State Supreme Court Initiative
State Supreme Court Initiative
The U.S. Supreme Court is increasingly unlikely to protect, let alone expand, individual rights. Empowered by President Donald 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 65 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 April 8, 2026
Alabama
Active or previously active SSCI cases
Alaska
No SSCI cases yet
Arizona
No SSCI cases yet
Arkansas
No SSCI cases yet
California
No SSCI cases yet
Colorado
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
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
Louisiana
No SSCI cases yet
Maine
Active or previously active SSCI cases
Maryland
Active or previously active SSCI cases
Massachusetts
Michigan
Active or previously active SSCI cases
Minnesota
Active or previously active SSCI cases
Mississippi
Missouri
No SSCI cases yet
Montana
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
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Active or previously active SSCI cases
North Dakota
No SSCI cases yet
Ohio
Active or previously active SSCI cases
Oklahoma
No SSCI cases yet
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Active or previously active SSCI cases
Puerto Rico
No SSCI cases yet
Rhode Island
Active or previously active SSCI cases
South Carolina
Active or previously active SSCI cases
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
Fuja v. Stephens | American Civil Liberties Union
State v. Uptain | American Civil Liberties Union
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 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
Wyoming
No SSCI cases yet
About the Staff
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) 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…
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…
Lily Moore-Eissenberg
Legal Fellow
She/Her/Hers
Lily Moore-Eissenberg is a Justice Catalyst Fellow with the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative. Lily graduated in 2025 from Yale Law School, where she served as Editor-in-Chief of the Yale Law Journal. During law school, she worked for the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office, the ACLU of Northern California, and Gupta Wessler. She received her…
Gabriela Perez
Paralegal
She/Her/Hers
Gabriela Perez is a paralegal with the State Supreme Court Initiative where she assists a team of attorneys fighting for the expansion of rights through state supreme courts. Gabriela graduated summa cum laude from the University of Chicago with a dual degree in Latin American and Iberian Languages and Global Studies. Prior to joining the…
Read Our Reports
Latest Cases
Kansas
Mar 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.
Michigan Supreme Court
Mar 2026
Civil Liberties
People v. Jennings
This case asks whether Michigan should adopt an approach to state constitutional interpretation that prioritizes Michigan sources and does not automatically require reference to parallel federal provisions or interpretations. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the constitutional rights of Michiganders because an interpretation of the Michigan Constitution untethered from federal precedent provides an independent, and potentially more expansive, layer of security for individual rights.
Mississippi
Jan 2026
Criminal Law Reform
American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi et al. 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.
New Mexico Supreme Court
Feb 2026
Civil Liberties
Atencio v. State of New Mexico
This case asks whether the State of New Mexico’s actions enabling pollution from oil and gas extraction, and its failure to control that pollution, violate the New Mexico Constitution’s Pollution Control Clause, Inherent Rights Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. Our brief urges the New Mexico Supreme Court to answer those questions by retiring its “interstitial approach” to state constitutional interpretation—which looks first to federal doctrine when interpreting state constitutional provisions that arguably have U.S. Constitutional analogues—and instead interpreting the New Mexico Constitution holistically and independently. This independent approach, we explain, will ensure that New Mexicans can enjoy—and enforce—the rights guaranteed to them in their unique founding document.
Iowa Supreme Court
Feb 2026
Racial Justice
In re Ezra L. Totton Scholarship
This case asks whether, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard College, a university may refuse to administer a privately funded scholarship set aside for Black students majoring in the physical sciences and redirect those funds to first-generation students instead. The district court denied the University’s petition to do so, and the case is now on appeal before the Iowa Supreme Court. The Court’s decision could have significant implications for other private scholarships that address the lasting effects of segregation.
New Mexico Supreme Court
Jan 2026
Prisoners' Rights
Franklin v. Martinez
This case raises the question whether New Mexico courts should retire their current, federal-centric approach to interpreting the New Mexico Constitution—a method known as the “interstitial approach”—and embrace an independent approach that would allow them to more readily diverge from federal courts in light of New Mexico’s own law, history, and values. The Court’s decision could have major implications for New Mexicans’ ability to vindicate their state constitutional rights.
