Even though the Supreme Court’s next term won’t officially begin until October 6, the Court has already accepted about 40 of the 70 or so cases it will decide in the upcoming months. 

For a more detailed summary of all the cases the Court has accepted so far affecting states, read the State and Local Legal Center’s Supreme Court Preview for State Governments.

Here is a quick highlight of what is on the Court’s docket right now that will...

CSG Midwest logo

In the decades-long legal battles over school funding, different states have taken turns in the national spotlight. All eyes were on Ohio in the late 1990s, for example, after its state Supreme Court ruled on multiple occasions that the K-12 funding system was unconstitutional — due to an overreliance on local property taxes and a failure to deliver a “thorough and efficient system of common schools.”

When Beth Gill became a lawyer 26 years ago, she went into family law.
“As a result, I became very passionate about upgrading our level of representation for people in family crisis,” said...

The legislative and executive branches have been in a longstanding gridlock, making it difficult to assess their standing on federalism. 

But the U.S. Supreme Court has made its standing clear. The last two Supreme Court terms have produced four blockbuster decisions. All four of these cases have one thing in common—federalism.<--break->

The U.S. Supreme Court’s October Term 2012 includes a number of significant cases affecting the states including two same-sex marriage cases, a challenge to the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and a claim that the National Voting Registration Act preempts Arizona’s evidence-of-citizenship requirement to register to vote.
 
Recent reports about state courts invariably highlight contention over how judges are selected and the unrelenting decline in court budgets. This report is no different. But behind the saga of inadequate court resources and the presence of big money, special interest influence and partisanship in the selection of judges, other significant stories are playing out. State courts are striving to innovate by applying the latest technology to the courthouse and courtroom. State courts also are looking for advice from new media experts about new ways to communicate with the public and improve court processes, as well as how to adapt those processes to ensure trials remain fair in a digital world. Evidence on the value of implementing procedural fairness as a mechanism for reducing recidivism was reinforced by a new community court evaluation.
 
In this difficult fiscal climate, every branch of state government feels the pressure of tightening budgets. State court systems are no exception.1 For the judiciary to manage caseloads effectively, dispose of court business without delay and deliver quality service to the public, adequate resources are essential.2 Meeting this challenge requires states to assess objectively the number of judges required to handle caseloads, as well as whether judicial resources are being allocated equitably and used prudently. State court systems are increasingly using the weighted caseload method of judicial workload assessment as a best practice. This article describes the basic mechanics of workload assessment and illustrates how it is being used in several states facing a variety of budgetary and judicial staffing issues.
 

Chapter 5 of the 2013 Book of the States contains the following articles and tables:

Last year, it was health care and immigration reform. This year, the big state issues before the U.S. Supreme Court generally fall into two broad categories—environmental and searches cases. The court also will hear a couple of cases of interest to states that don’t fall into those broad categories, Lisa Soronen, executive director of the State and Local Legal Center, said during a preview of state-related cases expected in the 2013 Supreme Court term during a webinar last week.

To say the Supreme Court’s October 2011 term was “all about the states” is hardly an overstatement.  The two most prominent cases of the term—the Affordable Care Act case and the Arizona immigration case—were both about states’ rights.  (And if the Court takes a gay marriage case next term it will be states’ rights round two). 

Pages