State supreme courts issued 91 opinions from April 10-16, 2023. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and the North Dakota Supreme Court led the field with nine opinions each, followed by Delaware and Mississippi with seven each.
Last week’s 91 opinions are the fewest in one week this year and account for 4% of the year-to-date total of 1,883. Delaware leads with 123 opinions issued since Jan. 1, followed closely by Pennsylvania with 122 and West Virginia with 119.
Supreme courts in 27 states have issued fewer than 25 opinions since the start of the year. Michigan and Tennessee, with two each, have issued the fewest opinions.
Some of the state supreme court opinions issued this week include those in:
Kentucky, where the court held that the Food Security Act of 1985 (FSA) was preemptive of Kentucky’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The UCC allowed security interest to remain when farm products passed from seller to buyer. However, under the meaning of the FSA, the court held that thoroughbreds and the right to breed them are farm products, and any security interest in those products is extinguished when sold to a buyer.
Texas, where the court affirmed the appellate court’s decision to dismiss a case where a driver sued Texas A&M University System for injuries sustained while in a car accident on campus; and.
New York, where the court reversed a defendant’s conviction of rape in the first degree because the defendant’s constitutional right to prompt prosecution was violated.
Supreme courts in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Texas, and Delaware regularly end the year as some of the country’s most active courts. Collectively, they accounted for 26% of all opinions issued in 2021 and 2022, and, to date, 27% in 2023.
Every state and the District of Columbia have at least one supreme court, known as a court of last resort. Oklahoma and Texas have two courts of last resort, one for civil cases and one for criminal proceedings. Supreme courts do not hear trials of cases. Instead, they hear appeals of decisions made in lower courts. The number of justices on each state supreme court ranges between five and nine.
In 2020, we conducted a study identifying the partisan balance on every state supreme court. You can find that research here. We also identified which justices ruled together most often in our Determiners and Dissenters report found here.
The New York Court of Appeals issued four opinions from Feb. 6-12. As of Feb. 12, the court issued four opinions in 2023—seven fewer than this point a year ago. The four opinions are below:
From Feb. 6-12, state supreme courts issued 195 opinions nationally. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued the most with 55. State supreme courts in 23 states issued none. Courts where judges are elected have issued 140 opinions, while courts whose members are appointed have issued 55.
The State of New York Court of Appeals is the state’s court of last resort and has seven judgeships. The current acting chief of the court is Anthony Cannataro. The court issued 85 opinions in 2022 and 69 in 2021. Nationally, state supreme courts issued 9,243 opinions in 2022 and 10,133 in 2021. The courts have issued 833 opinions in 2023. Courts where judges are elected have issued 518 opinions, while courts whose members are appointed have issued 315. New York is a Democratic trifecta, meaning Democrats control the governorship and both chambers of the state legislature.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued seven opinions from Feb. 6-12. The Texas Supreme Court issued two opinions from Feb. 6-12. Both courts are the state’s courts of last resort. As of Feb. 12, the court of criminal appeals issued 48 opinions in 2023—17 more than this point a year ago. The supreme court issued eight opinions as of Feb. 12, 2023—five fewer than this point a year ago. The nine opinions are below:
From Feb. 6-12, state supreme courts issued 195 opinions nationally. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued the most with 55. State supreme courts in 23 states issued none. Courts where judges are elected have issued 140 opinions, while courts whose members are appointed have issued 55.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court are the state’s courts of last resort. The former is the state’s court of last resort for criminal matters, while the latter is the state’s court of last resort for civil matters; both have nine judgeships. Sharon Keller and Nathan Hecht are the current chiefs of the criminal and supreme courts, respectively. Combined, the courts issued 413 opinions in 2022 and 536 in 2021. Nationally, state supreme courts issued 9,243 opinions in 2022 and 10,133 in 2021. The courts have issued 833 opinions in 2023. Courts where judges are elected have issued 518 opinions, while courts whose members are appointed have issued 315. Texas is a Republican trifecta, meaning Republicans control the governorship and both chambers of the state legislature.
On Jan. 5, 2023, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled 3-2 that the state’s six-week abortion ban, known as the South Carolina Fetal Heartbeat and Protection from Abortion Act, was unconstitutional. Signed in February 2021, the law banned abortion once cardiac activity is detected, usually around six weeks. The bill was blocked from taking effect in March 2021 but became effective after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not grant the right to an abortion, overturning Roe v. Wade, in June 2022.