Utah Supreme Court
Jan 2026
Civil Liberties
Fuja v. Stephens
This case asks whether government officials who intentionally violate the law are immune from damages suits under a state statute governing such suits, and if so, whether the statute itself violates the Open Courts Clause of the Utah Constitution.
Utah’s Open Courts Clause, like similar provisions in thirty-nine other states across the country, protects an individual’s right to seek judicial remedies for wrongs committed against them. It therefore serves as an important tool that does not exist in the U.S. Constitution to hold government actors accountable.
Montana
Apr 2025
Civil Liberties
LGBTQ Rights
Perkins et al. 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.
Kentucky Supreme Court
Dec 2025
Civil Liberties
Commonwealth v. Davis and Commonwealth v. Kentucky Education Association
This case asks whether Kentucky’s legislature can legally favor some unions by giving them preferential treatment and disfavor others. A recent law does just that: SB 7 prohibits public employers from allowing their employees to use payroll deductions for union dues yet expressly exempts law enforcement and fire protection unions from this prohibition. Two state circuit courts and the Court of Appeals have held that this law violates the Kentucky Constitution’s equal protection guarantee. The State now appeals to the Kentucky Supreme Court. The Court’s decision has important implications for equal protection, free speech, and labor rights in Kentucky.
Massachusetts Supreme Court
Dec 2025
Criminal Law Reform
Commonwealth v. Jose Arias
This case asks whether the stop, search, and arrest of an individual after a traffic stop was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The case arises from a remarkable set of facts: although motivated by a desire to search Mr. Arias’s car for drugs, the police initiated the stop based on a day-old alleged traffic infraction and then arrested Mr. Arias for allegedly neglecting to stop his car immediately when the police initiated the stop. The ACLU joined an amicus brief authored by the ACLU of Massachusetts and the law firm Proskauer Rose, which argues that the police actions in this case were unconstitutional for three reasons. First, pretextual traffic stops, such as this one, violate the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Second, arrests for misdemeanors not involving breaches of the peace also violate the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Third, the statute prohibiting drivers from neglecting to stop is unconstitutionally vague as applied to this case.
Michigan Supreme Court
Dec 2025
Criminal Law Reform
People of the State of Michigan 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.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Nov 2025
Free Speech
Commonwealth v. Johnson
This case presents the question whether a person can be convicted of disorderly conduct for speech that the state deems “obscene” but that does not actually qualify as unprotected obscenity under the First Amendment. The outcome of this case could have serious implications for free speech and the rights of criminal defendants in Pennsylvania, where law enforcement frequently misuses the disorderly conduct statute to punish constitutionally protected speech.
Latest Cases
Kansas
Mar 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.
Michigan Supreme Court
Mar 2026
Civil Liberties
People v. Jennings
This case asks whether Michigan should adopt an approach to state constitutional interpretation that prioritizes Michigan sources and does not automatically require reference to parallel federal provisions or interpretations. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the constitutional rights of Michiganders because an interpretation of the Michigan Constitution untethered from federal precedent provides an independent, and potentially more expansive, layer of security for individual rights.
Mississippi
Jan 2026
Criminal Law Reform
American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi et al. 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.
New Mexico Supreme Court
Feb 2026
Civil Liberties
Atencio v. State of New Mexico
This case asks whether the State of New Mexico’s actions enabling pollution from oil and gas extraction, and its failure to control that pollution, violate the New Mexico Constitution’s Pollution Control Clause, Inherent Rights Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. Our brief urges the New Mexico Supreme Court to answer those questions by retiring its “interstitial approach” to state constitutional interpretation—which looks first to federal doctrine when interpreting state constitutional provisions that arguably have U.S. Constitutional analogues—and instead interpreting the New Mexico Constitution holistically and independently. This independent approach, we explain, will ensure that New Mexicans can enjoy—and enforce—the rights guaranteed to them in their unique founding document.
Iowa Supreme Court
Feb 2026
Racial Justice
In re Ezra L. Totton Scholarship
This case asks whether, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard College, a university may refuse to administer a privately funded scholarship set aside for Black students majoring in the physical sciences and redirect those funds to first-generation students instead. The district court denied the University’s petition to do so, and the case is now on appeal before the Iowa Supreme Court. The Court’s decision could have significant implications for other private scholarships that address the lasting effects of segregation.
