This is awesome.

Yesterday the Wyoming Supreme Court ruled that the state’s abortion ban violated the state constitution’s healthcare freedom amendment, originally an anti-ACA provision that established a rt to make health care decisions. Read @maryrziegler.bsky.social’s excellent analysis in @statecourtreport.org.

NEW: The Wyoming Supreme Court ruled this week that the state’s abortion ban violated the right of each Wyomingite “to make his or her own health care decisions,” protected under the state constitution. @maryrziegler.bsky.social breaks down what you need to know:

NEW: For the first time, a state appellate court has placed renters' privacy rights on the same constitutional footing as homeowners', underscoring how state constitutions are powerful sources of liberty. @ij.org's Rob Peccola explains the significance of the PA Commonwealth Court's Rivera decision.

Abortion will remain legal in Wyoming after the state Supreme Court struck down laws that include the country’s first explicit ban on abortion pills, ruling that they violate the state constitution. https://cnn.it/3N97lP5

New year, new set of state oral arguments to watch -- including several this week! Check out @statecourtreport.org's oral argument previews by @erings.bsky.social & @skess108.bsky.social. statecourtreport.org/our-work/ana...

The Wyoming Supreme Court struck down the state's near-total abortion ban and a first-of-its-kind prohibition on abortion pills on Tuesday, saying the laws violated the state constitution.

BREAKING: The Wyoming Supreme Court struck down the state’s abortion bans, finding that the choice to terminate a pregnancy is a healthcare decision protected by the state constitution’s healthcare freedom amendment, and that “strict scrutiny” applies to laws restricting those decisions.

NEW: The January edition of @skess108.bsky.social & @erings.bsky.social's state court oral argument roundup is here! Issues on the docket this month include: ⚖️ UT's execution methods ⚖️ ID's school-choice program ⚖️ Legislative responses to MO’s voter-approved abortion rights amendment And more!

NEW: On this day 250 years ago, NH adopted the nation's very first constitution, inaugurating what historian Gordon S. Wood called “the most creative and significant period of constitutionalism in modern Western history.” Nathaniel Fouch tells the story in our first state constitution essay of 2026.

Happy birthday to the nation’s FIRST state constitution! Nathaniel Fouch tells the story of New Hampshire’s first effort at constitution-making 250 years ago. An important part of our national story and the spirit of ‘76. statecourtreport.org/our-work/ana...

While America’s population continued to become more diverse in 2025, the highest courts in each state remained overwhelmingly white and male. May the courts deciding some of the country’s most important legal questions grow more representative of the communities they serve in this new year.

As we reflect on this year's most notable state constitutional cases, @cisozaki.bsky.social's series on 2025 case trends highlights how state courts have been dealing with a range of issues, from the right to vote, to reproductive and transgender rights, to Covid-19 policies. Check it out: 🧵

"95% of cases are filed in state court...Most laws that affect your life...are affected by what happens in state courts and state constitutions. And yet, most people don't even know their state has a constitution." Subscribe to State Court Report to learn more: go.statecourtreport.org/subscribe.

Annnnd hitting for Margolis is her co-author, here to say, @elliemargolis.bsky.social and I wrote an article about this very exact precise thing! And you can have it FOR FREE! papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Five states legalized abortion before Roe. The northeast legalized gay marriage before Obergfell. Half the states adopted the exclusionary rule before Mapp. States have invalidates sentencing laws upheld by SCOTUS under their own 8A equivalents. Etc etc etc etc.

What state constitutional rulings in 2025 should you know about? @law.ucla.edu Dean Erwin Chemerinsky thinks Kaul v. Urmanski (where WI's high court held that an 1849 law couldn't be used to prohibit abortions) can provide important guidance to courts in other states with "zombie laws" on the books.

This is only a small taste of State Court Report's fantastic 2025 coverage. And if you've gotten this far, you might also enjoy @statecourtreport.org's free newsletter. Sign up to receive our coverage of state cases, trends, scholarship, and more! /fin go.statecourtreport.org/subscribe

State Court Report also covered how Trump administration policies interact with longstanding federalism principles. Meryl Chertoff wrote about the administration's "unprecedented" quid pro quo approach to disaster relief. /5 statecourtreport.org/our-work/ana...

This summer I wrote about how SCOTUS could weaken the Voting Rights Act. State laws (and courts) would be even more important, but they're no substitute for a strong nat'l standard. And a ruling that limits race-conscious remedies will impact states too. /4 statecourtreport.org/our-work/ana...

One of the very first things we published on State Court Report was Professor John Dinan's must-read explainer about state constitutional amendment processes. I still refer to it all the time, and apparently so do our readers. /3 statecourtreport.org/our-work/ana...

Both Pennsylvania and Wisconsin had high-stakes (and high-cost) judicial elections this year. @douglaskeith.bsky.social previewed the PA election and some of the issues likely to land on the court's docket - including election cases and abortion access. /2 statecourtreport.org/our-work/ana...

I looked up some of 2025's most-read stories on @statecourtreport.org. It's an interesting mix! Post-Dobbs, a big question has been the scope of exceptions to abortion bans for medical emergencies. @maryrziegler.bsky.social analyzed the cases & issues to watch./1 statecourtreport.org/our-work/ana...

For @marcusagadson.bsky.social, Judge Jefferson Griffin’s effort to discard 1000s of lawfully cast ballots in 2024's NC Supreme Court election was 2025's most consequential state court case. Read more in our year-end roundup of state constitutional cases you should know about.

Also, here's a blog post I wrote about the case when it came out. (I had been watching a lot of le Carre at the time.) 6/6 ij.org/cje-post/tin...

