HARRISBURG — Voters across Pennsylvania will decide the future of three state Supreme Court justices when they cast their ballots on Nov. 4.
Who serves on the high court matters for everyone in the commonwealth. In the past decade alone, the justices have ruled on reproductive health, redistricting, education, elections, and more.
The Democratic-majority state Supreme Court has also ruled in cases that have specifically shaped life in Pennsylvania’s urban areas, sometimes right down to a single city block. In one instance, the high court weighed in on a Philadelphia zoning case about the use of variances, involving a former school building owned by the Archdiocese that it wanted to convert into low-income senior housing. More recently, the court struck down Pittsburgh’s “jock tax,” a 3% fee on visiting athletes and entertainers who performed in city-owned venues.
From Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, here are some decisions that have directly impacted communities living in cities across the commonwealth:
Public Safety
Case: Crawford v. Commonwealth, decided
Summary: The state Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Commonwealth Court dismissal of a case that challenged a Pennsylvania law that preempts municipalities from enacting gun regulations.
The city of Philadelphia and other plaintiffs — including the nonprofit CeaseFirePA and 10 residents from Philadelphia and Pittsburgh who had lost relatives to gun violence — challenged the Uniform Firearms Act, saying it violated their right to substantive due process. They also argued that it prevented local governments from protecting their constituents by prohibiting the ability to pass laws aimed at reducing gun violence.
Why it matters: The ruling upheld that municipalities aren’t able to enact their own laws to regulate firearms because of a preemptive state statute.
This means that cities like Philadelphia, where gun violence remains prevalent despite a falling number of shootings and homicides, must rely on other methods, such as community violence interruption programs.
“There are a lot of approaches,” said Ben Geffen of the Public Interest Law Center, who served as counsel for the plaintiffs in this case, “but when the state law chokes off certain paths that the city would otherwise follow, it predictably leads to deaths.”
The state Supreme Court is poised to rule on two other gun-related cases, both of which are pending.
One case, City of Philadelphia v. Armstrong, challenges the city’s law that requires the reporting of lost or stolen firearms to the police within 24 hours. Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court ruled that the State Uniform Firearms Act preempts the ordinance and is therefore illegal.
The other pending case, Gun Owners of America v. City of Philadelphia, focuses on the regulation of the manufacturing, possession and sales of gun components that can be used to assemble firearms and fuel a market of “ghost guns,” which are unserialized and untraceable.
Although the cases stem from Philadelphia, the rulings will impact the entire commonwealth, including areas such as Reading and York, which have also enacted local gun safety laws.
Case: Commonwealth v. Shivers, pending
Summary: The high court will decide whether a person fleeing from law enforcement in an area described by police as “high crime” is sufficient to make a stop lawful under the state constitution’s search and seizure clause.
In 2019, Philadelphia police arrested Phillip Shivers after he fled from an area that police described as high crime. Police recovered a gun from Shivers and arrested him for several violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, as well as for providing false identification. Shivers was sentenced to three years of probation, which he appealed to Superior Court.
The lower appellate court ruled that police had reasonable suspicion to stop him, due to the fact that he fled a high-crime area.
Why it matters: In September 2024, the ACLU and the ACLU of Pennsylvania filed an amicus brief arguing that people flee high-crime areas for many reasons.
“People may be more likely to flee due to fear, rather than guilt, in high-crime areas,” the organizations argued in the brief.
“This is one of many cases where the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether our state constitution goes over and above the U.S. Constitution in protecting individual rights,” said Geffen. “Or whether it should be interpreted in lockstep with the federal constitution.”
Case: Commonwealth v. Lee, pending
Summary: The court will rule on whether requiring a life sentence without the possibility of parole for felony murder violates the state constitution’s ban on “cruel” punishment, in addition to the federal Eighth Amendment.
In Pennsylvania, a person can be convicted of felony murder — also called second-degree murder — when a death takes place during any felony, even when the person committing a crime did not kill anyone. Those who are found guilty of second-degree murder are mandated to serve a life sentence, the same punishment as those found guilty of first-degree murder, which requires intent to kill.
That was the fate assigned to Derek Lee, a 36-year-old man from Allegheny County, in 2016. Lee was involved in an armed robbery, but was not present when his accomplice murdered the homeowner.
In 2024, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Lee’s appeal after Superior Court ruled against him.
The case has garnered more than a dozen amicus briefs in support of Lee. Among them are organizations like POWER Interfaith, individuals formerly sentenced to life without parole, scholars on the Eighth Amendment, and Gov. Josh Shapiro.
Why it matters: Pennsylvania and Louisiana are the only two U.S. states that require a life sentence for felony murder.
This mandate has put more than 1,000 people in Pennsylvania behind bars. The Abolitionist Law Center and activists call this sentence “death by incarceration.”
The overwhelming majority of Pennsylvanians serving life without parole are Black and convicted in Philadelphia, Delaware, and Allegheny Counties.
