State Supreme Court Initiative
The U.S. Supreme Court is increasingly unlikely to protect, let alone expand, individual rights. Empowered by President Trump’s three nominees, the Court’s conservative supermajority has moved radically against liberty and equal justice in numerous recent cases. State supreme courts, however, offer promise for civil liberties and civil rights. That’s why we are making new investments to support litigation in state courts.
Launched in May 2023, the State Supreme Court Initiative (SSCI) focuses on the ACLU’s state court litigation, particularly cases in or headed to state high courts that stand to set far-reaching law.
The SSCI is uniquely situated to do this important work. It has cross-state expertise on state constitutional litigation and attorneys with diverse legal backgrounds who can serve as generalists. The SSCI is also able to partner with other ACLU attorneys, including those based in every state in the country and already engaged with their respective state constitutions.
The SSCI’s work takes many forms. The team has served as counsel for a party or amicus in more than 80 state supreme court cases. It also co-counsels a select number of cases in state trial courts around the country, helping to ensure that novel state constitutional claims are developed and preserved. The SSCI engages in regular efforts to track court cases pending in state high courts. And it aims to increase public awareness about the importance of state constitutions by issuing reports and other pieces of writing; participating in panels and symposia; and conducting trainings.
Where the SSCI Is Litigating
Since the SSCI was created in May 2023, we have provided formal assistance in the states highlighted below.
Last updated on September 25, 2026
Alabama
Active or previously active SSCI cases
Previously active:
Alaska
No SSCI cases yet
Arizona
No SSCI cases yet
Arkansas
No SSCI cases yet
California
No SSCI cases yet
Colorado
Active or previously active SSCI cases
Connecticut
No SSCI cases yet
Delaware
No SSCI cases yet
District of Columbia
No SSCI cases yet
Florida
No SSCI cases yet
Georgia
Active or previously active SSCI cases
Guam
No SSCI cases yet
Hawaiʻi
Active or previously active SSCI cases
Previously active:
Idaho
No SSCI cases yet
Illinois
No SSCI cases yet
Indiana
Active or previously active SSCI cases
Iowa
Active or previously active SSCI cases
Kansas
Active or previously active SSCI cases
Kentucky
Active or previously active SSCI cases
Louisiana
No SSCI cases yet
Maine
Active or previously active SSCI cases
Maryland
Active or previously active SSCI cases
Previously active:
Massachusetts
Active or previously active SSCI cases
Michigan
Active or previously active SSCI cases
Minnesota
Active or previously active SSCI cases
Active:
Anderson v. City of Minneapolis | American Civil Liberties Union
Paragon Restorations, LLC v. Robinet Prods., LLC | American Civil Liberties Union
Previously active:
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace Int'l, Unicorn Riot | American Civil Liberties Union
State v Malecha | American Civil Liberties Union
Mississippi
Active or previously active SSCI cases
Missouri
No SSCI cases yet
Montana
Active or previously active SSCI cases
Nebraska
Active or previously active SSCI cases
Nevada
Active or previously active SSCI cases
New Hampshire
No SSCI cases yet
New Jersey
Active or previously active SSCI cases
Previously active:
New Mexico
Active or previously active SSCI cases
New York
Active or previously active SSCI cases
North Carolina
Active or previously active SSCI cases
North Dakota
No SSCI cases yet
Ohio
Active or previously active SSCI cases
Previously active:
Oklahoma
No SSCI cases yet
Oregon
Active or previously active SSCI cases
Pennsylvania
Active or previously active SSCI cases
Puerto Rico
No SSCI cases yet
Rhode Island
Active or previously active SSCI cases
Previously active:
South Carolina
Active or previously active SSCI cases
Previously active:
Planned Parenthood South Atlantic v. Wilson | American Civil Liberties Union
South Dakota
No SSCI cases yet
Tennessee
Active or previously active SSCI cases
Texas
Active or previously active SSCI cases
Utah
Active or previously active SSCI cases
Active:
State v. Uptain | American Civil Liberties Union
Menzies v. Utah Department of Corrections | American Civil Liberties Union
Previously active:
Fuja v. Stephens | American Civil Liberties Union
Barrani v. Salt Lake City | American Civil Liberties Union
Natalie R. v. State | American Civil Liberties Union
Utah State Legislature v. League of Women Voters | American Civil Liberties Union
Planned Parenthood Assoc. of Utah v. State | American Civil Liberties Union
Vermont
No SSCI cases yet
Virgin Islands
No SSCI cases yet
Virginia
Active or previously active SSCI cases
Washington
No SSCI cases yet
