With the start of a new term,State Court ReportWe are reopening a monthly preview of upcoming oral discussions in prominent or interesting state court cases.

In September, the state Supreme Court will address a wide range of issues, including the “Dark Money” campaign disclosure law in Arizona, whether Kentucky’s constitution allows charters schools or not.

When is the binding power of an online arbitration agreement? – September 9th

Chiluttiv. UberPennsylvania Supreme Court

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will take up legal rules applicable to online arbitration agreements, particularly those entered into through a set of hyperlinked “Terms of Use.” Uber is about to force arbitration against the couple who sued for being injured while riding. When the couple signed up for the ride-sharing service, the company claims that by creating an account, they received a notice that they agreed to the company’s hyperlinked terms and conditions, including the arbitration agreement. The couple testified that they had never clicked on the hyperlink, and therefore the terms of arbitration were not displayed.

Midterm Court I said The couple was not bound by the contract. The court also Federal Test If the terms of arbitration can be enforced against users who are insufficient to waive strong rights to a trial in the Pennsylvania Constitution. That right requires a more stringent standard to prove that the user has clearly demonstrated that he will arbitrate, and the court has required the company on the registration page to agree to “conditions and conditions” and state it expressly and expressly by prominently displaying the terms of arbitration on the hyperlink page. For appeals, including Uber and the industry’s Amicus Group US Chamber of Commerceclaims that this more rigorous test violates federal laws governing arbitration.

Please see the discussion here.

Are the voters in the requirement handwritten dates for the voting constitution? – September 10th

Baxter v. Philadelphia Election Commission, Pennsylvania Supreme Court

The Pennsylvania High Court will also consider whether voters are violating the “free and equal” election clauses of the state’s constitution to prevent mail-in votes from counting.

Last October, the Court of Appeal Domination The state high court’s refusal to count undated or false votes in the special election in September, but violated its provisions. I said The law should then remain valid in the 2024 general election. Voters supported by voting rights groups Legal Scholarargues that requirements play no role in establishing eligibility or timeliness for votes. The Republican National Committee, which supports the rules, has argued that it is erroneous in finding that the Court of Appeals violates the basic right to vote for citizens.

Handwritten date requirements are subject to several state and federal challenges. In federal courts, the recent Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit support The lower court’s findings to abolish votes based on requirements violate the 1st and 14th amendments to the US Constitution. The US Supreme Court may consider the decision, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court The final words If it was independent to find that the rules violate the state constitution.

Please see the discussion here.

Can the ability to buy a home be a judgment factor? – September 10th

Statev. HidlebaughIowa Supreme Court

The Iowa Supreme Court will resolve whether the imposed sentence is at least partially based on the inability to purchase the defendant’s home, and at least partially on the basis of breach of state or federal equal protection guarantees. The defendant pleaded guilty to violating previous sex offender registration requirements, which involves struggling to find a consistent rental property and failing to update his address while with a friend. With a stable housing goal, the judiciary agreement said prosecutors recommend sentences and probation to be suspended in place of prisons. When the defendant could not afford the down payment, the court imprisoned him. The defendant has argued about the appeal with Amicus. support From the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – that the court of litigation illegally discriminated against on the basis of wealth by imposing stricter penalties when he failed to purchase.

Please see the discussion here.

Flight from police in high crime areas as the basis for stoppage – September 10th

Commonwealthv. ShiversPennsylvania Supreme Court

To justify the suspension of police, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will weigh whether people fleeing officers in crime areas can create reasonable doubts about the crime. Previous State High Court Domination The suspension of flights from law enforcement violated the fourth amendment and the search and seizure clause of the state constitution; I reversed myself After the US Supreme Court was held Illinois vs. wardrobe Unprovoked flights at high places of crime can support stops under the federal constitution.

Defendant in this case, Amicus support From the ACLU, I’ll encourage you The state Supreme Court held that it was originally correct for the purposes of the Pennsylvania search and seizure clause. Differences in text, structure and history, they support the arguing and interpreting state clauses to protect them from termination of investigations over the Fourth Amendment. They also argue that relying on neighborhood crime rates as a justification for denying privacy rights is discriminatory. The defendant argues that many people (including many people of color) cannot afford to live elsewhere.

