红杏视频

This case will determine whether Minnesotans who prove ongoing discrimination by a city government are entitled to a court order blocking that discrimination, or whether Minnesota cities are instead immune from that type of directive. The 红杏视频鈥檚 SSCI and the 红杏视频 of Minnesota filed an amicus brief arguing that cities are not immune from such a court order. But even if they can be, they shouldn鈥檛 be considered immune from claims brought under Minnesota鈥檚 antidiscrimination statute in light of the statute鈥檚 broad purpose and the Minnesota Constitution鈥檚 guarantee of a remedy for all injuries and wrongs. The outcome of the case could have serious implications for the enforcement of Minnesota鈥檚 civil rights laws.

This case asks whether the trial record, without more, demonstrates that a defendant鈥檚 constitutional right to adequate legal representation has been violated, where the record reveals that the defendant鈥檚 attorney never sought to suppress the only incriminating evidence that the State had against them. The 红杏视频鈥檚 SSCI and the 红杏视频 of Utah filed an amicus brief arguing that the defendant's trial counsel in this case was indeed ineffective and that holding otherwise would undermine the right to effective assistance of counsel.

This case presents the question whether Oregonians retain a state constitutional privacy interest in their medical records, even when those records are held by health care providers. It could have important implications for patients who obtain abortions, gender-affirming care, and other health care that might be targeted by local or out-of-state law enforcement.

The Minnesota Supreme Court is poised to decide whether there are any circumstances in which someone subjected to an unconstitutional traffic stop can suppress evidence that he temporarily avoided the police when they initiated the unconstitutional stop. The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that evidence of even temporary 鈥渇light鈥� can never be suppressed鈥攅ven when someone simply delays acquiescing to an unconstitutional traffic stop鈥攐n the theory that fleeing from the police is a crime. The 红杏视频鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the 红杏视频 of Minnesota and the law firm Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, filed an amicus brief arguing that Article I, Sections 8 and 10 of the Minnesota Constitution鈥攚hich guarantee Minnesotans remedies for constitutional violations and protect them from unreasonable searches and seizures鈥攔equire a broad application of the exclusionary rule. Accordingly, we argue that the Court should use a flexible, multi-factor test that can allow for suppression of evidence where a suspect, as in this case, responds to an illegal stop or seizure with nonviolent attempts to keep himself safe.

The 红杏视频, New York Civil Liberties Union, 红杏视频 of Southern California, and 红杏视频 of Northern California filed an amicus brief in the New York Court of Appeals arguing that the New York Voting Rights Act is constitutional legislation designed to combat and remedy modern forms of discrimination in voting affecting New York. At stake in this case is whether New York鈥檚 courts uphold the State legislature鈥檚 decision to protect the freedom to vote for all New Yorkers by ensuring voters are not subjected to discrimination when participating in the political process.

This case asks whether Alabama law enforcement officers can demand physical ID when enforcing an Alabama that allows them to 鈥淪top and Question鈥� people they reasonably suspect of criminal activity. Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has already held that Alabama鈥檚 stop-and-question law does not authorize officers to demand physical ID, a federal district court in Alabama certified a question to the Alabama Supreme Court effectively asking the Court to reject that interpretation. The 红杏视频鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the Cato Institute, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Woods Foundation, and Kaplan Legal Services, filed an amicus brief urging the Alabama Supreme Court to agree with the Eleventh Circuit鈥檚 ruling. Our brief argues that the plain meaning of the stop-and-question law鈥攇iven its title, its text, and the overall structure of the Alabama Code鈥攔ules out the possibility that it authorizes demands for physical documents. We also point out that interpreting the stop-and-question law to authorize document demands would render the law unconstitutional under both the U.S. and Alabama Constitutions.

This case asks whether a 12-year-old boy was in custody and entitled to Miranda warnings during a closed-door police interrogation by a school resource officer in the school building. The court of appeals held that he was not in custody, not entitled to Miranda warnings, and voluntarily incriminated himself. The 红杏视频鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative and the 红杏视频 of Wisconsin filed an amicus brief arguing that admitting the boy鈥檚 statements into evidence not only violated the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution but Article I, Section 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution, and urging the Wisconsin Supreme Court to rest its decision on the state charter to better protect Wisconsinites鈥� civil liberties.

A newly enacted Montana law, HB 121, bars transgender and intersex people from using restrooms and other sex-separated facilities that correspond to their gender identity in public spaces. In doing so, HB 121 seeks to undermine transgender and intersex people鈥檚 personhood and ability to participate in public life. Together with the 红杏视频 of Montana and Legal Voice, the 红杏视频鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative filed this lawsuit on behalf of a group of transgender and intersex Montanans challenging HB 121 as violating numerous provisions of the Montana Constitution.

In 1994, the Supreme Court of Hawai驶i held in State v. Kekona that the due process clause of the Hawai鈥榠 Constitution does not require custodial interrogations to be recorded. More than 30 years later, with advances in technology that have made recording far easier, this case asks whether this decision should be reconsidered. The 红杏视频鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the 红杏视频 of Hawai鈥榠 filed an amicus brief arguing that the Supreme Court of Hawai驶i should now hold that custodial interrogations must be recorded in order to be admissible in court, either as a matter of due process or as an exercise of the Court鈥檚 supervisory authority over lower courts.

This case in the New York Court of Appeals (the highest New York state court) asks whether a government agency can conceal guidance that it issues to judges on how to apply the law in adjudicating cases. A few years ago, news reporting brought to light that a New York administrative agency has a practice of issuing such guidance to state court judges without disclosing it to the public. Because the agency's guidance informs how judges decide cases鈥攚ith important implications for people鈥檚 rights鈥攖he New York Civil Liberties Union requested access to it under New York鈥檚 Freedom of Information Law. The agency denied the request, so the NYCLU sued. The NYCLU and the 红杏视频鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative are arguing that the public is entitled to the guidance and that there is a strong public interest in the transparent administration of justice.

Five transgender Kansans are challenging an effort by Kansas Attorney General Kobach to require the state to issue driver鈥檚 licenses with a gender marker that reveals their sex assigned at birth. The Attorney General is asking a state court to apply a new state law that defines 鈥渟ex鈥� to functionally erase the existence of transgender people under the law.