West Virginia
No SSCI cases yet
Wisconsin
Active or previously active SSCI cases
Previously active:
Wyoming
No SSCI cases yet
About the Staff
Matthew Segal
Co-Director, ACLU State Supreme Court Initiative
he/him/his
Matthew Segal is 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
she/her/hers
Julie Murray is Co-Director of the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative (SSCI), a team of attorneys litigating a wide range of civil rights and civil liberties issues—particularly those involving novel state constitutional claims—in state courts around the country. Before coming to the ACLU, Julie was a litigator at Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), where…
Terry Ding
Senior Staff Attorney, ACLU State Supreme Court Initiative
he/him/his
Terry Ding is a Senior 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…
Daniel Hessel
Senior Staff Attorney, ACLU State Supreme Court Initiative
he/him/his
Daniel Hessel is a Senior Staff Attorney with the ACLU's State Supreme Court Initiative. Prior to joining the ACLU, Daniel taught in the Election Law Clinic at Harvard Law School, where he litigated voting rights cases in state and federal courts across the country. He previously litigated election law cases with the Campaign Legal Center…
Bridget Lavender
Staff Attorney, ACLU State Supreme Court Initiative
she/her/hers
Bridget Lavender is a Staff Attorney with the ACLU's State Supreme Court Initiative. Formerly, Bridget was a Skadden Fellow with SSCI and a Staff Attorney at the State Democracy Research Initiative. Before starting at the ACLU, Bridget clerked on the Utah Supreme Court and in federal district court in North Carolina. Bridget is a graduate…
Nellie Conover-Crockett
Legal Fellow, ACLU State Supreme Court Initiative
she/her/hers
Nellie Conover-Crockett is a Legal Fellow with the ACLU's State Supreme Court Initiative. Nellie graduated in 2026 from Yale Law School, where she was the Executive Editor for Notes & Comments of the Yale Law Journal and a member of the Civil Rights Advocacy Clinic. During law school, she worked for the Orleans Public Defenders,…
Jadon Ja-Wei Khor
Paralegal, ACLU State Supreme Court Initiative
he/him/his
Jadon Ja-Wei Khor is a Paralegal with the ACLU's State Supreme Court Initiative. Jadon graduated from the University of Florida with degrees in Political Science and in History, where he was awarded summa cum laude for his thesis on state supreme courts and state democratic quality. Prior to joining the ACLU, Jadon spent a year…
Read Our Reports
Publication | Research & Analysis
Sep 2025
Civil Liberties
Scorecard for State Supreme Court Transparency
In this report, the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative reviewed all state high court websites for four key practices and assigned Tiers based on how many they adhered to.
Explore publication
Publication | Research & Analysis
Sep 2025
Civil Liberties
Scorecard for State Supreme Court Transparency
In this report, the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative reviewed all state high court websites for four key practices and assigned Tiers based on how many they adhered to.
Publication | Research & Analysis
Aug 2022
Our New Federalism
In this report, we featured more than 125 cases in which the ACLU and our state affiliate offices have advanced arguments across 24 states over the last 5 years.
Explore publication
Publication | Research & Analysis
Aug 2022
Our New Federalism
In this report, we featured more than 125 cases in which the ACLU and our state affiliate offices have advanced arguments across 24 states over the last 5 years.
Our Latest Cases
Nevada Supreme Court
Sep 2026
Immigrants' Rights
ACLU of Nevada v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't
In 2025, without authorization from the Nevada Legislature, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) entered into an agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that purports to let LVMPD assist with federal immigration enforcement. This “287(g) agreement” provides that, at ICE’s request, LVMPD will continue detaining a person after they are supposed to be released from criminal custody to make it easier for ICE to pick them up. That is exactly what happened to Sergio Morais-Hechavarria: although a court had ordered him to be released to an inpatient treatment program, LVMPD continued detaining him for another two months at ICE’s behest. Mr. Morais-Hechavarria and the ACLU of Nevada filed a lawsuit challenging LVMPD’s authority to enter into the 287(g) agreement and to detain people for ICE after their criminal custody ends. The district court dismissed the case, and the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative and ACLU of Nevada have appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court.
