monthly, State Court Report Preview upcoming oral discussions in a prominent or interesting state court case.
In June, the state Supreme Court will address a wide range of issues, including the state’s constitutionality in the South Carolina Legislature’s map. Oregon retail licenses for tobacco prevent the region from banning flavored tobacco.
Can South Carolina ban corrective lenses online testing? – June 3rd
Operanative, Inc. v. South Carolina Committee Medical Review CommitteeSouth Carolina Supreme Court
The South Carolina Supreme Court will consider whether laws that prevent telehealth companies from offering online vision tests for Glass violate the state’s contact prescriptions’ rights for equal protection and due process under the South Carolina Constitution. Companies that challenge the law provide the service in about 35 states, but the service is prohibited in South Carolina.
The court rejected the argument by the plaintiff’s lawyer, the Judicial Institute, that the purpose of the law was not to protect public health, but to protect brick and mortar optometrists. The law meets legitimate processes and equal protection maintenance tests, as it is reasonably related to reducing risky diseases if patients agree with the convenience of online entities, the court said.
In its appeal, the company argues that it has made a mistake by upholding the law on the basis that it is believed to have been presumed. Instead, the company says the court should have applied reasonable basic tests that take into account actual facts, such as no meaningful health differences between correctional lenses and other prescriptions that state allows telehealth. The company argues that the version coincides with the state’s constitutional history and the approach of several sister courts.
Take a look at the discussion here.
Clashes between the state’s cigarette licensing law and local tobacco-related ban – June 5th
Schwartz v. Washington CountyOregon Supreme Court
The Oregon Supreme Court will establish a state tobacco retail license and consider whether the law prevails laws that allow licensees to sell tobacco products and vaping devices, and county ordinances that prohibit the sale of flavored tobacco products and steam. The midterm court found that the law does not exclude county ordinances.
The plaintiffs argue that state licensed retailers are express grants of licenses to sell issue products statewide and cannot be settled with a state ban on a subset of their sales. They won Amicus support from the Tobacco and Steam Retail Association.
The county’s debate about preemption is supported by Amicus Briefs of prominent public health and community groups, including the American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society Cancer Behavior Network. They can maintain provisions in the county’s home rules authorities and laws that allow the area to enact additional tobacco sales “that will establish standards for regulations,” issuance ordinances and provide a greater measure of public health protection than is offered specifically for young people.
Take a look at the discussion here.
Right to access court records for Hawaii residents – June 10th
Grube v. trader, Statev. RoganHawaii Supreme Court
The Hawaii Supreme Court will take on the reporter’s challenge to the two defendants’ demands to seal publicly accessible court records relating to the criminal case after the charges have been sweeped. Reporters argue that state laws requiring courts to eagerly comply with such requests violate the public’s right to access court records under the First Amendment and the state constitution. He also says the law interferes with the inherent powers of state judicial justice over its own files and procedures.
The Hawaii High Court states outside the context of its immunity that in order to overcome public access, the court must identify persuasive interest in the confidentiality of documents. The reporter argues that the forced sealing of the entire case file under the expungement law is incompatible with its judicial review, and lawmakers argue that “judicial cannot achieve what a judge is constitutionally prohibited.”
The public counsel and the Attorney General of the State Department submitted Amicus briefs to support the constitutionality of the law.
Take a look at the discussion here.
Defendants experiencing poverty in Washington – June 12th and 24th
Statev. Sabra Danielson, Statev. SimoneNelsonand Statev. JamesEllisWashington Supreme Court
The Washington Supreme Court hears three cases relating to the constitutionality of criminal fines and fees assessed against defendants who cannot afford to pay.
in Danielson and Nelsonasked on June 12th, the defendant violates equal protections to refund penalties or fees paid in cash when the conviction is void, but does not reimburse the defendant, which is equivalent to the minimum wage, to meet the financial obligations he was unable to pay. The courts in these cases elicited the distinction after the underlying drug laws of the accused. The defendant argues that the practice of time and workers not reimbursing the poor has violated the U.S. Supreme Court violated a key right to refund when an unconstitutional conviction was invalidated.
Elliswhich will be discussed on June 24th, addressing a denial (on the surface, court-ordered payment to compensate victims for losses from crime). The State High Court will consider whether compensation is a punishment subject to the restrictions on excess fines in the federal and state constitutions, and, if so, whether those provisions require a judgment court to analyze the defendant’s ability to pay in setting the amount. Fines and Fees Defendants and Amicus groups, including the Center for Justice and the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington, are modest and point to the real impact of the “majority” of poor defendants as evidence of physically punitiveness without considering poverty.
Take a look at the discussion here.
Does the South Carolina constitution prohibit partisan gerrymandering? – June 24th
League of Women Voters South Carolina vs AlexanderSouth Carolina Supreme Court
The South Carolina High Court will deal with whether state legislatures can draw a line for voting districts with the aim of creating benefits for political parties.
After the 2020 census, South Carolina lawmakers rebuilt maps of the legislative district, bringing significant changes to districts, including Charleston, despite slight changes in population. The South Carolina NAACP sued in federal court, claiming that the map constituted a racial gerrymander in violation of the US Constitution. In that case, state lawmakers testified that their intentions were partisan rather than racial gerrymanders, and urged the U.S. Supreme Court to reject racial gerrymander claims regarding the appeal. In doing so, the court repeatedly stated before 2019, finding that partisan gerrymandering in 2019 was not a condition “as far as the federal constitution is concerned.”
Turning instead to the state constitution, the Federation of Women’s Voters filed the original lawsuit in July with the South Carolina Supreme Court, alleging that partisan gerimandering violated various state guarantees, including South Carolina’s free elections and public election clauses and equal protection clauses. In its Amicus brief, the Brennan Center argues that the state constitution is far beyond the federal constitution and far beyond the federal constitution to protect the rights of South Carolinians to participate equally in the political process.
Take a look at the discussion here.
Sarah Kessler is an advisor and contributing editor State Court Report.
Erin Geiger Smith is a writer and editor of the Brennan Center for Justice.
Suggested Citation: Sarah Kessler & Erin Geiger Smith, State Court Oral Discussion to Monitor in June, s/cᴏᴜʀᴛrᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (June 2, 2025), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysisis-opinion/state-court-oral-argument-watch-june-1