monthly, state court report Preview upcoming oral arguments in prominent or interesting state court cases.
In March, state supreme courts will take up a wide range of issues, including a challenge by eight young people to an Alaska natural gas pipeline project, whether Ohio’s “medical freedom” amendment prohibits banning gender-affirming care for minors, and the eligibility of the death penalty for a California defendant whose trial contained racial bias.
Will fossil fuel projects violate the rights of Alaska’s youth? — March 4
Sagounik v. State of Alaska IIAlaska Supreme Court
The Alaska Supreme Court will hear a group of young people’s appeal to dismiss a challenge to a law requiring state officials to develop Alaska liquefied natural gas projects. The youth plaintiffs say the project is one of the largest infrastructure projects ever proposed nationwide and would more than triple the state’s annual greenhouse gas emissions. Young people argue that the law violates states’ constitutional rights to equal access compared to previous generations to the natural resources they hold in trust for their citizens and the climate systems that sustain human life and dignity.
While youth climate action efforts have been successful in Montana and Hawaii, Alaska judges more generally relied on the Alaska High Court’s 2022 dismissal of a challenge to the state’s energy policy, finding the case was a political issue that has not been adequately resolved in court. On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the high court’s decision expressly authorizes future challenges like this one to “individual” legislative measures to implement national resource development.
In May, the state Supreme Court rejected another motion filed directly with the court by plaintiffs seeking to block the state from transferring majority ownership of the liquefied natural gas project and all its permits to a private developer while the plaintiffs appealed the project.
See the discussion here.
Are California defendants absolutely ineligible for the death penalty if racial bias is revealed at trial? — March 5
People v. Bankston, People vs Barrera, People vs. Chun, people vs. destructionCalifornia Supreme Court
The California Supreme Court will hear several arguments together raising how to apply the 2025 Amendment to the state’s Racial Justice Act, a 2020 law that makes it easier for defendants to prove that a conviction or sentence was racially discriminatory by showing that prosecutors, judges, attorneys, witnesses, or jurors showed racial bias or used racist language. If such a violation is proven, the proposed amendment specifically provides that “the defendant shall not be subject to the death penalty.”
in bankstonIn a long-running appeal against a death sentence, the state’s attorney general found that a prosecutor’s comment during sentencing that compared a black defendant to a “Bengal tiger” was racist and violated the law. California high court asked for arguments bankston The other appeal concerns whether the amendment should be interpreted to eliminate the death penalty regardless of whether a violation of the Racial Justice Act prejudiced the defendant’s case or whether the defendant received a new sentencing trial. The court also asked whether interpreting the amendment either way would violate a provision in the state constitution that prohibits judges from reversing sentences unless they find an error “resulting in a miscarriage of justice,” or whether it would unlawfully amend a 1978 citizen initiative that expanded the class of defendants eligible for the death penalty.
See the discussion here.
Will Texas beaches be closed due to SpaceX flights? — March 5th
Texas General Land Office v. SaveRGV; Cameron County v. SaveRGV. Paxton vs. SaveRGV, Texas Supreme Judicial Court
The Texas Supreme Court will consider arguments by environmental groups and the Cariso Comecrude Nation that authorities relied on a law to close public beaches so Elon Musk-owned SpaceX could launch rockets nearby, violating an amendment to the state constitution that gives citizens an “unrestricted right” to use public beaches. State and county officials have challenged the validity of these claims, arguing in part that the public’s right to use and access beaches does not preclude the government from regulating their use for public safety reasons. Officials also argue that the plaintiffs are seeking to exercise a “private right of enforcement,” which the proposed amendment explicitly says would not create one. The Intermediate Court of Appeals acknowledged that the claim may proceed.
See the discussion here.
