monthly, state court report Preview upcoming oral arguments in prominent or interesting state court cases.
In November, the state Supreme Court will take up a wide range of issues, including the court’s power to fix public defender shortages in multiple states, voting restrictions in Missouri and a challenge to changes to corporate law to keep companies in Delaware.
Three states consider courts’ role in improving representation of the poor — November 4, 5, and 13
State vs. HemionOregon Supreme Court. Board of Public Defender Services v. District Court of Middlesex and Suffolk CountiesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Regarding the detention of ME and RSWashington Supreme Court
High courts in three states will consider whether judges have the power to order measures aimed at alleviating the state’s poverty defense crisis. The state’s overstretched system struggles to protect people in poverty’s constitutional right to an attorney, a problem that is playing out across the country.
On November 4th, State vs. HemionThe Oregon Supreme Court will debate whether a trial court had the authority to order the largest public defender’s office in Washington County, near Portland, to turn over detailed caseload data and records about its representation of indigent criminal defendants. The dispute stems from a larger dispute over how to provide legal representation to thousands of people accused of crimes in a state that lacks lawyers. Prosecutors urged the trial court’s order, arguing that the department’s failure to appoint an attorney had more to do with resource allocation than workload. Watch the Oregon debate here.
On November 5th, Public Advisory Service CommissionThe Massachusetts Superior Court will consider under what circumstances a court can order higher fee rates for lawyers who represent indigent criminal defendants, as a way to address a shortage of lawyers in the Boston metropolitan area. That rate is currently set by law. These public defenders represent about 80% of Massachusetts’ indigent defendants, but many stopped taking new cases in May over concerns that their fees were unreasonably low given their cost of living, lack of benefits and difficult working conditions. Despite the state Legislature’s decision in August to raise wages by $10 an hour each year for two years, there were still 2,462 unrepresented indigent defendants in two metro Boston counties as of early October, which the state public defender’s office argues indicates a lawsuit is needed to further increase pay. In response to this shortage, the Massachusetts Superior Court has directed trial courts in these counties to begin dismissing criminal cases involving defendants who have been without an attorney for more than 45 days, with approximately 1,500 cases dismissed to date. See the Massachusetts debate here.
Finally, on November 13th, at the Washington Supreme Court. Regarding the detention of ME and RS, The King County Public Defender’s Office in Seattle will take up a trial court’s order assigning attorneys to numerous people facing involuntary civil commitments for mental health and substance use treatment. The department did not assign cases because its attorneys had already exceeded the monthly caseload limit based on state bar and court effective representation standards. While the department argues that the court’s order interfered with state and local governments’ responsibilities to manage and supervise indigent attorneys under their regulations, the hospital seeking to involuntarily commit one of its members counters that the court’s inherent power to guarantee the constitutional right to counsel takes precedence. (The hospital also argues separately that the state high court should dismiss the case as an issue because no party represents the poor whose rights are at stake.) Watch Washington’s argument here.
Are Delaware’s corporate law reforms unconstitutional? — November 5th
Rutledge v. Clearway Energy Group LLCDelaware Supreme Court
The Delaware Supreme Court will consider an overhaul of the state’s corporate law enacted earlier this year in response to concerns that companies could relocate outside the state, long considered the “corporate capital of the world.” Concerns arose after some rulings by the company’s business court, the Court of Chancery, that critics saw as biased toward minority shareholders, including one that agreed with shareholders that a $56 billion compensation agreement between Tesla and its controlling shareholder Elon Musk was unfair. This decision means that Tesla will move to Texas in 2024.