Georgia Supreme Court
Sep 2026
Civil Liberties
In the Interest of D.B.
The ACLU's Center for Liberty and State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Georgia, filed an amicus brief in the Georgia Supreme Court 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. Our brief urges the court to require a genuine emergency before the State may remove a child without first hearing from their parent.
Oregon Supreme Court
Aug 2026
Privacy & Technology
State v. Lane
Oregon law enforcement, without a warrant, installed surveillance cameras on two telephone poles near Petitioner’s home and recorded activity there for a month. The State argues that police can continuously surveil our most private spaces—our homes—without judicial oversight. The ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Oregon and the Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, filed an amicus brief arguing that police were required to obtain a warrant before conducting the extensive pole-camera surveillance at issue this case.
Oregon Supreme Court
Aug 2026
LGBTQ Rights
Prisoners' Rights
Zyst v. Miller
Following the Oregon Department of Corrections’ unconstitutional treatment of a transgender prisoner, a habeas court ordered her removal from segregated housing, an individualized gender-affirming care assessment, a psychiatric evaluation, and identification of an appropriate cellmate. However, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the psychiatric-evaluation and cellmate orders, finding them “too attenuated” to qualify as habeas relief. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Oregon, joined an amicus brief by the law firm Sugerman Dahab arguing that habeas courts have broad discretion to remedy violations and resulting harms. The brief explains that the Court of Appeals’ “close connection” test unduly constricts habeas relief, and which should be construed to encompass not only the need to halt ongoing constitutional violations, but also the need to mitigate various harms that may arise from those violations.
Tennessee Supreme Court
Aug 2026
Capital Punishment
Free Speech
Assoc. Press v. Nelsen
Tennessee's execution policies prevent the press from witnessing critical stages before and after a state execution. However, the public needs to know how they work—or don't work—to participate in informed public debate. The ACLU's State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Tennessee, filed an amicus brief explaining why a provision in the Tennessee Constitution that guarantees access to government proceedings requires greater press access to executions.
Michigan Supreme Court
Jul 2026
Criminal Law Reform
People v. Serges
At the core of this case is the question of whether the government can extract and test our DNA without a warrant. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative and Project on Speech, Privacy, and Technology, together with the ACLU of Michigan, filed an amicus brief arguing that, since our DNA contains vast amounts of highly sensitive information about us, DNA testing and extraction constitute a search and therefore require a warrant under both the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, section 11 of the Michigan Constitution. If there were no warrant requirement, as the State urges, police would be able to arrest someone for one offense, even pretextually, and limitlessly test their DNA to investigate unrelated crimes. This would especially impact people from marginalized populations who are most likely to be subject to these police practices.
Texas Supreme Court
Jul 2026
Civil Liberties
Moten v. State
A Texas statute requires “the state” to turn over certain information to criminal defendants as part of discovery. In 2024, in a case called State v. Heath, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals interpreted the term “state” broadly to mean the entire state of Texas, including prosectors and law enforcement. Now, just two years after Heath, the State Prosecuting Attorney is asking the Court to revisit its decision and adopt a narrower interpretation of “the state”—one that would limit prosecutors’ statutory disclosure obligations. The outcome of this case, which centers on whether a recorded jail call should have been disclosed, has significant implications for the rights of criminal defendants throughout Texas to discover evidence relevant to their cases.
Minnesota Supreme Court
Jun 2026
Criminal Law Reform
State v. Weisen
This case asks whether law enforcement may permissibly use trickery and deception to obtain consent for a search and/or induce a confession. This case has important implications for Minnesotans’ constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches and compelled self-incrimination. The ACLU's State Supreme Court Initiative represents the ACLU of Minnesota and the Minnesota Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in an amicus brief to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
Colorado
Jul 2026
Prisoners' Rights
E.L. v. Claps
Family members of individuals incarcerated in Adams County Jail are challenging a ban on in-person visits on the grounds that it violates their right to familial association under the Colorado Constitution.
