintiffs from bringing their claims in trial court, it does not interfere with that right.
Lawmakers passed a preliminary injunction in response to a trial court’s order temporarily blocking abortion restrictions after voters approved the 2024 Amendment, which protects abortion rights, according to news reports. The provision in question allowed the Attorney General to immediately appeal the case.
The high court is also hearing a counter-appeal by the plaintiffs. nicholsonMissouri taxpayers working on voting campaigns cited another part of the lower court’s ruling related to the 2025 law’s voting measure provisions. These sections shorten deadlines, add steps for contesting ballot language, and extend the length of the ballot summary. News reports reflect that these provisions are a legislative response to a successful challenge brought by abortion rights supporters to the ballot language of the 2024 Amendment. The lower court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the Legislature’s combination of preliminary injunction provisions and ballot measure provisions violated the state Constitution’s prohibition on changing the purpose of a bill during the enactment process or addressing multiple subjects of the law.
See the discussion here.
Can a police officer ask an Alabamian to show identification during a traffic stop? — January 7th
Jennings vs. SmithAlabama Supreme Court
The Alabama Supreme Court will consider whether a statute that allows a police officer to request a stopped person’s name, address and description of his or her actions would also allow an officer to require a person to produce physical identification if they determine that the person’s verbal response is insufficient. The incident occurred after law enforcement responding to a 911 call about a suspicious “black male” approached a pastor who was out watering flowers for neighbors and arrested him after he refused to show identification. The pastor initially filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking damages, alleging that the police officers had unlawfully arrested him without a valid reason. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the claim could proceed because the law did not make denial of identification illegal, but the remand court said subsequent circuit court decisions created uncertainty about the meaning of the law and referred the question to the Alabama High Court.
The pastor and various legal groups, including the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Cato Institute, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argue that their interpretation of the law to create an implied obligation to provide identification whenever a police officer deems an incomplete response makes it unconstitutional. They argue that vagueness in the content of unsatisfactory responses violates due process. Additionally, Amici argues that given state and federal protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and forced self-incrimination, allowing police officers to request identification is problematic, mislabels the scope and name of the law, and violates the state constitution.
See the discussion here.
Does the Ohio Constitution provide stronger protections for administrative investigations than the Fourth Amendment? — January 8th
City of North Canton Development Services Authority v. CF HomesSupreme Court of Ohio
The Ohio Supreme Court will consider for the first time whether the Ohio Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, requires city authorities seeking to search homes for regulatory, rather than criminal, violations to show more evidence than federal law requires.
in Camara v. District Courtthe U.S. Supreme Court said that while the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant for such a search, a warrant can be based on “reasonable legislative or administrative criteria,” such as time elapsed since the inspection or general area conditions, even if there is no probable cause to believe that an individual residence is in violation of the regulations. Landlords challenging rental inspections by local authorities argue that this lack of personal cause is insufficient for purposes of the Ohio Constitution. The state’s constitutional history reflects a longstanding rejection of general writs and an emphasis on the sanctity of the home, the firm, the Institute for Justice and the Pacific Law Foundation argue. The Pennsylvania Court of Appeals recently departed Kamala He was charged under Pennsylvania’s search and seizure provisions for similar reasons.
But in the Ohio case, legal aid groups in the state countered that Ohio tenants, especially low-income residents, “rely on the ability of local governments to conduct home safety inspections to ensure safe rental conditions in their homes.”
See the discussion here.
Is Idaho’s school choice program constitutional? — January 23
Idaho Constitutional Protection and Preservation Commission v. StateIdaho Supreme Court
The Idaho Supreme Court will hear a challenge to the state’s first school choice program brought by teachers unions, school districts and other advocacy groups. The program, enacted in 2025 and scheduled to open this month, will provide students enrolled in non-public schools with tax credits of up to $5,000 ($7,500 if they have special needs) to pay for tuition and other educational expenses. In a complaint filed directly in state Superior Court, the plaintiffs argue that this use of taxpayer funds benefits private schools that exist outside of the “general, uniform, and thorough system of public, free, regular schools” that the state constitution requires the Legislature to maintain and lack public oversight. They also argue that the program violates the state doctrine that requires government programs to have a “public purpose.” They argue that the main beneficiaries are a limited number of private organizations, which may exclude students, rather than the community as a whole, and that the lack of accountability for private schools means that “educational services that are contrary to the public interest” may be funded.
State officials and lawmakers have defended the program, with support from parents, faith-based school groups and others seeking to apply for tax credits. They argue that there is nothing in the Idaho Constitution to prevent the Legislature from supporting additional education initiatives outside the state’s public school system, that tax credits do not undermine lawmakers’ duty to properly maintain public schools, and that prohibiting public purposes because the means are private would jeopardize many government programs, such as Medicaid and food assistance.
The debate in Idaho comes against a backdrop of similar school choice issues occurring across the country.
See the discussion here.
Can Utah’s Execution Method Be Challenged Under the State Constitution? — January 28th
Menzies v Department of CorrectionsUtah Supreme Court
The Utah Supreme Court will hear a challenge to the state’s protocol regarding lethal injection and firing squad. The five people sentenced to death argued that these methods violated provisions in the state constitution that prohibit cruel and unusual punishment and treating incarcerated people with “unnecessary harshness.” The lower court dismissed the claim, finding that the U.S. Supreme Court’s Eighth Amendment requirement that plaintiffs challenging enforcement methods identify available alternatives with less risk of suffering also applied to state constitutional provisions.
The ACLU filed amicus briefs in support of each individual’s appeal with the state high court. The group argues that interpreting the states clause in line with the Eighth Amendment ignores that only the former includes a prohibition on “unnecessary rigor.” The ACLU argues that “Utah’s broad commitment to the humane treatment of people in the slaughter system,” reflected in the clause’s language and history, is undermined by requiring plaintiffs “to devise better methods of punishment before they can be challenged.”
One of the men who filed the lawsuit, Ralph Menzies, died of natural causes in November. The state Supreme Court had halted the execution in August to allow its competency to carry out the death penalty to be evaluated in light of his ongoing dementia.
Listen to the discussion here.
Sarah Kessler is an advisor and contributing editor. state court report.
Erin Geiger-Smith is a writer and editor at the Brennan Center for Justice.
Recommended Citation: Sarah Kessler & Erin Geiger Smith, Focus on state court oral arguments in JanuarySᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (January 6, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/state-court-oral-arguments-watch-january-0