Please see the discussion here.

Charter School State Constitution – September 11th

Commonwealthv. Councilfor Better Education; Lafontaine v. Council for Better EducationKentucky Supreme Court

The Kentucky Supreme Court will take up whether the laws governing civil servant schools violate the requirements of the state constitution. In response to the challenges supported Hundreds School districts, courts I hit it The law determines that charter schools are “private companies” with their own autonomy and the ability to restrict registrations that introduce the constitutional definition of “public” or “common schools.” Appeal, Want to Be a State and Charter School Operator I’ll point it out that 45 states There are schools like that now. They too Make a claim “Public charter schools represent the highest aspirations for the 1989 Kentucky Supreme Court landmark decision, as they rely entirely on community involvement, assessment tests and parents voting on their own feet.” Rose v. Council for Better Educationbelieves that the constitutional provisions of the same state give each Kentucky student a fundamental right to appropriate education.

Please see the discussion here.

Does the state’s dark money disclosure requirements violate freedom of speech? – September 11th

Arizona Policy Center vs. Secretary of ArizonaArizona Supreme Court

The Arizona Supreme Court hears an appeal of lower court rejection of challenges to Arizona’s “Dark Money” Disclosure Act. This is a law passed by a citizen initiative that seeks to regulate the practices that hide the identity of political contributors by passing money through the middle section. The plaintiffs argue that conservative nonprofits and donors are not interfering with “private issues” among other debates, as the law violates the state’s constitutional rights to free speech. Courts are expected to address whether federal “hard scrutiny” standards of disclosure law should be adopted in assessing the right to speech under the Arizona Constitution.

March, State High Court I heard it Another appeal relating to the same law. In that case, the Court of Appeal agreed with the lawmakers that the provision restricting parliamentary oversight regarding parliamentary execution violated the separation of powers. In that case, the lawmakers argued to the state high court that the remaining laws, including disclosure requirements, should be struck as inseparable from the blocked enforcement clause.

See the discussion in September here.

Do gift clauses apply to economic development grants? – September 11th

JP Morgan Chasev. Cityof CorsicanaTexas Supreme Court

The Texas Supreme Court is 1987 revision Publicly funded economic development programs are approved by a separate “Gift Clause“The state constitution generally prohibits private organizations from grants for public funds unless grants have primarily public purposes and government controls the funds. The Intermediate Court of Appeals found it violated a contract by a local government that would support the development of the retail centre and provide private venture tax improvement bodies to help build major stores.

Regardless of the appeal, the contract beneficiaries argue that submitting economic development projects to a gift clause ignores the preface “notwithstanding other provisions” of the amendment. Even if the gift clause is applied, the beneficiaries are arguing in the alternative, and therefore the appeals court’s decision undermines Texas’ strong policy of supporting freedom of contracts, as it ignored the decision to lengthen the local division that the construction of retail hubs serves public purposes. in friend BriefsTexas Attorney General and conservative nonprofits argue that the gift clause should apply.

Please see the discussion here.

Minimum Wage Exemption for Caregivers – September 16th

AssureCare Adult Homev. BolinaWashington Supreme Court

The Washington Supreme Court will address the constitutionality of states in Washington’s minimum wage, overtime, and sick leave laws for live-in caregivers for seniors or disabled adults. A group of caregivers argue that exemptions violate the Washington Constitution’s prohibition on laws granting unequal privileges and immunity, as they undermine the rights of caregivers as workers, while undermining labor standards and workers’ rights, while still giving some employers immunity. Exclusion also has racist and sexist origins. 83% of women and almost half of non-white peopleclaims a group of plaintiffs and amicus, including the National Employment Law Project and the National Women’s Law Center. To defend the exemption, employers say they can’t afford to keep driving a home for vulnerable adults if they need to pay the minimum wage for all live-in care hours.

Please see 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, State court oral debate to be monitored in Septembersᴛᴀᴛcᴏᴜʀᴛrᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (Sep. 05, 2025), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/state-court-oral-arguments-watch-september-0