Whether state courts can still issue universal injunctions—a frequent tool in public interest work—will depend on their own interpretation of how “equity” is treated in state constitutions. 5/

This year SCOTUS threw out the ability of federal courts to grant “universal injunctions” under its reading of “equity” in federal law. But that conclusion does not bind how states interpret their own grants of equity jurisdiction. . . . 4/

The judges split, and all examined the Iowa Constitution’s separation of powers and grant of judicial power. This included the nature of equitable powers. The case reminds us that state constitutions, like the federal, explicitly provide for “the judicial power” including “equity.” . . . 3/

My pick is not terribly important on its own but as a harbinger for the future of public interest litigation. It is Rivas v. Brownell, from the Iowa Supreme Court. The case itself concerned the court’s authority to extend certain deadlines during the COVID pandemic. . . . 2/

Full disclosure: Kasia was sad I chose this last-minute ruling that my colleagues are litigating when I had just sent in a draft for a different case. For posterity (and FWIW, which probably isn't much) I'm posting here that cutting-room-floor summary of an equitable powers case from Iowa.🧵1/

(16/16) Finally, I picked one! Plz read TX judge David Schenck's forceful concurrence saying it should be easier for people facing execution to challenge their convictions based on innocence. Unfun fact: #SCOTUS seems to think it's ok to execute someone even if they are likely innocent.

(15/16) @reprorights.org's Amy Myrick made an important point: Procedure can stand in the way of abortion rights. E.g., 3 of 5 ND justices said an abortion ban was unconstitutional. But too bad: ND has a rule that laws can only be struck down via supermajority.

(14/16) Prof Eric Ruben highlighted an Iowa case that" identifies a practical path forward for constitutionally disarming individuals subject to domestic violence protection orders after #SCOTUS Second Amendment decision in Rahimi"

(13/16) @law.rutgers.edu's Prof Bob Williams picked a Michigan case that really solidified MI's place as a leader in combatting excessive sentences.

(12/16) @ijsanders.bsky.social chose a PA appellate case rejecting #SCOTUS precedent that lets cities inspect rental properties without evidence that anything is wrong with the property. The PA case "puts cities on notice that you don’t lose your privacy rights just because you rent your home."

(11/16) @miriamseifter.bsky.social focused on justiciability doctrines. "State courts may sensibly conclude that their rules for getting into court are different — and more flexible — than federal requirements," she said. AZ did just that last month, declining to follow federal standing precedent.

(10/16) @ilyasomin.bsky.social highlighted a Virginia case holding a law authorizing broadband service providers to take property to install fiber optic cables across railroad-owned land was an unconstitutional taking — one of many examples of states providing more protections than #SCOTUS in Kelo.

(9/16) Former TX Justice Nathan Hecht said we should all read a concurrence in a TX religious liberties case urging consideration of state constitutional protections independent of the First Amendment

(8/16) Navajo Nation principal attorney Michelle Garcia picked a case about NM's “pollution control” provision, which says protection of NM's “beautiful and healthful environment” is crucial to public welfare. Youth orgs, indigenous communities, and others say the govt hasn't satisfied its duty.

(7/16) @ucberkeleylaw.bsky.social's dean Erwin Chemerinsky pointed to a WI case holding an 1849 law cannot be used to prohibit abortions today. He said it "provides important guidance to courts in other states" that have "zombie laws" banning abortions — passed long before women could even vote.

(6/16) @macarthurjustice.bsky.social's Christine Monta picked a barnburner of a concurrence in a Hawaii religious liberties case — in which Justice Todd Eddins rebuked #SCOTUS for its “ideology-driven jurisprudence” and reliance on "text trickery, originalism, or imagination.”

(5/16) UNC Law Prof Marcus Gadson said a losing candidate's failed "effort to discard thousands of lawfully cast ballots" in NC's supreme court election was the most consequential state case this year. Gadson worries the effort could be a blueprint for other election losers to overturn results.

(4/16) @law.ucla.edu Prof Eugene Volokh highlighted a NC case holding that a Covid-era gubernatorial order shuttering bars for over 400 days, even when many similar businesses were allowed to reopen, could violate the state constitution’s Fruits of Labor Clause.

(3/16) Former Ohio Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor picked a Utah case imposing "a fair congressional map after finding the legislature’s map — designed to split Salt Lake City into four districts — illegal."

(2/16) @dahlialithwick.bsky.social pointed to "ongoing debates around states’ rights in the face of federal overreach into areas clearly delineated as state matters." E.g., the WI high court is considering whether county jails can legally hold people the feds say violated immigration law

(1/16) 🧵🧵🧵@statecourtreport.org just published its annual year-end feature! Top legal thinkers tell us which cases from the last 12 months you all should know about. Dang — it's been a year. Topics include ICE action, executing innocent people, gerrymandering, and way more. @brennancenter.org

This year @dahlialithwick.bsky.social watched "ongoing debates around states’ rights in the face of federal overreach...If federalism means anything, it means that states are sovereign." Read more in our year-end roundup of state constitutional cases you should know about.

“It basically says that a federal officer can be criminally prosecuted for unreasonable actions. Federal officers, by virtue of being federal officers, do not get immunity from all state civil and criminal laws,” Dean Chemerinsky told @calmatters.org https://bit.ly/45eaYcB #BerkeleyLaw

We are excited to launch “History in Reproductive Rights Cases: A post-Dobbs Resource Hub”—a collection of legal resources showing how history can inform state constitutional cases to protect, rather than restrict, reproductive rights and gender justice. Visit the Hub: law.ucla.edu/academics/ce...

The conviction of a Wisconsin state judge for obstructing ICE officers is just the start of what will likely be a long legal battle, with major questions over judicial immunity, the evidence at hand and the meaning of "corrupt" yet to be decided.