monthly, state court report Preview upcoming oral arguments in prominent or interesting state court cases.
In June, each state’s highest court will take up a wide range of issues, including an Ohio law that prohibits cities from regulating tobacco products, Delaware’s ban on firearms for adults under 21, and Oklahoma’s effort to eliminate property taxes on homeowners.
Can Oklahoma voters eliminate property taxes on owners’ home bases? — June 2
Brooks vs. ReynoldsOklahoma Supreme Court
The Oklahoma Supreme Court will decide whether a citizen-led proposal to eliminate property taxes for homeowners by 2029 should move forward to collect signatures. The plaintiffs, who include residents on school boards, fire chiefs and local law enforcement, argue that if approved by voters in November, the bill would have a “devastating impact” on Oklahoma by reducing more than $1.5 billion in annual revenue and impacting many government services, especially schools. They argue that the law violates the state constitution, including the tax flat clause that gives incentives to homeowners and certain provisions governing property taxes.
Supporters of the initiative counter that the ballot measure is authorized by another state constitution provision that allows the Legislature to exempt homesteaders from property taxes. They argue that because this article does not explicitly exclude laws enacted through the initiative of the people, it should be interpreted in favor of the initiative of the people, regardless of any ambiguity. The parties also dispute whether subsequent property tax-related reforms invalidate this provision.
See the discussion here.
Can digital tools address California’s court reporter shortage? — June 3
Domestic Violence Appeals Project v. Contra Costa County Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
The California Supreme Court will consider whether a state law that prohibits electronic recording of most types of civil proceedings violates the California Constitution’s due process, equal protection, and separation of powers protections when there are no court-provided reporters to transcribe proceedings and litigants cannot afford to hire private court reporters. The legal aid group’s petition comes amid a widespread shortage of court reporters in the state.
The petitioners, supported by numerous court groups, argue that banning electronic recording in these situations would not only “severely impair” the ability of trial courts to fulfill their obligation to “ensure indigent litigants have full access to the judicial system” recognized in California Superior Court precedent, but also impede the ability of appellate courts to review lower court proceedings. California courts are trying to hire new reporters, and trial courts in Los Angeles, Santa Clara and Contra Costa have directed their clerks to use electronic recordings, regardless of statute, if a judge determines that a hearing involves fundamental rights. But the appellants argue that the law’s broad relief is needed to ensure that low-income litigants have unfettered access to verbatim records in all civil cases, without relying on judges’ discretion.
See the discussion here.
Can Ohio cities regulate vaping? — June 9th
City of Columbus vs. StateSupreme Court of Ohio
The Ohio Supreme Court will consider whether a state law that prohibits cities from regulating tobacco products violates the 1912 Ohio “Home Rule” Amendment, which gives local governments the power to govern so long as their rules do not conflict with “general” state law. Within days of Columbus approving the ban on flavored tobacco sales, the Legislature passed the bill, which ultimately overcame two vetoes from the governor into law. as state court report As covered by , the dispute is part of a trend in states seeking to thwart local efforts to restrict e-cigarette use, especially among young people.
An intermediate court sided with more than 20 Ohio cities challenging the ordinance. The committee determined that because the bill does not contain any affirmative regulations or rules, it is not a “general law” that can block local ordinances under the Home Rule Clause. On appeal, the state argues that the Ohio high court should uphold the 1912 term’s meaning as a law that operates uniformly across the state, like this statute, and abandon the established four-part review of general law used by intermediate courts.
A number of public health groups, including the American Medical Association and the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, filed court briefs highlighting the “important role” cities in Ohio and other states have played in protecting against the harms of tobacco.
See the discussion here.
Can Wyoming freeze primary voters’ right to change party? — June 10
malcolm vs grayWyoming Supreme Court
The Wyoming Supreme Court is set to hear a challenge to a law passed in 2023 that would limit so-called “crossover voting.” It prohibits voters from declaring or changing their party affiliation within 96 days of the state’s primary election, a deadline set before candidates can apply to run in the primary. A coalition of voters, former candidates, and retired state legislators is challenging changes based on provisions in the Wyoming Constitution that require “open, free, and equal” elections, protect the “unfettered exercise of suffrage,” and limit the terms of “political rights.”
