monthly, state court report Preview upcoming oral arguments in prominent or interesting state court cases.
In December, the state Supreme Court will take up a wide range of issues, including the severity of sentencing for so-called felony murder convictions, whether Mehta can be sued over his Instagram design, and pretext-based police stops.
Police stop and arrest for minor traffic violation in Massachusetts – December 3rd
Commonwealth v. AriasMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
The Massachusetts high court will take up several state constitutional issues arising from a traffic stop that a lower court found pretext and the defendant’s subsequent arrest for another minor traffic violation. Police pulled the defendant over and radioed him saying they were conducting a drug investigation, but later indicated the reason was a traffic violation observed the day before. They then searched him and arrested him on a misdemeanor charge of failing to respond quickly enough to a siren commanding him to stop.
The defendants, along with criminal justice and privacy groups, are asking the state Supreme Court to use this case to find that pretext stops and arrests violate the Massachusetts Constitution’s guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures. He argues that a suspension is not reasonable if the just cause given for the suspension is not the real reason. Defendants and courts argue that the “epidemic of traffic violations,” especially with electronic traffic monitoring, gives police officers de facto unconstitutional “general warrant” cover to stop drivers and increases the risk of biased enforcement and racial profiling.
The court will also consider whether the state’s search-and-seizure provisions limit police officers’ arrest powers for misdemeanor offenses such as those for which the defendants were arrested and which the statute states are not punishable by jail time. The U.S. Supreme Court has said probable cause that a “very minor criminal act” was committed in the presence of a police officer is sufficient for an arrest under the Fourth Amendment, but high courts in other states, including Minnesota, Montana, Nevada and Ohio, have interpreted the Constitution to require more reason.
See the discussion here.
Can Massachusetts sue meth for addictive design features? — December 5th
Commonwealth vs. MetaplatformMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
The Massachusetts Supreme Court will discuss whether Mr. Mehta, owner of the photo-sharing app Instagram, has standing to file an interlocutory appeal against a lower court that refused to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the state. The Massachusetts lawsuit alleges that Meta “created a public nuisance” and misled the public about the safety of the service by including “addictive design features that exploited the psychological vulnerabilities of children” on Instagram. If an appeal is determined to be appropriate, the court could also address Mehta’s argument that the First Amendment and Massachusetts Constitution’s free speech protections bar the state’s claims, among other defenses. Meta argues that acknowledging these claims would unfairly hold it accountable for its editorial choices in selecting and organizing user content and for expressing opinions on its services.
The state counters that Instagram’s design elements are not expressive speech but commercial tools that manipulate and overuse children regardless of the content they display. Common Sense Media is one of the groups that filed a brief supporting the state, and TechFreedom is one of the groups supporting Meta.
See the discussion here.
Do incarcerated people have a right to property? — December 9th
franklin vs martinezNew Mexico Supreme Court
The New Mexico Supreme Court will consider whether the state constitution’s “inherent and inalienable rights” clause, which protects citizens’ rights to acquire property, applies to incarcerated people, along with the state’s due process clause, so that incarcerated people are not deprived of acquiring certain property without meaningful process.
The lawsuit comes after an inmate tried to obtain items from an approved vendor, in accordance with state Department of Corrections policy, but was denied. In his habeas petition, he argues that the state constitution should be interpreted more expansively than federal rights because the New Mexico state constitution recognizes a specific right to “take” property, but the U.S. constitution does not. He asks the court to determine that constitutionally protected property rights are incorporated into the New Mexico Department of Corrections’ inmate property policy, order the department to complete its requests and future requests in accordance with this policy, and provide due process.
See the discussion here.
Ohio taxpayers stand to sue cities — December 9th
City of Cincinnati, former rel. Mark Miller vs. City of CincinnatiSupreme Court of Ohio
The Ohio Supreme Court will consider under what circumstances taxpayers have standing to sue to stop local officials from doing what they see as an abuse of local government power. State law allows city taxpayers to file such actions on the city’s behalf if the city does not file its own suit in response to a taxpayer’s written claim. The taxpayers filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction to stop construction of the affordable housing, alleging that the Cincinnati City Council illegally used its executive authority in granting the zoning variance that allowed the project. While it was undisputed that he met the plain text of the statute, the intermediate court said he was ineligible to sue as a taxpayer because he also needed to present a challenge to enforce a public right or provide a public benefit. On appeal, the Ohio Superior Court will argue whether lower courts were correct in reading these additional standing requirements into the law.
This debate ties into the larger question that states are considering about how broadly they should define taxpayer status (this principle is largely absent from federal courts). As one conservative legal group noted, Ohio’s law is “uniquely broad,” and there were plenty of models for Congress to follow if it wanted to keep pace with other states and limit taxpayer objections. But 25 members of the city’s bench argue that additional requirements are essential to prevent “constant judicial interference in government affairs.”
See the discussion here.
Michigan Felony Murder Case Under Severe Investigation with Life Sentence – December 10th
The People vs. LangstonMichigan Supreme Court
The Michigan Supreme Court will hear for a second time whether automatically sentencing adults convicted of “felony murder” to life in prison without the possibility of parole, the harshest sentence in the state, is unconstitutionally excessive. Felony murder is a legal doctrine that allows a defendant to be charged with murder for a death that occurs during the commission of another felony, even if the death was unintentional. The doctrine has been virtually non-existent in Michigan since a 1980 state high court decision made malice, generally defined as intent to commit murder or “great bodily harm,” an essential element of any current or future murder charge. But in the case of defendants like Edwin Langston, who had been convicted before that sentence, the jury did not have to find malice.
In January, the court considered whether a mandatory life sentence without parole in the absence of evidence that a defendant acted maliciously violates Michigan’s ban on “cruel or unusual” punishment and the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Subsequent questions the court asked the parties, which will now be considered in second argument, further elaborated on the issue. The decision includes whether the 1980 decision is unconstitutional in all cases decided before it requires a finding of malice, or whether it is unconstitutional only if a certain threshold amount of evidence of intentionality, to be determined by the court, was not otherwise presented. The court also seeks argument on the appropriate remedies if a mandatory life sentence is found to be ineffective.
A similar challenge to Colorado’s state constitution failed last year. The serious consideration these questions suggest, and the Michigan High Court’s recent decision that paved the way against excessive sentencing, suggests that the outcome in Michigan may be different.
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 DecemberSᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (December 2, 2025), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/state-court-oral-arguments-watch-december-0
