monthly, state court report Preview upcoming oral arguments in prominent or interesting state court cases.
In April, state supreme courts will take up a wide range of issues, including a conservative group’s voter eligibility test in Wisconsin, the legality of a New York state program that temporarily places children in “host homes,” and a $1 million defamation judgment against a drag performer in Idaho.
Can Maine use ranked voting in state-level general elections? — April 1st
Regarding requesting opinions from judgesMaine Supreme Court
The Maine Supreme Court will consider the Legislature’s request for an advisory opinion on whether the state Constitution allows lawmakers to extend the state’s ranked-choice voting system, currently used in primaries, to the general elections for governor and Legislature.
Enacted in a 2016 citizen initiative, Maine uses ranked-choice voting to decide general elections for federal offices, but not at the state level. A 2017 advisory opinion from the state high court ruled that doing so would be unconstitutional. Given the two general election systems and the risk of confusion following an Alaska Supreme Court ruling upholding the state’s use of ranked-choice voting based on similar state constitutional provisions, Maine lawmakers tried to extend ranked-choice voting last year. Although the bill passed both chambers, it was moved to the current legislative session after the governor questioned its legality.
At issue in both the 2017 advisory opinion and the Legislature’s current request to the Maine High Court is a provision in the state constitution that defines the candidates elected for governor, state senate, and state representative seats as those who receive a “plurality” of all returned votes.
The 2017 opinion concluded that ranked-choice voting violates these provisions because when there are three or more candidates and no candidate receives a majority in the first round, the votes are counted in multiple rounds, and a candidate who receives a plurality of votes in the first round may not ultimately win in subsequent rounds.
Lawmakers supporting the current bill argue that advisory opinions are not binding on future judges and that the 2017 ruling was issued 18 months before ranked-choice voting was implemented, without taking into account nearly a decade of experience with how it has worked in practice. In effect, they added, the opinion overlooks that voter rankings are not “a series of separate votes cast in separate elections,” but rather instructions on how to tally a single election, and that the winner at the end of the count need only receive more than one vote. The Republican National Committee and the Maine Attorney General filed briefs with differing opinions.
See the discussion here.
Are long prison sentences constitutionally equivalent to life in prison for Michigan youth? — April 8
People vs. EaseMichigan Supreme Court
The Michigan Supreme Court is expected to consider the decision in 2022. People vs. Stovall The decision held that a life sentence with non-parole for a juvenile defendant convicted of unpremeditated murder violated the state’s “cruel or unusual” punishment clause and argued that the sentence should be extended to too long. in fact Life sentence.
James Eads is challenging a sentence of 50 to 75 years in prison for a murder that occurred when he was 16 years old. An intermediate court initially rejected his appeal for a reduced sentence, but then the Michigan High Court remanded the case and directed the court to consider it. stovallthere is also another case law that requires a juvenile defendant’s youth to be evaluated as a mitigating factor before a prison term of 20 years is imposed. On remand, an intermediate court panel ruled that Eid’s sentence was constitutionally equivalent to a life sentence and was invalid. stovall. The following panels rely on: Ease A similar conclusion will be reached regarding the 40 to 60-year sentence for the second-degree murder charge and the 67-year sentence for the non-murder charge.
Eads’ challenge, which has garnered significant court support from the Juvenile Justice Center, the American Civil Liberties Union and groups of incarcerated people serving life and long-term sentences, comes as the Michigan Supreme Court recently stood out by expanding protections against excessive sentencing beyond those allowed by federal law.
See the discussion here.
Will an Idaho blogger have to pay more than $1 million in defamation judgments? — April 9th
Posey vs. BushnellIdaho Supreme Court
The Idaho Supreme Court will hear an appeal of a drag performer seeking more than $1 million in damages against a blogger for falsely claiming that the performer exposed himself on stage at a Pride event attended by children. This incident was widely covered by the media.
The blogger argued in the appeals court that a lower court erred in ruling that a performer who chose to engage in an “existing public controversy” about “drag performance, minors, and public morality” was a private citizen, subject to stronger defamation protections, rather than a “limited-purpose public figure.” The blogger also claims that the trial court erred on several other counts, including decisions regarding the evidence allowed in determining damages and jury instructions.