Public Health
Case: Pa. Restaurant & Lodging v. City of Pittsburgh, decided
Summary: In 2019, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld a Pittsburgh law requiring small businesses to provide employees with annual paid sick leave.
The decision came years after City Council passed the Paid Sick Days Act in 2015. The ordinance required businesses with fewer than 15 employees to provide 24 hours of paid sick leave within a calendar year, and those with 15 or more to provide 40 hours.
Local businesses sued the city and argued that Pittsburgh had overstepped its home rule authority by regulating businesses. Both Allegheny County’s Court of Common Pleas and Commonwealth Court sided with the businesses.
The state Supreme Court, however, found that preventing Pittsburgh from creating sick leave standards could undermine home rule completely.
Why it matters: The ruling established a new standard for Pennsylvania by finding that a local municipality, rather than the state legislature alone, has the power to order businesses to provide paid sick leave.
The law allows eligible employees to “have the time off without fear of losing their job,” and without financial penalty, said Jay Hornack, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh’s School of Law and director of its Human Resources Law Online Certificate Program.
It enables them to stay home, recover, and prevent coworkers from getting sick too. Workers can also use the time to take care of sick family members.
More recently, Pittsburgh amended the original ordinance to offer employees faster and increased paid sick leave hours.
Case: Williams v. City of Philadelphia, decided
Summary: The state Supreme Court upheld Philadelphia’s Beverage Tax in 2018, after several rounds of court battles.
In 2016, after two previously failed attempts, Philadelphia became the first big city to impose a tax on sugary beverages and diet drinks. Money generated from the tax was to be invested into creating and expanding pre-K programs, community schools, as well as improvements for parks, recreation facilities, and libraries through an initiative called Rebuild.
A group of consumers, retailers, and trade associations, including the American Beverage Association, sued the city, arguing that the tax was illegally duplicative.
The case came down to a Depression-era law called the Sterling Act, which allows cities to tax whatever is already not taxed by the state. Plaintiffs argued that the city was circumventing state law by taxing distributors and not actual sales. In 2018, state Supreme Court justices sided with the city and declared the levy legal.
Why it matters: The tax has generated over $500 million in revenue. Nearly 40% of the money goes into the city’s PHLpreK program, but funds are also used to fix up parks and libraries.
In terms of health, no study has shown a major reduction in obesity, but there has been evidence of slowing down weight gain.
Philadelphia also set a trend for the rest of the country. Eight other U.S. cities followed suit, including Seattle, Boulder, San Francisco, and Oakland, California. Some states, however, have pursued legislation to prevent similar beverage taxes from taking hold.
Elections
Case: Krasner v. Ward, decided
Summary: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court invalidated an effort to impeach Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner.
Krasner, a progressive known for criminal justice reforms, was elected in 2017 and reelected in 2021. A year later, in 2022, the then-GOP-controlled Pennsylvania House passed articles of impeachment.
Krasner then filed a suit in state court, claiming that the impeachment violated the state constitution and that the time for proceedings had lapsed because of the legislature’s adjournment for the year. He also argued that there was no evidence of “misbehavior in office,” which often involves corruption or criminal activity. Lastly, he claimed that only the city of Philadelphia and its voters could remove him from power, not the state legislature.
Commonwealth Court found that the impeachment efforts failed to show evidence of misbehavior, but rejected Krasner’s other claims.
In 2023, the state Supreme Court found that the time had lapsed for impeachment proceedings to move forward, due to the legislature’s adjournment, making the attempt null and void. The high court, however, did not address the claim of “misbehavior in office,” leaving that ruling intact.
Why it matters: The ruling in this case came down to a procedural error. But it does highlight the power of the Supreme Court as one of the three branches of government and its ability to check the legislature.
Case: Baxter and Kinniry v. Philadelphia Board of Elections, pending
Summary: The high court will decide whether it is a violation of the state constitution’s “free and equal” elections clause to reject a mail ballot if the voter fails to accurately date the outer envelope.
Act 77, which created no-excuse mail voting in Pennsylvania, says that voters have to sign and date their mail ballot return envelope, but the requirement has been disputed for years. Voting advocates say it’s an unnecessary burden that does nothing to confirm the eligibility of the voter, but Republican opponents argue that the law should be followed as written.
This case hinges on whether the dating requirement interferes with voters’ “free exercise of the right of suffrage,” as written in the state’s constitution.
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas ruled in favor of voters who failed to date their mail ballots and ordered the city to count the votes. Commonwealth Court affirmed the decision, but Republican groups appealed to the Supreme Court.
Why it matters: Since 2020, thousands of Pennsylvania voters have opted to vote by mail. Despite a falling number of mail ballot requests, voting by mail is still a go-to option for many in Philadelphia. In the 2024 general election, Philadelphia had one of the highest numbers of mail ballots recorded in the state, only second to Allegheny County.
While the Department of State has made various efforts to curb common errors made by voters that could lead to their vote being rejected, mistakes still happen. In 2020, over 34,000 mail ballots were rejected. In 2024, that number went down to 11,000.