Federal courts are increasingly uneven venues for litigants to vindicate their constitutional rights. While the U.S. Supreme Court has expanded rights in some contexts, in many others, it has rejected efforts to expand (or even maintain) the current protections afforded by rights.

State courts and state constitutions provide advocates and scholars with parallel opportunities to recognize new or different conceptions of rights. Since the 1970s, advocates of “new judicial federalism,” originally motivated by concerns that the Burger Court would walk back the Warren Court’s criminal procedure holdings, revitalized state constitutional law by urging litigants to pursue claims in state courts. In recent years, as the Supreme Court has declined to protect abortion rights or stop partisan gerrymandering, the emphasis on state constitutions has taken on new relevance.

This discussion will focus on the role of scholars in developing state constitutional law—by incorporating state constitutional law into legal scholarship, emphasizing the role of state constitutions in the curriculum, and collaborating with litigators.

Discussants include Quin Yeargain, Michigan State University College of Law, and Constance Van Kley, University of Montana Alexander Blewett III School of Law. 

Thank you. Be well and brave.  

This is our final webinar during the extraordinary times of Spring 2025 semester.  We may continue the series during the summer or fall if there is interest.  Feel free to reach out with ideas or suggestions.  

Watch for email updates via the SALT mailing list.