See the discussion here.
Will changes to the citizen initiative process violate the rights of Montanans? — April 10th
Ellingson vs. StateMontana Supreme Court
The Montana Supreme Court will consider whether a portion of a 2023 law that changes the rules and requirements for citizen-proposed ballot measures violates the state’s citizens’ initiative and referendum powers.
The state is appealing the trial court’s ruling that the $3,700 filing fee for the proposal was unconstitutional. Bans submission of ballot initiatives that are substantially similar to previously defeated measures for four years. and a requirement that legislative committees vote on the merits of proposed initiatives and place the results on ballot petitions. The high court is being asked to determine the standard that Montana courts should apply to initiative challenges. The state argues that voting rules are constitutional if they are “reasonably adjusted” to facilitate the “legislative power of the people” and are not unduly burdensome. The state says the requirements for a ballot measure do not have to be “on par with” the process that lawmakers require for their own bills to be constitutional.
The Montana Supreme Court recently granted a citizen-proposed amendment that would create additional protections for initiative and referendum privileges for inclusion on the 2026 ballot. This proposal is partially in response to the 2023 law.
See the discussion here.
Is New York’s “host home” program for children constitutional? — April 14th
Children’s Attorney v. New York State Children’s BureauNew York Court of Appeals
The New York State Supreme Court will take up arguments by Legal Aid and other child advocacy groups that the state’s Department of Children’s Services acted without legislative authorization when it created a new “shadow foster care” system for children whose parents voluntarily seek temporary outside care due to family crisis or illness.
Advocates argue that the system, which places children with approved host families, lacks many safeguards required by state law establishing voluntary foster care. These include preventive services to keep children with their biological families as much as possible, judicial oversight of placements, the right to counseling for both parents and children, and priority placements with relatives and siblings. Amicus groups, including Columbia Law’s Family Defense Clinic and the National Youth Law Center, argue that “host home” programs and these legal conflicts create “new avenues for child protective services agencies to separate parents and children without due process.”
The state responded that the legal framework involving custody and transfer of custody does not apply because parents using the program select host families, retain legal custody of their children, and can terminate the arrangement at any time. The state argues that the host home regulations do not violate the principle of separation of powers because they implement a legislative policy that “respects the rights of parents to place their children in their care and promotes child welfare while preventing unnecessary foster care placements.” A divided intermediate court agreed.
See the discussion here.
Are Wisconsin Voter Incompetence Notices Private? — April 21
Wisconsin Voters Alliance vs. SecordWisconsin Supreme Court
The Wisconsin Supreme Court will consider whether a notice informing the State Elections Commission of a court’s determination that a person is “incompetent” to vote, meaning that the person is unable to understand the purpose of the election process because of a disability or disability, is subject to disclosure under the state’s public records law.
A conservative group filed a lawsuit demanding these “voter eligibility notices” from 14 counties, saying they had learned of “unexplained discrepancies.” Specifically, they argued that state election officials were not registering people deemed incompetent as “ineligible” in the state’s voter registration database and were sending out some absentee ballots. A panel of intermediate court judges initially found the group was entitled to notice. However, the state Supreme Court reversed without addressing the merits, finding that the panel was bound as part of the Unified Court of Appeals by the earlier panel’s holding that notification to another county was subject to statutory privacy protections. State law generally protects from disclosure “all court records relating to a finding of incompetence.” On remand, the commission followed its previous ruling, but noted that it “vehemently” disagreed.
The Wisconsin Voters League argued on appeal that the notice was not an underlying finding of incompetence by the court, but rather a result of the statutory mandate of the process. The group argues that the public interest served by disclosure, ensuring that ineligible voters have a fundamental right to vote against the potential impact it could have on elections, outweighs privacy concerns. A coalition of news organizations and government transparency groups filed amicus briefs asking the Wisconsin Superior Court to clarify what claimants must prove in order to use the lawsuit to compel disclosure of public records.
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 Brennan.
Recommended Citation: Sarah Kessler & Erin Geiger Smith, State court oral arguments to watch in AprilSᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (March 30, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/state-court-oral-arguments-watch-april-0