The parties are asking the high court to resolve what test should be applied to the bill. Plaintiffs argue that the trial court correctly recognized the right to vote as fundamental, but erred in adopting a permissive standard of election image similar to a rational basis test. They argue that the letter and “spirit” of state constitutional provisions require rigorous scrutiny, pointing to the Wyoming Superior Court’s statement in a recent abortion ban decision that states fundamental rights invite rigorous scrutiny unless clear constitutional language says otherwise. The Wyoming Secretary of State countered that a rational basis was appropriate because participation in a political party’s nomination process is different from the fundamental right to vote in a general election. He also argues for another state constitutional provision that requires lawmakers to “ensure the purity of elections” and allows a deadline for new party registration to prevent “party raids.”
Listen to the discussion here.
Can Delaware restrict youth gun ownership? — June 10
Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security v. BarneyDelaware Supreme Court
The Delaware Supreme Court will consider whether a state law enacted last year that prohibits adults under 21 from purchasing or possessing firearms and ammunition, with limited exceptions, violates the state’s constitutional right to “keep and bear arms.” The trial court sided with the plaintiffs (the youth, the state National Rifle Association affiliate, and the shooting club) in finding violation. Consistent with the way the Delaware High Court has previously evaluated state constitutional restrictions on gun rights, the trial court applied an intermediate level of scrutiny to this law.
On appeal, all parties challenge the trial judge’s application of that test. The state and the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a legal group, argue that the court erred in concluding that the law placed a greater burden on older adolescents’ right to self-defense than is reasonably necessary to reduce the disproportionate rate of gun violence in this age group.
Plaintiffs argue that the test itself is wrong following a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen They argued that gun laws must have historical similarities to satisfy the Second Amendment. They argue that the Delaware high court should adopt its originalist approach to ensure that the state’s constitutional right to arms retains at least as much protection as the federal right. bridge It effectively lifted the floor of Congress through a test that largely ignored government regulations. The states countered that this logic “erroneously confuses the rights granted under each constitution with the means courts use to protect them,” pointing out that federal courts apply: bridge The results are mixed.
See the discussion here.
Was Washington’s transfer of transgender women to male prisons unconstitutional and cruel? — June 23
About Amber Kim’s personal detentionWashington Supreme Court
The Washington Supreme Court will consider whether the state’s transfer of a transgender woman from a women’s prison to a men’s prison violates the state constitution’s provisions against “cruel punishment.” Amber Kim’s petition says that after she revealed she was transgender, corrections officials placed her in a women’s facility to ensure her safety and well-being, but a nonviolent violation forced her back to a men’s prison. She was kept in solitary confinement for nearly two years because she feared she would be sexually assaulted or harassed if she joined the male population.
Kim argues that the intermediate court misapplied the state Supreme Court’s cruel confinement review by denying her petition. That is, whether the conditions of confinement “create an objectively significant risk of serious harm or otherwise deprive the appellant of a fundamental need for human dignity” and are “not reasonably necessary to achieve a legitimate penal purpose.” Kim argues that the harm she would suffer from indefinite solitary confinement, suppression of gender identity, and avoidance of important features such as safety showers in the general prison population would, if properly balanced, “significantly outweigh” the state’s interests. Former correctional officers filed a court brief in support of Kim, citing data showing that transgender women in men’s prisons are “at least 10 times more likely to be sexually assaulted than the average adult prisoner.”
The state responded that Kim’s facility safely houses many other transgender women, that she continues to receive gender-affirming care there, and that correctional staff led by the department’s gender responsive administrator, who is a transgender woman, regularly reviews Kim’s custody status.
See the discussion here.
Sarah Kessler is an advisor and contributing editor. state court report.
Recommended citation: Sarah Kessler, State Court Oral Arguments to Watch for in June, Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (June 1, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/state-court-oral-arguments-watch-june-2
