ºìÐÓÊÓƵ

ºìÐÓÊÓƵ and ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of Georgia have filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court of Georgia supporting a grieving mother challenging the removal of her children without notice, a hearing, or any finding that the children faced danger because one of her children had just died by suicide. A Georgia appellate court found that the State can take children from a parent ex parte—before the parent is ever heard—whenever circumstances are "exceptional," which the court below defined to mean merely "unusual" rather than a genuine emergency. The juvenile court later returned the children, finding no basis for their removal and reprimanded the State for further traumatizing a grieving family. Because these removals are brief and the appeals process is slow, the practice largely evades review, and it falls hardest on the families with the least resources to challenge these kinds of removals. The brief urges the court to require a genuine emergency before the State may remove a child without first hearing from their parent.

On September 2, 2026, the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ, ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of New Hampshire and New Hampshire Legal Assistance brought a class action lawsuit against the Concord Housing and Redevelopment Authority for installing and operating surveillance devices in tenants’ apartments. The devices collected hundreds of millions of data points recording movement, sound levels, and other information from inside tenants’ homes.

In 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that Keisy G.M., a lawful permanent resident who had been subjected to mandatory detention for 21 months, could not be detained any longer without a hearing on whether he poses a flight risk or danger. That decision was consistent with the vast majority of federal court rulings on the government’s practice of detaining people for prolonged periods of time without any individual hearings. The Trump administration appealed the ruling in January 2026 and on June 15 the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, setting oral argument for Oct. 13, 2026. The Trump administration is taking a radical position the government has not taken in the 30 years since this mandatory detention statute, 8 U.S.C. 1226(c), was enacted by Congress. It says immigrants like Mr. G.M. do not have a protected liberty interest in not being locked up without a hearing — at a time when the administration is pushing hard to detain and deport as many immigrants as possible, often locking people away in inhumane ICE detention centers, where deaths are already at record levels. On the government’s theory, it can lock up people under this mandatory detention statute for months, years, or even decades, without a hearing — as long as the removal case is still ongoing. The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ, New York Civil Liberties Union, MacArthur Justice Center, and Hecker Fink LLP are co-counsel. The groups argue the federal appeals court ruling is correct, and that the Constitution protects all of us, regardless of immigration status, from being locked away without due process.

South Dakota enacted a law in March 2026 that requires new voters to provide unnecessary documentation of their U.S. citizenship when registering to vote. The state has rushed implementation of the law, and in doing so, trampled over voters’ rights: South Dakota officials have imposed burdens above and beyond what the statute requires and have failed to give voters accurate information about their registration status or opportunities to fix any issues. The League of Women Voters of South Dakota and Jaysen Hill, an individual voter, have challenged the state’s administration of its new requirement, seeking to ensure the state complies with federal law.