The district court denied their motion for a preliminary injunction, in part based on its ruling that individuals cannot sue directly under the Colorado Constitution to stop violations of their individual rights if other remedies are theoretically available under state or federal law. If that ruling is left to stand, state constitutional protections could exist in name only, leaving courts unable to stop violations if a plaintiff could potentially proceed under a narrower statutory claim that might provide lesser relief or fail on the facts of the case. This case could therefore have far-reaching implications for the enforceability of constitutional rights across Colorado.
Kansas
Sep 2026
LGBTQ Rights
Doe v. State of Kansas
Two transgender residents of Kansas filed a lawsuit in state court challenging SB 244, a state law enacted in 2026 that immediately invalidated the driver’s licenses of transgender people across the state and which authorizes anyone to sue anybody they suspect of being transgender for using the “wrong” restroom in government buildings.
Montana
Apr 2025
Civil Liberties
LGBTQ Rights
Perkins v. State (HB 121)
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’s personhood and ability to participate in public life. Together with the ACLU of Montana and Legal Voice, the ACLU’s 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.
Mississippi
Jan 2026
Criminal Law Reform
American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi v. Rankin County District Attorney's Office
In 2023, public reporting revealed that a group of sheriff’s deputies in Rankin County, Mississippi, had been terrorizing the County’s residents for nearly two decades. The deputies, who called themselves the “Goon Squad,” used torture, violence, and other abusive practices to coerce confessions and extract or manufacture evidence. The Rankin County District Attorney’s Office (RCDAO), in turn, used the Goon Squad to prosecute people. Seeking to understand whether the RCDAO has taken any actions to address the Goon Squad’s misconduct since it became public, the ACLU of Mississippi and the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a public records request with the RCDAO. But the RCDAO refused to produce any documents other than a self-serving press statement. Accordingly, the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Mississippi and the Center for Constitutional Rights, filed suit arguing that the RCDAO’s failure to produce responsive records violates the Mississippi Public Records Act.
Our Latest Cases
Nevada Supreme Court
Sep 2026
Immigrants' Rights
ACLU of Nevada v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't
In 2025, without authorization from the Nevada Legislature, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) entered into an agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that purports to let LVMPD assist with federal immigration enforcement. This “287(g) agreement” provides that, at ICE’s request, LVMPD will continue detaining a person after they are supposed to be released from criminal custody to make it easier for ICE to pick them up. That is exactly what happened to Sergio Morais-Hechavarria: although a court had ordered him to be released to an inpatient treatment program, LVMPD continued detaining him for another two months at ICE’s behest. Mr. Morais-Hechavarria and the ACLU of Nevada filed a lawsuit challenging LVMPD’s authority to enter into the 287(g) agreement and to detain people for ICE after their criminal custody ends. The district court dismissed the case, and the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative and ACLU of Nevada have appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court.
Georgia Supreme Court
Sep 2026
Civil Liberties
In the Interest of D.B.
The ACLU's Center for Liberty and State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Georgia, filed an amicus brief in the Georgia Supreme Court 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. Our brief urges the court to require a genuine emergency before the State may remove a child without first hearing from their parent.
Oregon Supreme Court
Aug 2026
Privacy & Technology
State v. Lane
Oregon law enforcement, without a warrant, installed surveillance cameras on two telephone poles near Petitioner’s home and recorded activity there for a month. The State argues that police can continuously surveil our most private spaces—our homes—without judicial oversight. The ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Oregon and the Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, filed an amicus brief arguing that police were required to obtain a warrant before conducting the extensive pole-camera surveillance at issue this case.
Oregon Supreme Court
Aug 2026
LGBTQ Rights
Prisoners' Rights
Zyst v. Miller
Following the Oregon Department of Corrections’ unconstitutional treatment of a transgender prisoner, a habeas court ordered her removal from segregated housing, an individualized gender-affirming care assessment, a psychiatric evaluation, and identification of an appropriate cellmate. However, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the psychiatric-evaluation and cellmate orders, finding them “too attenuated” to qualify as habeas relief. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Oregon, joined an amicus brief by the law firm Sugerman Dahab arguing that habeas courts have broad discretion to remedy violations and resulting harms. The brief explains that the Court of Appeals’ “close connection” test unduly constricts habeas relief, and which should be construed to encompass not only the need to halt ongoing constitutional violations, but also the need to mitigate various harms that may arise from those violations.
