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

In February, the state Supreme Court will take up a wide range of issues, including voter fraud charges in Florida, school choice programs in Wyoming and college scholarships for students from certain racial groups in Wisconsin.

Can a statewide office prosecute local voting cases in Florida? — February 4

Terry Hubbard vs. StateFlorida Supreme Judicial Court

Florida’s high court will consider whether a statewide group created to fight organized crime has the authority to prosecute people accused of voting when they were ineligible to vote.

The statewide prosecutor’s office was created by a constitutional amendment in the 1980s in response to widespread organized crime in the state. This was intended to facilitate more efficient prosecution of complex cases spanning multiple jurisdictions. Under the proposed amendment, the office would have parallel jurisdiction with local district attorneys to prosecute crimes that occur in or affect multiple circuits.

The defendant in that case was ineligible to vote due to a felony conviction, but said he, like many others, believes he will be eligible again after a 2018 amendment to the Florida Constitution restored voting rights for most people with felony convictions. The state’s reinstatement requirements are complex, and the registration application does not indicate that people with certain convictions, such as the defendant’s felony offense, will still be disqualified.

Florida’s governor has put pressure on offices across the state to bring these charges after some local prosecutors declined to bring charges against people who registered or voted because they believed they were allowed to do so. The appellate court found that the department had jurisdiction to sue the defendant for registering to vote and voting in one judicial circuit in another circuit because state officials processed his registration and voting in another circuit. The Brennan Center filed amicus briefs in the case, arguing in part that allowing the office to prosecute individual cases that caused voter confusion would chill voter participation.

See the discussion here.

Is pretrial detention on unreasonable bail legal in California? — February 4th

About KowalczykCalifornia Supreme Court

The California Supreme Court will consider whether it violates the state constitution for judges to set bail at an amount that arrestees cannot pay. Gerald Kowalczyk, a homeless, disabled man with a lengthy but mostly non-violent criminal history, was arrested for purchasing hamburgers with someone else’s credit card. The trial court originally set his bail at $75,000, but after he asked that it be reduced to an amount he could afford, the court ordered him held without bail.

In taking up Kowalczyk’s challenge to pretrial detention, the California high court will consider whether or how two sections of the state constitution each apply to a judge’s decision to deny bail. One provision provides that “shall be released on bail” unless a limited exception for violent threats is met. The other stipulates that an individual is “likely to be released on bail” and requires judges to consider a variety of factors, including primarily the safety of the public and the victim. Mr. Kowalczyk has the court’s support from numerous civil rights organizations, defense groups, and bar associations, which argue that the former provision governs and recognizes the right to pretrial release, which prohibits courts from imposing de facto detention by setting cash bail that cannot be paid. He argues that it also violates equal protection that wealthy arrestees should not be deprived of the right to be released on bail they cannot afford (because such an amount would likely violate other limits on bail that exceed the severity of the crime).

See the discussion here.

Is Wyoming’s school choice program constitutional? — February 10th

Degenfelder v. Wyoming Education Association. Leck v. Wyoming Education AssociationWyoming Supreme Court

The Wyoming Supreme Court will consider whether lower courts erred in halting the state’s school choice program, which was scheduled to begin in July 2025. The program provides Wyoming students who are not enrolled in public schools with an education savings account of up to $7,000 to use toward a variety of expenses, including tuition at accredited private and religious schools. A lower court has ruled that the state teachers union and several public school families are likely to succeed in their case that the program violates the state constitution’s provisions regarding education spending on sectarian and non-state-controlled organizations. The program also likely violates the “right to equal opportunity to an adequate public education” recognized in the Wyoming Constitution by providing public funds to educational institutions that are not open to all state students and are not constitutionally required to provide adequate instruction, the judge said.

The state and a group of intervening parents seeking access to the program appealed to the Wyoming Superior Court. They argue that the state constitution does not prohibit private beneficiaries from spending money on state agencies for social welfare programs, and that the programs do not affect the educational rights of public school students. The state Supreme Court denied their earlier request to vacate the lower court’s injunction while the appeal is pending.