The Delaware Superior Court will take up a section of the new law that protects transactions between a corporation and its controlling shareholder from being subject to damages or other equitable remedies, such as a court order blocking the transaction, so long as the transaction receives certain approvals from disinterested directors or shareholders that fall under the law’s “safe harbor.” Specifically, the state high court will rule on two state constitutional issues raised by lower courts in potentially affected cases. First, whether removing the Court of Chancery’s ability to grant equitable relief for transactions that meet the “safe harbor” would unlawfully deprive that court of its jurisdiction. And second, whether the retroactive “safe harbor” provision for transactions that occurred before the law’s enactment violates a prospective plaintiff’s right to due process and access to a court by precluding claims that the plaintiff is entitled to pursue.
See the discussion here.
Will the voter-approved gun control measure called “Extreme” work in Oregon? — November 6th
arnold vs cornerOregon Supreme Court
The Oregon Supreme Court will consider a ballot measure that was narrowly approved by voters in 2022 but has not yet taken effect because of litigation. The National Rifle Association called the measure at the time “the most extreme gun control initiative in the United States.” The measure would require a multi-step permitting process to qualify to purchase a gun, and would require a criminal background check (regardless of time) to be completed before a gun can be transferred. Also, so-called “high-capacity” magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition are almost completely banned. The trial court agreed with gun advocates that the restriction violated states’ constitutional rights to bear arms, but the Intermediate Court of Appeals reversed.
In an appeal to the state’s highest court, state officials, backed largely by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, religious groups, the Portland Chamber of Commerce and others, argue in part that high-capacity magazines are not “weapons” protected by state constitutional provisions. In May, the Washington Supreme Court accepted a similar argument for state constitutional purposes, upholding a ban on the sale and manufacture of large-capacity magazines.
See the discussion here.
Should the Oklahoma Initiative’s new restrictions on signature gathering be blocked? — November 18th
McVeigh vs. CockroftOklahoma Supreme Court
The Oklahoma Supreme Court will consider whether to block a May 2025 law on the grounds that it violates the state’s constitutional rights to initiate constitutional amendments and legislation and to engage in political speech. Several would-be initiative supporters filed suit directly in state high court, challenging numerous provisions of the law, including strict limits on the total number of signatures collected from a single county. They argue that this would effectively reduce the pool of eligible signatories that could help get initiative petitions on the ballots of millions of people living in populous counties.
Supporters say the state already has the shortest signature-gathering time in the nation. They argue that the new law amounts to a “de facto abolition” of the constitutional right to initiate, and argue that county caps and the law’s restrictions on non-Oklahomans who contribute to petition distribution, combined with the ban on performance-based compensation and other requirements for distributors, make it practically, and sometimes mathematically, impossible to certify ballot measures. State defendants argue that the hardship was overstated and that the previous signature process left voters outside metropolitan areas feeling “disenfranchised.”
See the discussion here.
Should a 2022 law restricting voting survive in Missouri? — November 19th
NAACP Missouri State Conference vs. State; Missouri v. League of Women VotersMissouri Supreme Court
The Missouri high court will consider two decisions by the same judge, including challenges brought by individual voters and voting advocacy groups to provisions of an omnibus law restricting voting passed by the Republican-controlled Missouri General Assembly in 2022. One issue involves the law’s requirement that voters present a valid identification issued by the Missouri government or the federal government or vote by provisional ballot that goes through a signature verification process. The law eliminated previous identification options for in-person voting, including voter registration cards, student IDs, utility bills and out-of-state driver’s licenses. Although the trial court found that the plaintiffs had not shown that they were not sufficiently harmed by the new voter ID requirements to establish standing, it also found that the requirements were consistent with a 2016 constitutional amendment that states voters “may be required by general law to identify themselves” and does not violate constitutional voting rights or equal protections.
The League of Women Voters and the NAACP are also objecting to provisions that limit voter registration and absentee ballot solicitation efforts, which could result in criminal penalties if violated. The trial court struck down these provisions, finding them vague, burdening core political speech, and violating state constitutional speech protections by discriminating against speech supporting registration and absentee voting based on content or perspective.
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 NovemberSᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (October 29, 2025), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/state-court-oral-arguments-watch-november