Tennessee Supreme Court
Aug 2026
Capital Punishment
Free Speech
Assoc. Press v. Nelsen
Tennessee's execution policies prevent the press from witnessing critical stages before and after a state execution. However, the public needs to know how they work—or don't work—to participate in informed public debate. The ACLU's State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Tennessee, filed an amicus brief explaining why a provision in the Tennessee Constitution that guarantees access to government proceedings requires greater press access to executions.
Michigan Supreme Court
Jul 2026
Criminal Law Reform
People v. Serges
At the core of this case is the question of whether the government can extract and test our DNA without a warrant. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative and Project on Speech, Privacy, and Technology, together with the ACLU of Michigan, filed an amicus brief arguing that, since our DNA contains vast amounts of highly sensitive information about us, DNA testing and extraction constitute a search and therefore require a warrant under both the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, section 11 of the Michigan Constitution. If there were no warrant requirement, as the State urges, police would be able to arrest someone for one offense, even pretextually, and limitlessly test their DNA to investigate unrelated crimes. This would especially impact people from marginalized populations who are most likely to be subject to these police practices.
Texas Supreme Court
Jul 2026
Civil Liberties
Moten v. State
A Texas statute requires “the state” to turn over certain information to criminal defendants as part of discovery. In 2024, in a case called State v. Heath, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals interpreted the term “state” broadly to mean the entire state of Texas, including prosectors and law enforcement. Now, just two years after Heath, the State Prosecuting Attorney is asking the Court to revisit its decision and adopt a narrower interpretation of “the state”—one that would limit prosecutors’ statutory disclosure obligations. The outcome of this case, which centers on whether a recorded jail call should have been disclosed, has significant implications for the rights of criminal defendants throughout Texas to discover evidence relevant to their cases.
Minnesota Supreme Court
Jun 2026
Criminal Law Reform
State v. Weisen
This case asks whether law enforcement may permissibly use trickery and deception to obtain consent for a search and/or induce a confession. This case has important implications for Minnesotans’ constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches and compelled self-incrimination. The ACLU's State Supreme Court Initiative represents the ACLU of Minnesota and the Minnesota Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in an amicus brief to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
Colorado
Jul 2026
Prisoners' Rights
E.L. v. Claps
Family members of individuals incarcerated in Adams County Jail are challenging a ban on in-person visits on the grounds that it violates their right to familial association under the Colorado Constitution.
The district court denied their motion for a preliminary injunction, in part based on its ruling that individuals cannot sue directly under the Colorado Constitution to stop violations of their individual rights if other remedies are theoretically available under state or federal law. If that ruling is left to stand, state constitutional protections could exist in name only, leaving courts unable to stop violations if a plaintiff could potentially proceed under a narrower statutory claim that might provide lesser relief or fail on the facts of the case. This case could therefore have far-reaching implications for the enforceability of constitutional rights across Colorado.
Kansas
Sep 2026
LGBTQ Rights
Doe v. State of Kansas
Two transgender residents of Kansas filed a lawsuit in state court challenging SB 244, a state law enacted in 2026 that immediately invalidated the driver’s licenses of transgender people across the state and which authorizes anyone to sue anybody they suspect of being transgender for using the “wrong” restroom in government buildings.
Montana
Apr 2025
Civil Liberties
LGBTQ Rights
Perkins v. State (HB 121)
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’s personhood and ability to participate in public life. Together with the ACLU of Montana and Legal Voice, the ACLU’s 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.
Mississippi
Jan 2026
Criminal Law Reform
American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi v. Rankin County District Attorney's Office
In 2023, public reporting revealed that a group of sheriff’s deputies in Rankin County, Mississippi, had been terrorizing the County’s residents for nearly two decades. The deputies, who called themselves the “Goon Squad,” used torture, violence, and other abusive practices to coerce confessions and extract or manufacture evidence. The Rankin County District Attorney’s Office (RCDAO), in turn, used the Goon Squad to prosecute people. Seeking to understand whether the RCDAO has taken any actions to address the Goon Squad’s misconduct since it became public, the ACLU of Mississippi and the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a public records request with the RCDAO. But the RCDAO refused to produce any documents other than a self-serving press statement. Accordingly, the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Mississippi and the Center for Constitutional Rights, filed suit arguing that the RCDAO’s failure to produce responsive records violates the Mississippi Public Records Act.
