HARRISBURG — The state Supreme Court often has the final say on major policy decisions that affect virtually every Pennsylvanian, from no-excuse mail voting to the commonwealth’s congressional map.
However, the seven justices have few hard deadlines and can take years to render their opinions on critical issues.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court hears appeals from the state’s two lower appellate courts — Commonwealth and Superior — and has discretion about the cases it considers. When the court agrees to hear a case, it builds in months for appellants and petitioners to file briefs. It schedules oral arguments during only a handful of months each year and provides months for justices to write opinions, typically resulting in a long process.
Ben Geffen, a staff attorney at the Public Interest Law Center who has argued cases in front of the high court, says that the long wait time is not necessarily a detriment to the process considering the importance of the topics.
“Often these are complicated cases that deserve careful consideration,” Geffen said. “It’s not always a bad thing for the courts to take their time to get it right.”
For time-sensitive topics like election questions, Geffen says that the courts usually issue decisions to meet major deadlines. But in other cases, the parties may wait months or even years for a resolution.
Here are some of the major cases currently awaiting consideration or a decision.
Abortion
In 2019, abortion providers sued the state, claiming a prohibition on Medicaid-funded abortions violates the Equal Rights Amendment and other provisions in the state constitution that target sex-based discrimination.
Since then, the case has slowly made its way through the appellate courts. Commonwealth Court dismissed the case in 2021, only for the state Supreme Court in early 2024 to reverse that ruling.
It’s now back before the lower court, though one state Supreme Court justice noted this year that there’s “little doubt the issue eventually will make its way back” to the high court.
Read more: Allegheny Reproductive Health Center v. Pennsylvania Department of Human Services
Climate change
The state Supreme Court has yet to schedule oral arguments in two cases that will determine the future of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a key climate change program.
Last November, Commonwealth Court struck down Pennsylvania’s participation in RGGI, which caps the amount of carbon that emitters within participating states’ borders can release. Former Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf entered the program through an executive order, and the court found he overstepped his power by instituting what amounts to a tax.
The Shapiro administration appealed the decision to the state Supreme Court, which must take up the appeal. Still, the case is not on the 2024 calendar.
Read more: Shirley v. Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau; Bowfin KeyCon Holdings, LLC v. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Gun control
Pennsylvania’s two most populous cities, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, both have tried to legislate gun control on a local level. However, the state’s firearm preemption law bars local jurisdictions from creating gun control restrictions that are more stringent than those at the state level.
In Philadelphia, gun control advocates and the families of victims of gun violence sued the state, arguing that the increased violence as a result of the lack of gun control laws deprives residents of their right to life and liberty under the state constitution. In 2022, Commonwealth Court dismissed the case, which was appealed. The state Supreme Court heard oral arguments in September of last year but has yet to issue an opinion.
In Pittsburgh, gun rights advocates sued after City Council passed laws banning some semiautomatic weapons and ammunition, and creating extreme risk protection orders that allow for the temporary confiscation of firearms. The advocates argued the measures infringed upon the preemption law and won a victory in Commonwealth Court in 2022.
The case was appealed to the state Supreme Court but placed on hold pending the decision of the Philly one, according to a spokesperson from the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts.
Read more: Crawford v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Firearm Owners Against Crime v. City of Pittsburgh.
2024 election
Since it went into effect in 2020, Pennsylvania’s no-excuse mail voting law has been a litigation target. Lawmakers failed to include guidelines regarding drop boxes, ballot “curing,” and other key details, creating fodder for lawsuits. False claims of election fraud by former president Donald Trump have exacerbated scrutiny of the law.
One case currently pending before Commonwealth Court targets a requirement in state law that voters date their mail ballot return envelope by hand.
Counties can’t count ballots that lack a date or have one that is outside the period of when ballots are sent out and returned — for example, a birthdate.
The lawsuit, brought by community groups including the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, argues that dates are not essential for determining whether a ballot arrived on time or if the voter is eligible. Rejecting a ballot for a missing or incorrect date violates the Pennsylvania Constitution’s free and equal elections clause, which says that no power can interfere with a person’s right to vote.
Commonwealth Court heard arguments in the case in early August but has yet to release a ruling. However, lawyers and advocates expect the decision to be appealed to the state Supreme Court, regardless of the result.
Read more: Black Political Empowerment Project v. Schmidt
Life without parole
The state Supreme Court will consider a case that challenges Pennsylvania’s mandatory life-without-parole sentences for people convicted of second-degree murder.
In Pennsylvania, individuals charged with felony murder can be held criminally responsible for a death that occurs during the commission of the crime, even if they did not intend to kill or were not the actual perpetrator. A conviction comes with a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole.
The defendant, Derek Lee, has been serving life in prison without parole since 2016, when he was first convicted. He filed an appeal in 2022, citing the Eight Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment.”
The Superior Court ruled that Lee was not entitled to relief in 2023, pointing to previous decisions in similar cases. One judge urged the state Supreme Court to revisit the issue, however.
Lee appealed the ruling to the state Supreme Court, which in February of this year agreed to hear his case. Oral arguments are set for Oct. 8.
Read more: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Derek Lee
BEFORE YOU GO… If you learned something from this article, pay it forward and contribute to Spotlight PA at spotlightpa.org/donate. Spotlight PA is funded by foundations and readers like you who are committed to accountability journalism that gets results.
