State Supreme Court Initiative
State Supreme Court Initiative
The U.S. Supreme Court is increasingly not an option to protect, let alone expand, civil liberties and civil rights. Last year’s Supreme Court term was the most conservative in a century, as President Trump’s three nominees exercised their newfound power to rule against liberty and shrink our constitutional rights.
But state supreme courts offer promise in the face of a hostile federal judiciary. That’s why we’re taking the fight to the states – we want to show up with as many resources and tools as we have available. The ACLU is launching a dedicated effort, called the State Supreme Court Initiative, to fight for the expansion of rights through state supreme courts, both through litigation and advocacy work.
The State Supreme Court Initiative will build on the organization’s existing work in state supreme courts and will expand the organization’s litigating capacity. With lawyers in every state in the country, the ACLU is uniquely situated to do this important work and to develop cross-state expertise on state constitutional litigation.
Read Our Reports
About the Attorneys
Matthew Segal
Co-Director, ACLU State Supreme Court Initiative
Matt is a co-director of the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, which he helped to launch in May 2023. At the SSCI, Matt has successfully briefed state supreme court cases on a range of issues, including prosecutorial accountability and access to justice. Matt previously served for 11 years as Legal Director of the ACLU of…
Julie Murray
Co-Director, ACLU State Supreme Court Initiative
Julie Murray is co-director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s State Supreme Court Initiative (SSCI), which launched in May 2023. In that capacity, Julie helps to lead a team litigating a wide range of civil rights and civil liberties issues in state courts around the country. Before coming to the ACLU, Julie was a litigator…
Terry Ding
ACLU Staff Attorney, State Supreme Court Initiative
he/him
Terry Ding is a staff attorney with the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative. He joins the SSCI after four years at the New York Civil Liberties Union, where he litigated a wide range of civil rights and civil liberties issues, including challenging the prolonged detention of immigrants, discriminatory voting practices, and deficient medical care for…
Bridget Lavender
Legal Fellow
she/her/hers
Bridget Lavender is a Skadden Fellow with the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative. Before starting at the ACLU, Bridget clerked on the Utah Supreme Court and in federal district court in North Carolina. Bridget is a 2021 graduate of the University of Pennsylvania Law School (JD) and School of Social Policy and Practice (MS in…
Jackson Springer
Legal Fellow
he/him
Jackson Springer is a legal fellow with the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative. Jackson is a 2024 graduate of Columbia Law School, where he was awarded the Ruth Bader Ginsburg Prize for outstanding academic achievement and the E.B. Convers Prize for the best original essay on a legal subject. While in law school, Jackson served…
Where We Are Litigating
Since the SSCI was created in March 2023, we have provided formal assistance in the states highlighted below.
Last updated on March 4, 2025
Alabama
No cases yet
Alaska
No cases yet
Arizona
No cases yet
Arkansas
No cases yet
California
No cases yet
Colorado
Connecticut
No cases yet
Delaware
No cases yet
District of Columbia
No cases yet
Florida
No cases yet
Georgia
Active or previously active cases
Guam
No cases yet
Hawaii
No cases yet
Idaho
No cases yet
Illinois
No cases yet
Indiana
Active or previously active cases
Iowa
Kansas
Active or previously active cases
Kentucky
Louisiana
No cases yet
Maine
Active or previously active cases
Maryland
Active or previously active cases
Massachusetts
Active or previously active cases
Michigan
Active or previously active cases
Minnesota
Mississippi
Active or previously active cases
Missouri
No cases yet
Montana
Active or previously active cases
Nebraska
Active or previously active cases
Nevada
Active or previously active cases
New Hampshire
No cases yet
New Jersey
Active or previously active cases
New Mexico
No cases yet
New York
Active or previously active cases
North Carolina
Active or previously active cases
North Dakota
No cases yet
Ohio
Active or previously active cases
Oklahoma
No cases yet
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
No cases yet
Rhode Island
No cases yet
South Carolina
Active or previously active cases
South Dakota
No cases yet
Tennessee
Active or previously active cases
Texas
Active or previously active cases
Utah
Active or previously active cases
Menzies v. Utah Department of Corrections | American Civil Liberties Union
Barrani v. Salt Lake City | American Civil Liberties Union (aclu.org)
Natalie R. v. State of Utah | American Civil Liberties Union (aclu.org)
Utah State Legislature v. League of Women Voters | American Civil Liberties Union (aclu.org)
Planned Parenthood Association of Utah v. State of Utah | American Civil Liberties Union (aclu.org)
Vermont
No cases yet
Virgin Islands
No cases yet
Virginia
Active or previously active cases
Washington
No cases yet
West Virginia
No cases yet
Wisconsin
No cases yet
Wyoming
No cases yet
Latest Cases
North Carolina
Mar 2025
Voting Rights
Griffin v. North Carolina Board of Elections (Amicus)
