In addition to issuing a slew of opinions in the recent period (to be the subject of another catch-up post), the Supreme Court granted review in five appeals. All involved grants of certification.
The lone criminal case in the group of new appeals is State v. Amang. The question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “After a defendant has invoked the right to counsel under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), can the police ask the defendant for consent to search?” Defendant appealed his conviction on weapons and other charges. In an opinion reported at 481 N.J. Super. 355 (App. Div. 2025), and discussed here, the Appellate Division held that the police did not have the right to seek consent to search after defendant had invoked his Miranda rights. But the panel agreed with the Law Division that the State had met its burden of proving inevitable discovery. On that basis, the Appellate Division affirmed the weapons convictions.
In State, by Commissioner of Transportation v. Krismic Associates, Inc., the question presented is “Did the award of simple interest under Rule 4:42-11 satisfy the condemnee’s constitutional right to just compensation for a taking of its property?” The Law Division entered an order fixing just compensation. Defendant property owner appealed, but a two-judge panel of the Appellate Division affirmed in an unpublished per curiam opinion.
McDermott v. Guaranteed Rate, Inc., which comprised two consolidated appeals, presents this question: “Does the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Harassment Act of 2021, 9 U.S.C. §§ 401-402, bar arbitration of only those claims for which the underlying conduct related specifically to a sexual harassment cause of action, or does it bar arbitration of all claims in a multiclaim dispute where the plaintiff has pled a viable claim involving sexual harassment?” In an opinion reported at 483 N.J. Super. 264 (App. Div. 2025), and discussed here, the Appellate Division “reject[ed] defendants' arguments that the EFAA should be interpreted to bar only those claims for which the underlying conduct related specifically to a sexual harassment cause of action, and instead, adopt[ed] the majority view of published federal and state court opinions that have considered this issue, and conclude Section 402(a) of the EFAA renders pre-dispute arbitration agreements unenforceable as to all claims in a multiclaim dispute where plaintiff has pled a viable claim involving sexual harassment.”
Here is the question presented in Griffin v. City of Newark: “Under the circumstances presented, should plaintiff be permitted to proceed with this action in which the notice of tort claim was belatedly filed under the Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:8-9?” In this appeal, which previously reached the Supreme Court, which returned the case to the Law Division on a limited remand, the Law Division held the notice of claim to have been timely filed. The Appellate Division, however, reversed in an unpublished opinion by a three-judge panel.
Finally, In the Matter of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s April 17, 2023, 55 N.J.R. 661(b) “Environmental Justice Rules,” Adopted Amendments N.J.A.C. 7:1C, a lengthy title, presents this lengthy question: “Are provisions in the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s Environmental Justice Rules, N.J.A.C. 7:1C-1.1 to -10.3, ultra vires (those provisions include facilities located in zero population block groups adjacent to local overburdened communities, treat existing facilities without all valid permits as new facilities, and impose the Localized Impact Control Technology (LICT) standard); is the LICT standard unconstitutionally vague; and did the Department’s issuance of the Environmental Justice Mapping, Assessment, and Protection Mapping tool and Technical Guidance document without undertaking formal rulemaking violate the Administrative Procedure Act?” The case involves back-to-back appeals in which the Appellate Division, in an opinion reported at 483 N.J. Super. 308 (App. Div. 2026), and discussed here, upheld the rules at issue, rebuffing arguments that the rules were ultra vires the DEP’s authority, unconstitutionally vague and/or overbroad, and arbitrary and capricious.
