(Minneapolis, January 15, 2026) — State constitutions are increasingly becoming a key battleground in disputes over federal power, with states seeking to address perceived abuses and fill gaps in federal rights.
A growing number of states are exploring legal avenues to hold federal officials accountable and protect individual rights, setting the stage for significant court decisions in 2026.
- Illinois recently passed a law allowing state civil lawsuits against federal officials for constitutional violations, a move mirrored by several other states.
- State courts are expected to handle a surge of election-related litigation in 2026, building on their role in resolving disputes in 2022 and 2024.
- The Wyoming Supreme Court’s ruling protecting abortion access based on a state constitutional amendment could spur similar challenges in other states.
- Cases challenging excessive sentencing and the death penalty are gaining momentum, with state constitutions offering potential avenues for reform.
The shooting of Renee Good by a federal immigration agent in Minneapolis last week highlighted the question of state accountability over federal actions, according to the report. Even before this incident, the Trump administration’s immigration policies had prompted debate about addressing federal civil rights violations at the state level.
Table of Contents
Federal law often presents obstacles to recovering damages when federal officers violate constitutional rights. In response, Illinois passed the Illinois Bivens Act in December, becoming the fifth state – joining California, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Jersey – to provide a state civil remedy against federal officials for constitutional violations. Lawmakers in New York are also considering similar legislation, the report states.
This year, litigation against federal officers arising from these state laws is anticipated, as is a challenge to Illinois’s law filed by the Trump administration under the supremacy clause, according to the report. Harrison Stark of the State Democracy Research Initiative has argued there are strong legal grounds for states to hold federal officers accountable for violating the U.S. Constitution.
State Courts and Election Law
State courts played a decisive role in election cases in both 2022 and 2024, and are expected to be central to election litigation in 2026, addressing issues of administration, voting rights, and ballot measures. A recent dispute over the narrow 2024 election win of North Carolina Justice Allison Riggs underscored a key principle: election rules cannot be changed after voting has concluded, a federal court affirmed.
The Montana Supreme Court recently rejected a proposed ballot initiative that would have limited corporate political spending, demonstrating the role state courts play in overseeing ballot measures and their eligibility, the report details.
New Legal Battles Over Abortion and LGBTQ+ Rights
The Wyoming Supreme Court recently ruled that the state’s “health care freedom” amendment protects abortion access, as detailed by UC Davis Law Professor Mary Ziegler in State Court Report. This decision could lead to similar litigation in Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Ohio, and Oklahoma, which have comparable provisions. A challenge to a law banning gender-affirming care for transgender minors is currently pending before the Ohio Supreme Court.
Cases challenging state bans on Medicaid funding for abortion are also underway in Pennsylvania and Michigan, the report notes.
Curbing Excessive Sentencing
Momentum is building around state constitutional limits on excessive sentencing. Cases before the Michigan and Pennsylvania supreme courts question whether life-without-parole sentences for felony murder violate state provisions. The felony-murder doctrine, which applies regardless of intent to kill, has faced widespread criticism.
The constitutionality of the death penalty is also being challenged in Utah, with arguments that the state’s execution protocols violate state provisions against cruel and unusual punishment. The California Supreme Court is considering cases involving racial bias and discrimination in the application of the state’s death penalty statute. The U.S. Supreme Court is also set to issue a ruling this year that could narrow protections against the execution of people with intellectual disabilities, potentially opening further avenues for state constitutional challenges.
Why It Matters
These cases demonstrate a significant trend: states are increasingly asserting their authority to protect individual rights and constrain federal power. This shift reflects a growing concern over potential overreach by the federal government and a renewed emphasis on the importance of state constitutions as safeguards for liberty. As federal and state laws continue to diverge, state courts will likely become even more critical in shaping the legal landscape and resolving disputes over the balance of power.
Time.news based this report in part on reporting by State Court Report and added independent analysis and context.