Did Missouri lawmakers violate the state constitution by redistricting? — March 10
luther vs hoskinsMissouri Supreme Court
The Missouri Supreme Court will hear voters’ appeal of a December trial court ruling that found the Legislature had the authority to establish the state’s new congressional district maps in 2025. Redistricting typically occurs once every 10 years to account for population changes revealed in the new U.S. Census every 10 years. But President Trump began pushing Republican states to redraw their maps to favor partisanship ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, triggering a series of redistricting efforts in mid-decade that resulted in challenges like this one across the country.
The Missouri Constitution says the Legislature “shall” enact new maps if the new census results are certified by the governor, but there is nothing in the statute that prohibits lawmakers from conducting redistricting a second time based on the same census, the lower court said. On appeal, the parties are contesting whether the court properly interpreted the state constitution’s provisions. Whether implicit rather than explicit restrictions can limit the actions of legislators. And whether the map should remain in place until the 2026 midterm elections, based on a principle known as , even if lawmakers don’t have the authority to pass a new map. parcelfrom a U.S. Supreme Court case. Purcell vs. Gonzolasunwilling to change voting rules too close to the election.
See the discussion here.
Will Philadelphia’s ghost gun ban survive? — March 10th
Gun Owners of America v. City of PhiladelphiaPennsylvania Supreme Court
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will consider whether state laws regulating firearm ownership, possession and transfer preempt a Philadelphia ban on so-called ghost guns made from 3D printers and unassembled parts. The intermediate court found that while state law “occupies the entire field of firearms regulation” and thus precludes local regulation in the area, Philadelphia’s ordinance does not restrict firearms “per se,” but rather prohibits the use of certain unfinished products or manufacturing processes to create weapons from scratch.
The Pennsylvania high court will also consider whether the gun ban plaintiffs have waived another claim that the city’s gun ban violates the state constitution’s “right to bear arms” clause. Intermediate courts have held that, like the Second Amendment here, the rights have been waived by only broadly addressing the four factors that state supreme courts have established as grounds for uniquely interpreting state constitutional provisions as federally analogous.
See the discussion here.
Does the Ohio Constitution override the ban on gender-affirming care? — March 24
Maw vs. YostSupreme Court of Ohio
The Ohio Supreme Court will hear the state’s appeal of an intermediate court’s decision striking down a ban on puberty blockers and hormone therapy prescribed to transgender minors for gender-affirming care. The intermediate court said the ban violates Ohio’s constitution, including the fundamental right of parents to direct their children’s medical care and the 2011 Medical Freedom Amendment, which prevents the state from banning the “purchase and sale of health care.” Six states passed such amendments as part of a conservative-backed effort to limit the impact of the Affordable Care Act, which has since become an unlikely tool on transgender and reproductive rights issues. In January, the Wyoming Supreme Court struck down the state’s abortion ban.
It remains to be seen how fair a ban on gender-affirming care would be under Ohio’s amendment, but the state Supreme Court in April blocked the lower court’s ruling without explanation pending resolution of the appeal.
See the discussion here.
Was it legal for Nebraska officials to share voter data with the Department of Justice? — March 31
Common Cause vs. EvnenNebraska Supreme Court
The Nebraska Supreme Court will consider whether the Secretary of State had the authority to turn over all registered voter data, including dates of birth, addresses, partial driver’s licenses and Social Security numbers, in response to a request from the U.S. Department of Justice. The Justice Department made similar requests to more than 40 states and Washington, D.C., and sued many states in federal court for failing to comply. Common Cause, a democratic rights nonprofit whose members include Nebraska voters, filed a lawsuit seeking to block the transfer. The group argued that state law prohibits state and local election officials from disclosing such information and prohibits third parties from making or receiving copies of Nebraska’s voter registry. In February, the Nebraska High Court declined to block the chief justice from releasing the data, but agreed to hear Common Cause’s case and scheduled expedited oral arguments.
See the discussion here.
Sarah Kessler is an advisor and contributing editor. state court report.
Recommended citation: Sarah Kessler Pay attention to state court oral arguments in MarchSᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (March 2, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/state-court-oral-arguments-watch-march-0