This case arises from the November 2024 election for state supreme court justice in North Carolina. Incumbent State Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs defeated Court of Appeals Judge Jefferson Griffin, but Griffin has filed a petition seeking to invalidate more than 65,000 votes from the election. He argues that the state Board of Elections impermissibly allowed 60,000 people to register without providing their driver’s licenses or social security numbers, and that the Board impermissibly allowed 5,500 overseas voters to cast absentee ballots without photo identification. The petition has resulted in both federal and state litigation, and the ACLU has submitted amicus briefs in both venues. In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project and the ACLU of North Carolina filed an amicus brief explaining that the petition’s attempt to cancel tens of thousands of votes threatens democratic backsliding in North Carolina. Separately, in the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative and the ACLU of North Carolina submitted an amicus brief explaining that, even if the Board did make mistakes, cancelling votes as a consequence of those mistakes would violate the popular sovereignty provision of the North Carolina Constitution because voters relied on the Board to know how to register and vote.
New York Supreme Court
Feb 2025
Smart Justice
Free Speech
NYCLU v. New York State Office of Court Administration
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—with important implications for people’s rights—the New York Civil Liberties Union requested access to it under New York’s Freedom of Information Law. The agency denied the request, so the NYCLU sued. The NYCLU and the ACLU’s 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.
Montana Supreme Court
Feb 2025
Free Speech
+2 Issues
City of Kalispell v. Doman
This case asks whether the state can arrest, charge, and convict someone under Montana’s 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 ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Montana, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant arguing that the officer’s 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.
Georgia
Feb 2025
Criminal Law Reform
State of Georgia v. Wierson
This case asks whether Georgia’s 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’s mental condition “at the time of” the alleged crimes. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Georgia, filed an amicus brief arguing that even if the State’s 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.
Oregon
Jan 2025
Smart Justice
State of Oregon v. Adrian Fernandez
This case asks if ORS 138.105(8)(a)(A)—which removes an appellate court’s authority to review a “sentence that is within the presumptive sentence prescribed by the rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission”—precludes appellate review of a state constitutional challenge to a within-guidelines criminal sentence. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Oregon, filed an amicus brief in support of defendant Fernandez, who seeks to challenge his sentence under the Oregon Constitution’s proportionality guarantee. The amicus brief argues that interpreting the statute to preclude review of Fernandez’s challenge would raise grave constitutional concerns under Oregon’s separation of powers and privileges and immunities doctrines.
Utah Supreme Court
Jan 2025
Capital Punishment
Menzies v. Utah Department of Corrections
Article I, section 9 of the Utah Constitution protects incarcerated individuals from both cruel and unusual punishment and unnecessarily rigorous treatment. This case asks whether death-sentenced plaintiffs seeking to challenge certain execution methods as cruel and unusual or unnecessarily rigorous under this provision must identify, in their pleadings, an alternative method of execution. The U.S. Supreme Court has required this alternative for Eighth Amendment challenges, but the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the Capital Punishment Project and ACLU of Utah, filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs, arguing that federal caselaw does not limit the greater protections provided by section 9 of the Utah Constitution. Forcing prisoners challenging a method of execution to identify an acceptable alternative method is cruel, coercive, and not necessary to the administration of Utah’s death penalty laws.
North Carolina Supreme Court
Dec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
State v. Wright
This case in the North Carolina Supreme Court involves the question of whether the police violated the U.S. Constitution when they searched the defendant, Mr. Wright’s, backpack even after he repeatedly said no to the search requests. The ACLU alongside the ACLU of North Carolina filed an amicus brief arguing that the search was unconstitutional because Mr. Wright’s eventual “consent” was the result of police coercion. Our brief urges the court to consider the totality of the circumstances that make one more susceptible to coercion, including race and poverty.
Kansas Supreme Court
Feb 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Kansas v. Harper
Five transgender Kansans are challenging an effort by Kansas Attorney General Kobach to require the state to issue driver’s 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 “sex” to functionally erase the existence of transgender people under the law.