The court found that the law violated Section 10 of Article I of the state constitution, which provides a right against unreasonable invasions of privacy. Justice Kaye Hearn wrote that “few decisions in life are more private than the decision whether to terminate a pregnancy. Our privacy right must be implicated by restrictions on that decision.” Hearn wrote that the ban on abortion at six weeks was an unreasonable restriction and that six weeks was not a reasonable time period for a woman to find out she is pregnant and decide to get an abortion.
Justice George C. James dissented, writing, “The scope of the privacy right included in Article I, Section 10 is of doubtful import. Therefore, we must consider the intent of the framers and the voters. It is clear the framers did not intend to create a full panoply of privacy rights, much less the right to bodily autonomy or the right to have an abortion.”
In 2020, Ballotpedia published a report examining the partisan affiliation of state supreme court justices as of June 15, 2020, and found that South Carolina had a Republican-controlled state supreme court. In 2020, eight cases before the South Carolina Supreme Court were decided 4-1. Justices Few and Hearn dissented alone three times each. In this ruling, Hearn, Few, and Beatty formed the majority with Justices James and Kittredge dissenting. In the study, all Justices were recorded as having Mild Republican Confidence Scores while Justice Beatty was indeterminate.
The right to privacy was added to the state constitution through Amendment 1 of 1970, which was approved by voters in a vote of 77% to 23%. The amendment transposed sections from some articles of the Constitution to Article I and created a new Declaration of Rights (Article I), including a right to privacy.
Section 10 of Article 1 added the following right to the state constitution:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures and unreasonable invasions of privacy shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, the person or thing to be seized, and the information to be obtained.”
The amendment was proposed by the Committee to Make a Study of the South Carolina Constitution of 1895, also known as the West Committee, which was responsible for proposing amendments to revise the South Carolina Constitution of 1895. The committee’s final report was published in 1969 and proposed 17 new articles. To be placed on the statewide ballot, a two-thirds vote of the South Carolina State Legislature was required.
South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster (R) said, “Our State Supreme Court has found a right in our Constitution which was never intended by the people of South Carolina. With this opinion, the Court has clearly exceeded its authority. The people have spoken through their elected representatives multiple times on this issue. I look forward to working with the General Assembly to correct this error.”
The South Carolina State Legislature can refer constitutional amendments to the ballot in 2024 by a two-thirds (66.66%) supermajority vote in each chamber.
In 2022, there were six ballot measures addressing abortion — the most on record.
Voters in California, Michigan, and Vermont were the first to approve ballot measures to establish state constitutional rights to abortion. Votes on these ballot measures followed Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which held that the U.S. Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. These measures were also the first abortion-related ballot measures since 1992 to have the support of organizations that describe themselves as pro-choice/pro-reproductive rights.
Voters in Kansas rejected a measure to provide that the state constitution cannot be interpreted to establish a state constitutional right to abortion. On November 8, voters in Kentucky rejected a similar amendment. These types of amendments were designed to address previous and future state court rulings on abortion that have prevented or could prevent legislatures from passing certain abortion laws.
Both of the candidates running in the November 8, 2022, general election for North Carolina Court of Appeals Seat 9 — incumbent Donna Stroud (R) and Brad Salmon (D) — completed Ballotpedia’s Candidate Connection survey. These survey responses allow voters to hear directly from candidates about what motivates them to run for office.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals is the only intermediate appellate court in the state of North Carolina. The court has 15 judges who rotate, hearing cases in panels of three. Judges serve eight-year terms and are elected in statewide partisan elections.
Here are excerpts from candidates’ responses to the question: What are the main points you want voters to remember about your goals for your time in office?
Stroud:
“Experience matters. Currently, only three of the 15 judges on the Court of Appeals have served more than one term; one third of our judges have served just over one year.”
“Integrity. I have worked for over 17 years as a judge to uphold and improve the professionalism and integrity of the courts in my work as a judge and as a law professor, with the North Carolina Bar Association, and with the Chief Justice’s Commission on Professionalism.”
I am a Constitutional conservative judge with proven track record of 15 years on the Court of Appeals.”
Salmon:
“Fairness”
“Impartiality”
“Adherence to the rule of law”
Click on candidates’ profile pages below to read their full responses to this and other questions.
