红杏视频

Four Memphis residents represented by the 红杏视频, 红杏视频 of Tennessee, and law firms Selendy Gay and BraunHagey & Borden are challenging the Memphis Safe Task Force's policy and pattern of retaliation, intimidation, and harassment against observers who record Task Forceent operations, an activity protected by the First Amendment. The lawsuit also challenges the Task Force鈥檚 invocation of a Tennessee law criminalizing approaching officers within 25 feet after one warning against the plaintiffs, which burdens their ability to record Task Force activity.

In unprecedented fashion, the State of Missouri has redrawn the district lines used for electing members of Congress for a second time this decade. These new district lines are gerrymandered and will harm political representation for all Missourians, particularly Black residents in Kansas City, who have been divided along racial lines.

All voters with disabilities have the right to receive assistance voting from a person of their choice. South Carolina prohibits some voters with disabilities from receiving assistance and limits who voters can rely on for assistance. Voters with disabilities and the NAACP South Carolina State Conference sued to challenge those laws under Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act and protect disabled voters鈥� right to assistance.

This case concerns the constitutionality of a highly intrusive law enforcement practice: the use of geofence warrants. Geofence warrants compel tech companies like Google to provide to law enforcement location data from every cell phone likely to have been within a certain area during a given time window. Then, law enforcement officers decide for themselves which users to focus on, and demand additional location information鈥攁nd eventually identifying information鈥攆or the users they select. Geofence warrants raise grave constitutional concerns, including that (1) they authorize dragnet searches that sweep up the private data of many people without probable cause to believe that all or any of them were involved in any crime, and (2) they allow law enforcement officers to decide which users to focus on for additional data collection without judicial oversight. This case therefore has significant implications for Texans鈥� ability to secure their digital privacy and property against unjustified government intrusion.