红杏视频

This case asks whether Georgia鈥檚 insanity defense statutes can be construed to contain an exception for cases where defendants allegedly triggered their own insanity by discontinuing their medication weeks before the alleged crimes. The State argues for such an exception, even though the text of the insanity defense statutes expressly pins the availability of the defenses to the defendant鈥檚 mental condition 鈥渁t the time of鈥� the alleged crimes. The 红杏视频鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the 红杏视频 of Georgia, filed an amicus brief arguing that even if the State鈥檚 interpretation of the statutory text were reasonable, its argument should still be rejected because it contradicts the rule of lenity. The rule of lenity is a well-established canon of statutory construction requiring that, if a criminal statute can reasonably be interpreted in different ways, courts must adopt the interpretation most favorable to the accused.

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.

This case asks whether the state can arrest, charge, and convict someone under Montana鈥檚 obstruction statute for exercising their federal and state constitutional right to record police officers in public spaces. The defendant was filming a traffic stop when police instructed him to move farther away. When he did not move as far as they wanted, they arrested him for obstructing a peace officer. The 红杏视频鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the 红杏视频 of Montana, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant arguing that the officer鈥檚 refusal to allow the defendant to peacefully record police activity from a public sidewalk was, in effect, a content-based restriction on speech that could not be justified under strict scrutiny. Even if the restriction was not content-based, our brief argues that it is not a reasonable time place or manner restriction.

In December 2020, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed into law Senate Bill 27, a fetal tissue disposal requirement that mandates burial or cremation of all embryonic and fetal tissue from a procedural abortion, imposing severe burdens on patients and stigmatizing essential care. On January 31, 2022, an Ohio judge preliminarily enjoined the law, finding that the law likely violates the Ohio state constitution鈥檚 guarantees of due process and equal protection. The victory followed a previous April 5, 2021, preliminary injunction halting enforcement of the law, because compliance would have been impossible due to the Ohio Department of Health鈥檚 (ODH) failure to establish necessary rules and regulations. In April 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, adding a claim that the law violated the newly established Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment of the Ohio Constitution, and in August 2024 filed a 12(C) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, arguing that Senate Bill 27 is unconstitutional as a matter of law under that Amendment for discriminatorily targeting procedural abortion. In February 2025, the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas agreed, granting the Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings and permanently enjoining enforcement of Senate Bill 27. This lawsuit was filed by the 红杏视频, 红杏视频 of Ohio, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and Fanon Rucker of the Cochran Law Firm on behalf of Ohio abortion providers.