We ask all federal, state, and local candidates with profiles on Ballotpedia to complete a survey and share what motivates them on political and personal levels. Ask the candidates in your area to fill out the survey.
Both of the candidates running in the November 8, 2022, general election for Oregon Court of Appeals Position 3 —incumbent Darleen Ortega and Vance Day — completed Ballotpedia’s Candidate Connection survey. These survey responses allow voters to hear directly from candidates about what motivates them to run for office.
The Oregon Court of Appeals, established by statute in 1969, is the intermediate appellate court in Oregon. The court hears all civil and criminal appeals from the circuit courts and also has jurisdiction to review some state administrative agency actions.
Here are excerpts from candidates’ responses to the question: What are the main points you want voters to remember about your goals for your time in office?
Ortega:
“I am experienced and highly competent. I have authored over 800 opinions and have participated in thousands of cases during my time on the Court of Appeals. That experience has not made me complacent nor institutionalized my thinking.”
“I am a judicial and community leader, including on issues of access to justice. I am a frequent speaker and discussion leader on addressing the gaps that exist between the goal of justice and the lived experience of people who interact with the legal system. I relentlessly make space for the voices of the unheard and lead by example in a practice of listening to those voices myself.”
“I approach my work with integrity and a relentless commitment to the ideal of justice for all.”
Day:
“Equality: It is my firm belief that our laws should be applied to all people in all places at all times equally.”
“Freedom: It is my heartfelt conviction that government in a civil society under our Constitutions exists to respect and preserve our freedoms, not to erode or cancel them in favor of short-term administrative convenience or corrupt political gain.”
“Rule of Law: Every citizen has the right to expect that our Constitution and the laws that operate within it mean what they say and don’t mean what they don’t say in a concrete way and that these laws enacted by the People’s elected representatives prevail over the arbitrary and occasionally capricious whims of temporary elected officials.”
Click on candidates’ profile pages below to read their full responses to this and other questions.
We ask all federal, state, and local candidates with profiles on Ballotpedia to complete a survey and share what motivates them on political and personal levels. Ask the candidates in your area to fill out the survey.
Both of the candidates running in the November 8, 2022, general election for Michigan’s 2nd Court of Appeals— incumbent Sima Patel and Michael D. Warren — completed Ballotpedia’s Candidate Connection survey. These survey responses allow voters to hear directly from candidates about what motivates them to run for office.
The Michigan Court of Appeals is the intermediate appellate court in Michigan. It is divided into four districts. The court was created by the Michigan Constitution of 1963, Article VI, Section 1, under which the State of Michigan has “one court of justice.”
Here are excerpts from candidates’ responses to the question: How would you describe your legal philosophy?
Patel:
“I am a rule of law judge. That means I look at the statutes and rules, common law precedent, and apply and interpret them to the unique facts of each case.”
Warren:
“Judges should not legislate from the bench, but apply a fair and faithful application of the law as made by the people or the legislature. […] As a proven rule of law judge, I will continue to protect the Constitution and the law.”
Click on candidates’ profile pages below to read their full responses to this and other questions.
We ask all federal, state, and local candidates with profiles on Ballotpedia to complete a survey and share what motivates them on political and personal levels. Ask the candidates in your area to fill out the survey.
Wyoming voters will decide in November on a constitutional amendment that would increase the judicial retirement age from 70 to 75 for state supreme court justices and district court judges.
As of 2022, 32 states have mandatory retirement ages for state judges. Including Wyoming, 18 states have a mandatory retirement age of 70. Seven have a mandatory retirement age of 75. In 2003, Vermont established the highest mandatory retirement age at 90 years old. The other 18 states do not have mandatory retirement ages.
Since 2016, voters in six states have voted on constitutional amendments to increase or eliminate the judicial retirement age. Two of the constitutional amendments were approved. Both of them, like the Wyoming amendment, proposed increasing the judicial retirement age from 70 to 75. The other four were rejected. Two proposed increasing the age from 70 to 80 and two proposed eliminating the judicial retirement age.