Wyoming’s debate comes as courts in a number of states are considering similar challenges to school choice programs under their respective state constitutions.

See the discussion here.

Can Montana courts rule on partisan gerrymandering charges? — February 11th

Montana Conservation District Voters v. JacobsenMontana Supreme Court

The Montana Supreme Court will take up a partisan gerrymandering challenge to the state Legislature’s 2023 redistricting of five districts for each of the state’s Civil Service Commission seats. Several voters and environmental groups involved in the election for the commission, which regulates Montana’s utilities and, by extension, energy policy, argued that the map favors Republican candidates and voters and violates voting rights and equal protection of the law under the state constitution. Lower courts disagreed and upheld the map.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the trial court unfairly required proof of intent to dilute the voting rights of non-Republicans, presumed that Congress acted in good faith that the map’s primary purpose was not to favor Republicans, and concluded that lawmakers had an absolute privilege to prevent the plaintiffs from discovering evidence of how the map was drawn.

State officials have defended the merits of the lower court’s ruling, but take issue with the lower court’s initial ruling that the claims should have been properly resolved by judges, rather than being properly left to the political branches. Officials argue that Montana’s high court should follow the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling that claims of partisan gerrymandering are illegitimate political questions for the purposes of Montana courts, linking them to other legal battles across the country.

See the discussion here.

Does race-based Wisconsin scholarship funding violate equal protection? — February 11

Ravibuna v. Higher Education Assistance CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court

The Wisconsin Supreme Court will consider whether a 40-year-old state program that provides grants to college students from certain racial and national origin groups who have statistically higher rates of college attrition violates the federal and state Equal Protection Clauses. Need-based grants of up to $2,500 per year are available beginning in the second year as long as the student is enrolled. Based on a 2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that established race-based affirmative action in college admissions, an intermediate court found that the Wisconsin program violated federal equal protection laws.

On appeal, state officials argue that the program should remain even though the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling applies to scholarships as well as admissions. Because the program could pass the court’s test: it “contributes to a compelling and measurable good, and does not create a zero-sum system in which others lose out by competing for finite benefits.” And you have to re-fund every two years, so there’s an end point. Officials also argue that while the plaintiffs are taxpayers who rely on a doctrine that gives them standing to challenge unjust expenditures of taxes, the plaintiffs themselves have not and will not suffer financial loss, as Wisconsin courts require such standing. Officials say the plaintiffs are not students seeking financial aid and are challenging only some of the criteria for the aid, without trying to eliminate the program and reduce taxpayer spending.

Listen to the discussion here.

Is a non-jury trial in the Arizona Securities Authority constitutional? — February 19th

EFG USA v. Arizona Corporation CommissionArizona Supreme Court

The Arizona Supreme Court will discuss whether holding enforcement actions brought by the state’s securities regulators in administrative hearings without a jury violates a person’s right to a jury trial under the state constitution. in Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) v. JerkeesyThe U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Seventh Amendment provides the SEC with a right to a jury trial when seeking civil penalties for securities fraud. In this case and a similar case pending in Arizona Superior Court, the companies argue that courts should take the same approach based on the state constitution, arguing that the state’s right to a jury trial is broader than the Seventh Amendment.

The following intermediate courts have rejected that approach. The right to a jury trial does not extend to that proceeding, the lower court said, because Arizona’s constitution gives the State Corporation Commission specific authority to impose fines and deal with securities matters independent of jury requests.

The debate in Arizona comes against the backdrop of developments surrounding non-jury government trials at both the federal and state levels. In January, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take up related issues. jerkyregarding whether the Federal Communications Commission can assess fines without a jury trial. Request for review raising similar questions EFG A lawsuit based on the Pennsylvania Constitution was also filed in the state’s high court.

See the Arizona debate 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 February Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (February 2, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/state-court-oral-arguments-watch-february-0