you are reading state court report Biweekly newsletter. Subscribe to get it in your inbox.
An important part of understanding state courts and the Constitution is addressing how they interact with federal law. This year’s blockbuster Supreme Court term, which ended last week, has profound implications for how state courts operate and whether and how federal rights gaps can be closed. Here are some highlights.
In some cases, courts have limited federal rights and remedies, almost certainly shifting rights disputes to the states.
Landau v. Louisiana Department of Corrections Although it has received less attention than other end-of-term cases, it has significant implications for the federal government’s civil rights protections. in landerthe court further reduced the availability of damages for certain civil rights violations. Rastafarian inmate Damon Landau claimed that guards forced him to shave his head, knowing it was in violation of his religious beliefs. Such actions are prohibited by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), which guarantees religious freedom for incarcerated people.
But the court held that under laws like RLUIPA, which impose legal requirements on state agencies as a condition of receiving federal funds, individual employees cannot be held liable unless they consent to a lawsuit. As a result, your remedies if your rights under RLUIPA are violated are significantly limited. lander Many other legal protections rooted in Congress’ spending powers also remain weak.
However, this is an area where state law can help fill in the gaps. Many states already provide stronger religious freedom protections than the U.S. Constitution, either under individual constitutions or state-level religious freedom restoration laws, and these laws exist in some form in 29 states. However, these protections do not necessarily lead to compensation. For example, while federal law provides a cause of action for state employees who violate the U.S. Constitution, only eight states have similar laws for violations of their state constitutions. (Some courts recognize that damages can be obtained even without a statute.) lander There is a new urgency for robust national protection.
on the other hand, State of West Virginia vs. BPJthe court ruled that neither Title IX nor the federal Equal Protection Clause prevents states from preventing transgender female students from playing on women’s sports teams. The ruling follows a court ruling last year. USA vs. Scumettisupported state bans on gender-affirming care for minors.
like Skremti The court addressed the question of whether discrimination against transgender individuals would trigger enhanced constitutional review. however, I shrieked. The court ruled that the challenged law did not discriminate by gender or transgender status. B.P.J. It accepted the classification but concluded that the sports ban had withstood so-called interim scrutiny. of the court B.P.J. The ruling could signal a weakening of federal civil rights protections overall: In a partial dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the ruling weakened the standards for evaluating gender classification more broadly.
B.P.J. Although it emphasizes that federal protections for transgender people are limited, state courts can still interpret state constitutions to provide stronger protections. In Montana, for example, the state Supreme Court applied strict review, the strictest form of review, to uphold a preliminary injunction blocking the state’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors. A lower court in Kansas also temporarily blocked the state’s ban, and state supreme courts in North Dakota and Ohio are currently hearing challenges. Other states reject such claims.
I wrote about what happened after that before, louisiana vs currythe court’s April ruling that rewrote (and effectively watered down) key parts of the Voting Rights Act. With no federal limits on partisan gerrymandering and few federal protections remaining against discriminatory maps; chalice Pushing state courts into the center of redistricting fights. Your post is already visible –chalice A surge in state redistricting lawsuits.
set of different postschalice The legal battle is connected to the state constitutional reform movement, as several Democratic-controlled states seek to amend their constitutions to facilitate gerrymandering. Just last week, the Colorado Supreme Court blocked five redistricting efforts that proponents were trying to put on the November ballot.
Finally, the Supreme Court also ruled as follows: limited State law or foreclosed state lawsuit. One of the highlights is Wolford vs. LopezIn this case, the court struck down, on Second Amendment grounds, a Hawaii law prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns on private property that is open to the public without the express permission of the property owner.
Under our federal system, the Second Amendment trumps state law violations, but state courts still have a role to play. Notably, the Hawaii Supreme Court has ruled that the state constitution does not protect an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, harshly criticizing the U.S. Supreme Court’s use of Second Amendment precedent and unilateralism. For those critical of the Supreme Court’s recent approach to constitutional interpretation, states can model a different path.
Alicia Bannon is the editor-in-chief state court report. She is also the director of justice programs at the Brennan Center for Justice.
Recommended quote: Alicia Bannon the interaction of state courts and federal law; Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (July 8, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/interaction-between-state-courts-and-federal-law
