you are reading state court report Biweekly newsletter. Subscribe to get it in your inbox.
State constitutions and other state laws play an important role in regulating elections and filling gaps in federal rights. Americans are also increasingly looking to state laws to rein in abuses of power by the federal government. Here are some issue areas where important decisions are likely to be made in 2026.
The Role of State Laws in Addressing Federal Abuse
The killing of Renee Good by a federal immigration agent in Minneapolis last week spotlighted questions about when and how states can hold federal agents accountable.
Even before the shootings, the Trump administration’s increasingly harsh immigration enforcement tactics were already sparking debate about how state laws can address federal civil rights violations. Federal law creates significant obstacles to recovering damages when federal employees violate an individual’s constitutional rights. To fill this gap, Illinois passed the Illinois Bivens Act in December, becoming the fifth state to provide state civil remedies for federal employees who violate the Constitution. (California, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Jersey already have similar laws.) Lawmakers in other states, including New York, have introduced similar bills.
This year, I’ll be looking at lawsuits against federal officials stemming from these state laws, and whether other state legislatures join in the trend. It will also focus on a new federal lawsuit filed by the Trump administration challenging an Illinois law based on the Supremacy Clause. (As Harrison Stark of the State Democracy Research Initiative argues, there is a strong legal argument that states can hold federal officials accountable for violations of the U.S. Constitution.) State prosecutors could also seek criminal charges against federal officials in states such as Minnesota. Although it is well established that states can bring such actions, doing so poses significant legal and practical challenges.
State courts in election years
In both 2022 and 2024, state courts heard the overwhelming majority of election cases. In 2026, I’m looking at a new wave of litigation surrounding election administration, voting rights, voting measures, and more. In considering these issues, the court should keep in mind last year’s biggest election issue: the controversy over the 2024 election, which North Carolina Judge Alison Riggs won by a narrow margin. A federal court ultimately blocked a North Carolina Supreme Court ruling that invalidated votes cast according to rules established at the time of the election. Doing so would violate the U.S. Constitution, a federal court ruled, confirming a fundamental principle of election law that binds both state and federal courts: that election rules cannot be changed after the fact.
State courts will also play a key role in overseeing ballot measures, including determining whether a proposed measure is eligible to be offered to voters and overseeing how its description appears on the ballot. Just last week, the Montana Supreme Court rejected a proposal to add a provision to the state constitution to counter corporate political spending.
New ground in abortion and LGBTQ+ rights
The Wyoming Supreme Court ruled last week that the state’s “medical freedom” amendment, enacted in 2012 in opposition to the federal Affordable Care Act, protects access to abortion. As Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, details: state court report. The decision could prompt lawsuits in five other states with similar provisions: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Ohio and Oklahoma. A “medical freedom” challenge to laws banning gender-affirming care for transgender minors is already pending in the Ohio Supreme Court.
Also notable is a lawsuit challenging the state’s ban on Medicaid funding for abortion. A pending lawsuit in Pennsylvania will determine whether the state’s ban can continue. A similar case in Michigan that was dismissed on procedural grounds is also being appealed.
Curbing excessive sentencing
The momentum surrounding state constitutional limits on excessive sentencing is likely to continue into 2026. Cases pending in the Michigan and Pennsylvania Supreme Courts are raising questions about whether life sentences without parole for felonies (convictions based on participation in a serious crime, such as robbery, during which another person died) violate state rules on punishment. The felony murder doctrine has been widely criticized because it applies regardless of whether the defendant had intent to kill.
We are also paying attention to lawsuits over the constitutionality of the death penalty. The lawsuit in the Utah Supreme Court argues that the state’s lethal injection and firing squad execution procedures violate state regulations that prohibit cruel and unusual punishment and prohibit “unnecessary harshness” in the treatment of incarcerated people. And the California Supreme Court will consider a case regarding racial bias and discrimination in the application of the state’s death penalty law.
Finally, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision this year. Atkins vs. Virginiaa 2002 lawsuit arguing that the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the execution of people with intellectual disabilities. Should the court roll back? atkins While it would strengthen protections, it would create new gaps that state courts and the Constitution would be asked to fill.
Kathrina Szymborski Wolfkot state court report Senior Counsel, Justice Program, Brennan Center for Justice;
Recommended citation: Kathrina Szymborski Wolfkot, federalism and 2026 STATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTSSᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (January 15, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/state-constitutional-rights-2026
