Kansas Judicial Review: 60% of Challenges in 2026

A recent analysis showing over 60% of constitutional challenges to Kansas statutes since 2020 have involved questions of judicial review authority just confirms what we’re seeing on the ground. That number tells you just how tangled legal claims in the state have become, particularly when they involve fundamental rights and the limits of government power.

The world of legal claims in Kansas, especially where constitutional law and judicial review intersect, is a constantly shifting battleground. After more than a decade in Kansas courts, I’ve learned that while core principles are stable, how they’re applied changes with new laws and what’s happening in society. It’s a real push and pull between the branches of government, always testing the lines of authority.

60% of Challenges Address Judicial Review Authority

The fact that over 60% of constitutional challenges since 2020 have been about judicial review authority (a figure pulled from an analysis of the Supreme Court dockets on the Kansas Judicial Branch website) isn’t just an interesting stat. It points to a real philosophical fight happening inside our state’s legal system. What this means is that in a huge chunk of high-stakes cases, the argument isn’t even about the merits of the law itself. The real fight is over whether the courts have any power to second-guess the legislature at all. You see a legislative branch trying to box in the courts’ traditional role, and you see a judiciary digging in its heels to defend its constitutional job.

As I see it, this trend comes from a basic disagreement about the separation of powers. The Kansas Constitution, like the federal one, created a system of checks and balances for a reason, and the judiciary’s role is to be the final judge of what’s constitutional. When the legislature passes a law that seems to step on individual rights or grab too much power, the Supreme Court is supposed to review it. That’s the job. For instance, we’ve seen bills that tried to control what kind of evidence could be used in certain civil lawsuits, and they were immediately hit with constitutional challenges over due process. The Court has consistently affirmed its authority to review these things, because without that power, there’s no real check on the legislature.

Strict Scrutiny Applied to Fundamental Rights

The Kansas Supreme Court has been very consistent in applying a strict scrutiny standard to challenges involving fundamental rights, a point they drove home in the 2019 landmark case Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt, which affirmed abortion rights under our state constitution. This standard forces the state to prove it has a compelling state interest and that the law is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. It’s a high bar to clear, and frankly, it should be. It’s what keeps the government from casually interfering in the most personal parts of Kansans’ lives.

When a law is up against strict scrutiny, the state has its work cut out for it. It can’t just claim a law is for the general good. The government has to prove it’s absolutely necessary and that there is no other, less intrusive way to achieve its objective. Think about laws that touch on free speech or religion. If the state tries to put limits there, its reason better be rock-solid, and the law can’t be overly broad. I’ve advised clients in these situations, and the very first thing we do is figure out if a fundamental right is in play, because that one fact completely reshapes the entire legal strategy. There’s a common idea that state courts are always more friendly to their legislatures than federal courts are, but that idea goes right out the window in Kansas when fundamental rights are at stake.

Challenges to Agency Regulations Remain Persistent

A huge slice of administrative law work in Kansas deals with challenges to state agency regulations, and a lot of these cases turn on whether an agency overstepped its legal authority or violated someone’s due process rights. The Kansas Bar Association’s Government Law Section notes that appeals of agency actions make up almost 20% of the appellate docket for administrative law. That’s not a shock. These agencies are given power by the legislature to make rules, and those rules can have a massive effect on people and businesses.

The heart of these cases usually gets down to one question: Did the agency color outside the lines drawn by the legislature? For instance, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) sets environmental rules all the time. If KDHE passed a new regulation that a business believed went way beyond what the original statute allowed, that rule could be thrown out. In the same way, procedural screw-ups like failing to give proper notice or a fair chance for a hearing are common reasons for agency decisions to get overturned. The Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court are constantly sending these cases back to the agencies to do them over correctly. The process can be slow and frustrating for everyone involved, but it’s a necessary check on bureaucratic power and a reminder that these agencies have to follow the law, too.

Property Rights Claims See 15% Increase

We’ve seen a 15% jump in legal claims over property rights in just the last two years, according to data from the Kansas Office of Judicial Administration. That surge is coming almost entirely from eminent domain disputes and zoning controversies, especially in hotbeds of development like Johnson County and the industrial areas growing around Kansas City, Kansas. It’s a direct symptom of economic growth and all the friction that comes with it.

When a city like Olathe needs to widen a highway or build something for the public, they often have to take private land using eminent domain. The government can do that, but the Fifth Amendment and the Kansas Constitution require “just compensation.” The fight is rarely about the government’s right to take the land. It’s about what that land is actually worth. The property owner wants fair market value, and the government wants to control costs. That’s a natural conflict that ends up in court. At the same time, we’re seeing more fights over zoning changes, like when a city tries to rezone a residential neighborhood for commercial use. Homeowners sue because they’re worried about their property values and quality of life. Handling these cases means you have to be fluent in property valuation, land use law, and the constitutional limits on government power. It’s a messy area where individual rights slam right into the public good, and the courts have to find the right balance.

Disagreement with Conventional Wisdom: Judicial Activism

The common refrain, especially from some political groups, is that the Kansas Supreme Court’s firm use of judicial review is “judicial activism,” particularly when it comes to fundamental rights. I couldn’t disagree more. That argument assumes that when the Court strikes down a law, it’s acting like a legislature and making policy from the bench. That view completely misreads how constitutional government is supposed to work.

The Court’s job is to interpret the Constitution and make sure new laws follow it, not to act as a rubber stamp for the legislature. When the Court uses strict scrutiny on a law that steps on a fundamental right, it’s enforcing the highest law of the state. The people who wrote the Kansas Constitution, just like the U.S. founders, knew that legislatures could go too far. So, did they create an independent judiciary just for show? Of course not. They made it an independent branch to be a check on the others. Calling that function “activism” is a political attack that ignores the whole point of judicial review. The Court’s rulings, even when they’re unpopular with one party or another, are based on legal precedent and constitutional text, not the judges’ personal politics. Saying otherwise is a direct attack on a co-equal branch of government and the protections all Kansans have under their constitution.

The tangled mess of legal claims in Kansas, running from big questions about judicial review all the way down to specific property fights, means you have to have a solid grasp of constitutional law and how it’s being applied. For any lawyer or lawmaker in this state, reading the Kansas Supreme Court’s recent opinions isn’t just a good idea. It’s the only way to work effectively.