Michigan Supreme Court
Oct 2024
Immigrants' Rights
Michigan Immigrant Rights Center v. Gretchen Whitmer
For state constitutional rights to be meaningful, they have to be enforceable by courts. This case will affect whether people can sue government officials in state court to stop the violation of their constitutional rights.
Minnesota Supreme Court
Nov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.
Oregon Supreme Court
Feb 2025
Prisoners' Rights
Huskey v. Oregon Department of Corrections
This case in the Oregon Supreme Court centers on whether Article I, Section 41(3) of the Oregon Constitution, which provides that Oregon prisoners lack legally enforceable rights to prison jobs and training, bars prisoners from collecting damages relating to lost prison jobs and training caused by the alleged breach of a settlement agreement by prison officials. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Oregon, filed an amicus brief arguing that plaintiff Arnold Huskey, an incarcerated individual whose identity was used in Department of Corrections training materials, is entitled to damages notwithstanding Article I, Section 41(3), because plaintiffs in contract disputes never have to show standalone legal rights to the damages they claim. Instead, they need only show that the damages were reasonably foreseeable consequences of the alleged breach of contract.
South Carolina Supreme Court
Nov 2024
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood South Atlantic v. Wilson
This case in the South Carolina Supreme Court involves the question of whether a ban on abortion, the “2023 Fetal Heartbeat Act,” forbids abortion starting after approximately nine weeks of pregnancy or, as the state contends, earlier at six weeks of pregnancy, before many people even know they are pregnant. This case is the third state supreme court proceeding in South Carolina involving a post-Dobbs challenge to an abortion ban. The outcome will substantially affect access to reproductive care in the state.
Latest Cases
North Carolina
Mar 2025
Voting Rights
Griffin v. North Carolina Board of Elections (Amicus)
This case arises from the November 2024 election for state supreme court justice in North Carolina. Incumbent State Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs defeated Court of Appeals Judge Jefferson Griffin, but Griffin has filed a petition seeking to invalidate more than 65,000 votes from the election. He argues that the state Board of Elections impermissibly allowed 60,000 people to register without providing their driver’s licenses or social security numbers, and that the Board impermissibly allowed 5,500 overseas voters to cast absentee ballots without photo identification. The petition has resulted in both federal and state litigation, and the ACLU has submitted amicus briefs in both venues. In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project and the ACLU of North Carolina filed an amicus brief explaining that the petition’s attempt to cancel tens of thousands of votes threatens democratic backsliding in North Carolina. Separately, in the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative and the ACLU of North Carolina submitted an amicus brief explaining that, even if the Board did make mistakes, cancelling votes as a consequence of those mistakes would violate the popular sovereignty provision of the North Carolina Constitution because voters relied on the Board to know how to register and vote.
New York Supreme Court
Feb 2025
Smart Justice
Free Speech
NYCLU v. New York State Office of Court Administration
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—with important implications for people’s rights—the New York Civil Liberties Union requested access to it under New York’s Freedom of Information Law. The agency denied the request, so the NYCLU sued. The NYCLU and the ACLU’s 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.
Montana Supreme Court
Feb 2025
Free Speech
+2 Issues
City of Kalispell v. Doman
This case asks whether the state can arrest, charge, and convict someone under Montana’s 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 ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Montana, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant arguing that the officer’s 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.
Georgia
Feb 2025
Criminal Law Reform
State of Georgia v. Wierson
This case asks whether Georgia’s 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’s mental condition “at the time of” the alleged crimes. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Georgia, filed an amicus brief arguing that even if the State’s 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.
Oregon
Jan 2025
Smart Justice
State of Oregon v. Adrian Fernandez
This case asks if ORS 138.105(8)(a)(A)—which removes an appellate court’s authority to review a “sentence that is within the presumptive sentence prescribed by the rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission”—precludes appellate review of a state constitutional challenge to a within-guidelines criminal sentence. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Oregon, filed an amicus brief in support of defendant Fernandez, who seeks to challenge his sentence under the Oregon Constitution’s proportionality guarantee. The amicus brief argues that interpreting the statute to preclude review of Fernandez’s challenge would raise grave constitutional concerns under Oregon’s separation of powers and privileges and immunities doctrines.
