The U.S. Supreme Court ended its most recent term on Friday. Some of those judgments addressed state court powers, while others are likely to affect cases landing at state dockets. Here are some of the highlights.
Perhaps the most important cases for state courts were those that had nothing to do with them directly. in United States vs Skulmettithe Supreme Court upheld a ban on gender violation care for minors in Tennessee and rejected the allegation that the law violated equal protections under the US Constitution. scrmmet It included issues of federal constitutional law that emerged from federal court cases. But by upholding Tennessee’s law, the Supreme Court created a void of federal rights. Following patterns seen in everything from abortion to property rights, litigants are increasingly asking state courts and state constitutions to fill the void.
We are already beginning to see state lawsuits challenging a ban on gender-affirming care for minors. For example, North Dakota courts are expected to rule over the coming months on lawsuits challenging the state’s ban. And in December, the Montana Supreme Court confirmed a provisional injunction obstructing the state’s ban, finding it likely that the law violated the state’s constitution’s express right to privacy. Meanwhile, last year, the Texas Supreme Court upheld a state law banning certain treatments for transgender minors.
scrmmet It also bypassed many legal questions. Most notably, whether laws discriminating against transgender people should increase the level of judicial scrutiny. Another thing to look at is whether litigants try to avoid Supreme Court decisions on this question by shifting more broadly towards strategies for transgender rights.
Two other cases The term has more directly relate to state courts and has curtailed state judicial procedures to ensure compliance with federal law.
in Williams vs. leadthe plaintiffs faced major delays from the Alabama Department of Labor in processing their benefits claims. They sued in state courts and allegedly breaching federal legitimate proceedings and statutory rights. However, the Alabama Supreme Court refused to proceed, and concluded that state law should first go through the state administrative process – that delay before filing the case in state court – was the entire basis for their case. The Supreme Court concluded that CACT-22 effectively vaccinated Alabama officials from a lawsuit under the federal civil rights law in question in 1983. In the face of that dispute, the court explained that state law was preempted by federal law and not applied by state courts.
The second case, Oklahoma Grossipa well-known death penalty appeal that emerged from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. After the prosecution’s misconduct and withholding evidence came to light in Richard Grossip’s murder conviction, the state attorney general supported Grossip’s request to resume his case and seek a new trial. However, the state’s highest criminal court, the Court of Criminal Appeal, ruled that his claims are procedurally prohibited under Oklahoma law governing post-conviction review.
Post-mortem conviction cases like Glossip’s are famous for their procedural mazes and traps against carelessness that the Supreme Court has largely congratulated. But here the court halted the enforcement and intervened to order a new trial. The court ultimately explained that Oklahoma State Court has jurisdiction to consider Glossip’s case because there is no independent and appropriate state basis for its decision. The court’s decision took a false analysis of the Supreme Court case governing the use of false evidence by prosecutors, the court explained. The court then admitted earlier evidence and the state attorney general’s own mistakes, and concluded that the new trial was justified. Grossip Although precedents did not break much new ground, it was important because the Supreme Court rarely intervene in death penalty cases in the face of state procedural rulings.
We conclude with one last case. Charter School Boards V, across the state of Oklahoma. DrummondThe expected blockbuster has flapped up. After the Oklahoma School Board granted the Charter to Catholic Schools, the Oklahoma Supreme Court blocked the decision and found the Charter violated state law and state constitutions, as well as provisions for establishing the U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. Supreme Court tees up what appears to be a major religious freedom case that could mandate the creation of a religious charter school and takes appeals. However, the court had only eight justice available to consider the case because of the liability of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, but ultimately ended up splitting 4-4. This is how the Oklahoma decision stands, and there is no precedent for the Supreme Court decision. That leaves the state in power to apply state law, at least for now, to keep religious schools out of the state’s charter system.
Alicia Bannon is Editor-in-Chief State Court Report. She is also the director of the Brennan Judicial Center’s Judicial Program.
Suggested Quote: Alicia Bannon, How the Supreme Court’s recent decision forms state courtssᴛᴀᴛᴇcᴏᴜʀᴛrᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (July 3, 2025), https://statcourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/how-supreme-courts-decc5s-will-scsta-kate-couurts