Related Issues
Related Content
-
News & CommentarySep 2026
Civil Liberties
Meet The Hosts: Aclu Launches New Podcast 'let The Record Show'. Explore News & Commentary.Meet the Hosts: ACLU Launches New Podcast 'Let the Record Show'
Hosts Shereen Marisol Meraji and Matthew Beat give a glimpse into the ACLU’s new podcast covering some of the most influential court cases in history. -
Press ReleaseSep 2026
Civil Liberties
Aclu Debuts New American History Podcast Exploring Rights-defining Legal Cases. Explore Press Release.ACLU Debuts New American History Podcast Exploring Rights-Defining Legal Cases
WASHINGTON – The American Civil Liberties Union today launched Let the Record Show, a new, irreverent American history podcast that looks back on the people and places behind defining legal moments for rights and freedoms in the United States. At a time when people are overwhelmed by the threats to our civil rights and civil liberties, Let the Record Show invites listeners to explore legal cases that give us insight into what we faced back then and what we’re facing today. Let the Record Show is hosted by schoolteacher and YouTube creator Matthew Beat, also known as Mr. Beat, and professor and audio journalist Shereen Marisol Meraji. On every episode, our hosts explore a major court case from U.S. history. Cases that shape how we live our lives today. And it’s more than just the case and its outcome – it’s about the people and places beyond the courtroom, and the nail-biting moments that came to define our country’s complex system of laws. “Let the Record Show is about more than just old court cases. It's about the real people behind the scenes, the stories they told, and the rights that we fought for and won along the way. I've told these stories in the classroom and online for 17 years, and I'm pumped to co-host the ACLU's new podcast to breathe new life into them,” said Matt Beat. “The ACLU has been at the center of so many important moments in our country’s history — from fighting for racial and gender justice to defending the rights of immigrants. And right now, there’s so much noise about what is happening to our civil rights and liberties that it can be hard to understand what matters most and why. We need a podcast like Let the Record Show help us decipher what’s at stake and figure out what we can do about it,” said Shereen Marisol Meraji. Listeners will be introduced to plaintiffs like Wong Kim Ark, who we can thank for affirming birthright citizenship; lawyers like Pauli Murray, who made it the nation’s business to take both racial and gender equality seriously; and everyday people who spoke up for their rights and the rights of their neighbors, especially when that took a lot of courage. Season 1 of the biweekly podcast will feature cases such as White v. Crook (exclusion of women and Black people from juries), Engel v. Vitale (school prayer), and Gitlow v. New York (free speech), and will be available on audio on all major podcast platforms, including Apple Podcasts and Spotify, and on video on YouTube. Let the Record Show pulls from the ACLU’s century-long archive of legal cases to help listeners understand how, throughout history, key figures have stood up to defend their rights and freedoms in the face of brutality and injustice to expand freedoms for us all. Listeners will also hear from guests, including ACLU legal experts, as part of a recurring Sidebar segment where the hosts pause the story to explain a complex legal topic. The first episode of the podcast, on J.G.G. v. Trump, is available here: https://www.aclu.org/podcast/what-happens-when-the-president-defies-a-judge -
News & CommentarySep 2026
Civil Liberties
Aclu Back-to-school Bookshelf 2026: Artists, Authors, And Creators Share Their Favorite Reads About Civil Liberties. Explore News & Commentary.ACLU Back-To-School Bookshelf 2026: Artists, Authors, and Creators Share Their Favorite Reads About Civil Liberties
In our series, the ACLU has teamed up with artists, authors, Hachette Book Group, and content creators to share books that have helped them better understand civil liberties and civil rights, fight for our communities and our Constitution, and increase engagement in creating a more perfect union. -
Georgia Supreme CourtSep 2026
Civil Liberties
In The Interest Of D.b.. Explore Case.In the Interest of D.B.
The ACLU's Center for Liberty and State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Georgia, filed an amicus brief in the Georgia Supreme Court 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. Our brief urges the court to require a genuine emergency before the State may remove a child without first hearing from their parent.