monthly, state court report Preview upcoming oral arguments in prominent or interesting state court cases.

In May, the state Supreme Court will take up a wide range of issues, including a “first-of-its-kind” lawsuit between Michigan’s two legislatures, the constitutionality of religious statues on public buildings in Massachusetts, and multiple challenges to Missouri’s new congressional map.

Can Oregon criminal defendants subpoena social media records? — May 5th

According to State v. UrbanoOregon Supreme Court

The Oregon Supreme Court will consider whether criminal defendants have a constitutional right under federal and state “compulsory process” provisions to subpoena records from social media platforms related to defense investigations. Each of these provisions gives the accused the right to “bring to compulsory proceedings to obtain” favorable witnesses and their documents. Here, the defendants subpoenaed records from Instagram to advance their self-defense argument, but parent company Meta, like other social media companies, refused to comply. Mehta cited the federal Archived Communications Act, which prohibits companies from divulging the contents of archived electronic communications, with exceptions such as search warrants and certain government subpoenas.

Defendants argue that an interpretation of the law that allows prosecutors but never defendants to obtain social media evidence violates the historical intent of the Mandatory Process Clause. Defense attorneys across the country argue in court briefs that Mehta and other companies’ interpretations prevent their clients from meaningfully defending themselves in a world where “evidence from social media is often featured as the central or only evidence against defendants.” Law professors also argue that the Archived Communications Act’s silence about its application to defensive subpoenas is not enough to overcome the right to compulsory process.

Mehta, as well as victims’ advocates in the United States and the courts, counters on multiple points, including that defendants have alternative means of obtaining this evidence, that it is “normal” for governments to have access to asymmetric investigative tools, and that the law serves a legitimate national interest in protecting the privacy rights of online users.

See the discussion here.

Can Michigan lawmakers force the governor to introduce a bill? — May 6th

Senate vs. House of RepresentativesMichigan Supreme Court

The Michigan Supreme Court will consider whether to order the state House of Representatives to send to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer nine bills that both chambers passed during the 2023-2024 session, but that the chamber did not send to the governor for signature before the session adjourned. As a result of the House’s inaction, nine bills approved by lawmakers, including ones that supporters say would improve public employees’ access to affordable health care and pension benefits and expand protections for debtors facing collection lawsuits, never took effect. The state Senate argues that the bill’s sponsor and owner, the House, violated its non-discretionary duty under the state constitution’s provision that “all bills passed by the Legislature must be submitted to the Governor before becoming law.”

The state’s intermediate court agreed and granted an order (known as a writ of mandamus) forcing the House to submit to Whitmer.

The House argues on appeal that the case cannot be resolved in court because it is an internal dispute within the Legislature over its own procedures and because the governor, not the state senator, has a clear interest in filing a standing motion. Alternatively, the House is arguing on the merits, and the state constitution treats submissions as a “prerequisite to enactment,” rather than an affirmative obligation with textual deadlines. And even if there were a mandate, it would not extend to the current House, which convenes in 2025 and has no role in passing legislation.

See the discussion here.

Can Massachusetts erect statues of saints? — May 6th

Fitzmaurice v. City of QuincyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

The Massachusetts Superior Court will consider whether a city’s plan to install two 10-foot-tall statues of Catholic saints, the patron saints of police and firefighters, outside public safety buildings violates the state constitution. Similar to the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights provides that “the subordination of any sect or sect to any other sect shall never be established by law.” A lower court ruled that the statue’s religious meaning was “impossible to strip” and preliminarily blocked its installation, despite the city’s argument that the statue serves a secular purpose of inspiring and honoring first responders.

On appeal, the parties dispute the test that should be applied to the state constitutional provision. The taxpayer plaintiffs point to a 1979 Massachusetts Superior Court case that focused on the purpose, effect, and potential “entanglement” of government lawsuits with religion. But the city argues that the test is no longer good law after the U.S. Supreme Court abandoned the Establishment Clause framework on which it was based, and that state courts should instead evaluate government actions by reference to the text of the state constitution and history. The plaintiffs counter that even if the state high court departs from its 1979 review, it should consider not only the 18th and 19th centuries but also “current circumstances.”

See the discussion here.

Does Missouri’s new congressional map violate the state constitution? — May 12 and 27

wise vs. nation, Maggard vs. State, NAACP v. KehoeMissouri Supreme Court

The Missouri Supreme Court is scheduled to hear pending arguments over the state Legislature’s efforts to redraw congressional district lines ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. The court ruled in March that the state constitution does not prevent the Legislature from redistricting in mid-decade. The high court is scheduled this month to hear two lower courts’ rejections of several other challenges to the new map, which was passed in September 2025.

First, on May 12, the court will consider whether the newly drawn districts meet the state constitution’s requirement that the newly drawn districts “shall be as compact as possible and consist of contiguous territory of approximately equal population,” and whether the maps should remain in effect pending a vote on a referendum petition to approve or veto the bill establishing the new boundaries. Supporters of the petition argue that by submitting enough signatures in December to be on the November ballot, they had the legal effect of blocking the new map based on “long-standing precedent” regarding past referendums. But the lower court said authorities must first complete a verification process and certify the referendum, which has not yet taken place.

Then, on May 27, the court will consider whether a special redistricting session in which the Legislature passed new maps is allowed under the state constitution. Appellants, the NAACP, are asking the court to determine what the NAACP claims is a matter of first impression: whether the governor’s power to convene the legislative session is “dependent on the existence of extraordinary circumstances,” and, if so, whether the governor properly stated it.

See the discussion here.

Did New York’s Equal Rights Amendment implicitly abolish judicial retirement age? — May 20

Miller v. State issueNew York Court of Appeals

New York’s Supreme Court will consider whether the state’s judicial retirement age mandate violates the New York Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), passed by voters in November 2024. This case is one of the first to interpret a state’s ERA to include age, among other new categories, that are explicitly protected from discrimination.

The three justices, who have reached 70, the retirement age set by the state constitution and statute, argue that the ERA overrides that state constitutional requirement. Lower and intermediate courts disagreed. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the ERA makes no mention of judicial retirement or entitlement, and that lawmakers’ proposal to raise the retirement age immediately after the ERA takes effect suggests that the ERA’s drafters intended to address the issue separately.

Most states require judges to retire at a certain age, and lawmakers and voters in several states have sought to extend that cap in recent years, with mixed results. Louisianans are expected to vote on such an amendment this month, and Arizonans and Hawaiians could vote in November.

See 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, State court oral arguments to watch in MaySᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (May 4, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/state-court-oral-arguments-watch-may-1