Utah Supreme Court
Jan 2025
Capital Punishment
Menzies v. Utah Department of Corrections
Article I, section 9 of the Utah Constitution protects incarcerated individuals from both cruel and unusual punishment and unnecessarily rigorous treatment. This case asks whether death-sentenced plaintiffs seeking to challenge certain execution methods as cruel and unusual or unnecessarily rigorous under this provision must identify, in their pleadings, an alternative method of execution. The U.S. Supreme Court has required this alternative for Eighth Amendment challenges, but the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the Capital Punishment Project and ACLU of Utah, filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs, arguing that federal caselaw does not limit the greater protections provided by section 9 of the Utah Constitution. Forcing prisoners challenging a method of execution to identify an acceptable alternative method is cruel, coercive, and not necessary to the administration of Utah’s death penalty laws.
North Carolina Supreme Court
Dec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
State v. Wright
This case in the North Carolina Supreme Court involves the question of whether the police violated the U.S. Constitution when they searched the defendant, Mr. Wright’s, backpack even after he repeatedly said no to the search requests. The ACLU alongside the ACLU of North Carolina filed an amicus brief arguing that the search was unconstitutional because Mr. Wright’s eventual “consent” was the result of police coercion. Our brief urges the court to consider the totality of the circumstances that make one more susceptible to coercion, including race and poverty.
Kansas Supreme Court
Feb 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Kansas v. Harper
Five transgender Kansans are challenging an effort by Kansas Attorney General Kobach to require the state to issue driver’s 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 “sex” to functionally erase the existence of transgender people under the law.
Michigan Supreme Court
Oct 2024
Immigrants' Rights
Michigan Immigrant Rights Center v. Gretchen Whitmer
For state constitutional rights to be meaningful, they have to be enforceable by courts. This case will affect whether people can sue government officials in state court to stop the violation of their constitutional rights.
Minnesota Supreme Court
Nov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.
Oregon Supreme Court
Feb 2025
Prisoners' Rights
Huskey v. Oregon Department of Corrections
This case in the Oregon Supreme Court centers on whether Article I, Section 41(3) of the Oregon Constitution, which provides that Oregon prisoners lack legally enforceable rights to prison jobs and training, bars prisoners from collecting damages relating to lost prison jobs and training caused by the alleged breach of a settlement agreement by prison officials. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Oregon, filed an amicus brief arguing that plaintiff Arnold Huskey, an incarcerated individual whose identity was used in Department of Corrections training materials, is entitled to damages notwithstanding Article I, Section 41(3), because plaintiffs in contract disputes never have to show standalone legal rights to the damages they claim. Instead, they need only show that the damages were reasonably foreseeable consequences of the alleged breach of contract.
South Carolina Supreme Court
Nov 2024
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood South Atlantic v. Wilson
This case in the South Carolina Supreme Court involves the question of whether a ban on abortion, the “2023 Fetal Heartbeat Act,” forbids abortion starting after approximately nine weeks of pregnancy or, as the state contends, earlier at six weeks of pregnancy, before many people even know they are pregnant. This case is the third state supreme court proceeding in South Carolina involving a post-Dobbs challenge to an abortion ban. The outcome will substantially affect access to reproductive care in the state.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
News & CommentaryFeb 2025
Civil Liberties
Where Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Nominee Harmeet Dhillon Stands on Civil LibertiesWhere Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Nominee Harmeet Dhillon Stands on Civil Liberties
The ACLU has more than 100 years’ experience holding power accountable. As President Donald Trump rolls out his key nominations, we analyze how his nominee for assistant attorney general for civil rights will impact civil liberties. -
News & CommentaryFeb 2025
Civil Liberties
State and Local Governments Are Saying No to Trump's Radical AgendaState and Local Governments Are Saying No to Trump's Radical Agenda
To resist the Trump administrations’ attacks on our rights, local lawmakers across the country are protecting LGBTQ people, immigrants and reproductive health. -
Montana Supreme CourtFeb 2025
Free Speech
+2 Issues
City of Kalispell v. DomanCity of Kalispell v. Doman
This case asks whether the state can arrest, charge, and convict someone under Montana’s 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 ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Montana, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant arguing that the officer’s 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. -
News & CommentaryFeb 2025
Civil Liberties
Trump's Attempt to Unilaterally Control State and Local Funding Is Dangerous, Dumb, and UndemocraticTrump's Attempt to Unilaterally Control State and Local Funding Is Dangerous, Dumb, and Undemocratic
Donald Trump's attempts to withhold vital funding to bully and coerce states into compliance is plainly unconstitutional.