In Wyoming, a constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds vote in each chamber of the Wyoming State Legislature during one legislative session. The judicial retirement age amendment was introduced into the state Legislature as House Joint Resolution 1 (HJ 1). The Wyoming House of Representatives voted 54 to 5 to approve HJ1 on Feb. 24, 2022. All seven Democratic representatives voted in favor. Of the 51 Republican representatives, 45 voted in favor, five voted against, and one was absent. The one Independent representative and one Libertarian representative both voted in favor. The State Senate passed the measure in a vote of 20-30 on March 3, 2022. Both Democratic senators voted in favor. Among the 28 Republican senators, 18 voted in favor and 10 voted against.
As of March 3, the Wyoming State Legislature has referred one other constitutional amendment – Amendment A – the ballot. Amendment A would allow the legislature to provide by law for local governments (county, city, township, town, school district, or other political subdivision) to invest funds in stocks and equities. The legislature may refer additional measures to the ballot during the 2022 legislative session, which is set to run until March 11, 2022. Two constitutional amendments concerning the state budget have passed the state House of Representatives and would be placed on the ballot if approved by the state Senate. One of the amendments would require that earnings from the Permanent Fund are deposited into an earnings account and requires that investment losses are addressed. The other potential amendment would create a separate earnings fund for earnings from the school account of the permanent land fund, allow the legislature to distribute or invest the earnings fund, and require the legislature to provide a process for supplying school fund investment losses.
Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee (R) selected Sarah K. Campbell as his nominee to fill the vacant seat on the Tennessee Supreme Court. Lee’s announcement came on Jan. 12 after consideration of the three finalists put forward by the Governor’s Council for Judicial Appointments: Campbell and Tennessee Court of Appeals Judges Kristi Davis and William Neal McBrayer. Campbell will succeed Justice Cornelia Clark, who passed away from cancer on Sep. 24. Campbell is Lee’s first nominee to the five-member supreme court.
Under Tennessee law, state supreme court justices are selected by the governor with help from a nominating commission. The nominee must then be confirmed by the Tennessee State Legislature. While Tennessee state law changed in 2014 to eliminate the judicial nominating commission and require legislative approval of the governor’s appointee, Gov. Bill Haslam’s Executive Order No. 54 and Lee’s subsequent Executive Order No. 87 re-established the judicial nominating commission for appointments. Accordingly, Tennessee’s process is effectively assisted appointment with legislative confirmation.
Before her nomination to the Tennessee Supreme Court, Campbell worked as the state of Tennessee’s associate solicitor general and special assistant to the attorney general. Her career experience includes working at the Washington, D.C. law firm Williams & Connolly LLP and clerking for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and 11th Circuit Judge William Pryor.
Campbell earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of Tennessee and master’s and J.D. degrees from Duke University.
In 2021, there were 19 supreme court vacancies in 17 of the 29 states where replacement justices are appointed instead of elected. To date, 16 of those 29 vacancies have been filled. So far in 2022, there have been four announced supreme court vacancies.
Wyoming State Supreme Court Justice Michael K. Davis is retiring on Jan. 16, 2022, upon reaching the state court’s mandatory retirement age of 70 years. The vacancy created by Davis’ retirement is the first state supreme court vacancy to be announced for 2022. Davis’ replacement will be Governor Mark Gordon’s (R) first nominee to the five-member supreme court.
Under Wyoming law, justices of the Wyoming Supreme Court are selected through the assisted appointment method. When a vacancy occurs, the governor appoints a replacement from a list of three names provided by a nominating commission. Newly appointed judges serve for at least one year, after which they must stand for retention in the next general election. If retained, a judge will finish the remainder of his or her predecessor’s unexpired term. Subsequent terms last eight years.
Davis first became a member of the Wyoming Supreme Court when he was appointed by Gov. Matt Mead (R) on Aug. 30, 2012, to succeed Michael Golden. Davis previously served as a judge on the First District Court in Laramie County, Wyoming. From 1980 to 2008, he was a partner at Yonkee and Toner. He has also been a judicial fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers.
Following Davis’ retirement, the Wyoming Supreme Court will include the following members:
Lynne Boomgaarden, appointed by Gov. Matt Mead (R) in 2017
Kate M. Fox, appointed by Mead (R) in 2013
Keith G. Kautz, appointed by Mead (R) in 2015
Kari Gray, appointed by Mead (R) in 2018
In 2021, there have been 16 court vacancies in 14 of the 29 states where replacement justices are appointed instead of elected, as of Sept. 8. The vacancies have been caused by retirements.