New Mexico Supreme Court
Jan 2026
Prisoners' Rights
Franklin v. Martinez
This case raises the question whether New Mexico courts should retire their current, federal-centric approach to interpreting the New Mexico Constitution—a method known as the “interstitial approach”—and embrace an independent approach that would allow them to more readily diverge from federal courts in light of New Mexico’s own law, history, and values. The Court’s decision could have major implications for New Mexicans’ ability to vindicate their state constitutional rights.
Utah Supreme Court
Jan 2026
Civil Liberties
Fuja v. Stephens
This case asks whether government officials who intentionally violate the law are immune from damages suits under a state statute governing such suits, and if so, whether the statute itself violates the Open Courts Clause of the Utah Constitution.
Utah’s Open Courts Clause, like similar provisions in thirty-nine other states across the country, protects an individual’s right to seek judicial remedies for wrongs committed against them. It therefore serves as an important tool that does not exist in the U.S. Constitution to hold government actors accountable.
Montana
Apr 2025
Civil Liberties
LGBTQ Rights
Perkins et al. 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.
Kentucky Supreme Court
Dec 2025
Civil Liberties
Commonwealth v. Davis and Commonwealth v. Kentucky Education Association
This case asks whether Kentucky’s legislature can legally favor some unions by giving them preferential treatment and disfavor others. A recent law does just that: SB 7 prohibits public employers from allowing their employees to use payroll deductions for union dues yet expressly exempts law enforcement and fire protection unions from this prohibition. Two state circuit courts and the Court of Appeals have held that this law violates the Kentucky Constitution’s equal protection guarantee. The State now appeals to the Kentucky Supreme Court. The Court’s decision has important implications for equal protection, free speech, and labor rights in Kentucky.
Massachusetts Supreme Court
Dec 2025
Criminal Law Reform
Commonwealth v. Jose Arias
This case asks whether the stop, search, and arrest of an individual after a traffic stop was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The case arises from a remarkable set of facts: although motivated by a desire to search Mr. Arias’s car for drugs, the police initiated the stop based on a day-old alleged traffic infraction and then arrested Mr. Arias for allegedly neglecting to stop his car immediately when the police initiated the stop. The ACLU joined an amicus brief authored by the ACLU of Massachusetts and the law firm Proskauer Rose, which argues that the police actions in this case were unconstitutional for three reasons. First, pretextual traffic stops, such as this one, violate the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Second, arrests for misdemeanors not involving breaches of the peace also violate the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Third, the statute prohibiting drivers from neglecting to stop is unconstitutionally vague as applied to this case.
Michigan Supreme Court
Dec 2025
Criminal Law Reform
People of the State of Michigan 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.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Nov 2025
Free Speech
Commonwealth v. Johnson
This case presents the question whether a person can be convicted of disorderly conduct for speech that the state deems “obscene” but that does not actually qualify as unprotected obscenity under the First Amendment. The outcome of this case could have serious implications for free speech and the rights of criminal defendants in Pennsylvania, where law enforcement frequently misuses the disorderly conduct statute to punish constitutionally protected speech.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Court CaseApr 2026
Civil Liberties
State V. Marquez And State V. Huerta. Explore Case.State v. Marquez and State v. Huerta
This consolidated case arises from two warrantless searches of closed containers belonging to criminal defendants. It raises two key questions: (1) whether the New Mexico Supreme Court should adopt an approach to interpreting the New Mexico Constitution that does not require reference to federal law, and (2) whether the New Mexico Constitution’s prohibition on unreasonable searches provides greater protections against inventory searches by police than does the federal Fourth Amendment standard. -
Michigan Supreme CourtMar 2026
Civil Liberties
People V. Jennings. Explore Case.People v. Jennings
This case asks whether Michigan should adopt an approach to state constitutional interpretation that prioritizes Michigan sources and does not automatically require reference to parallel federal provisions or interpretations. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the constitutional rights of Michiganders because an interpretation of the Michigan Constitution untethered from federal precedent provides an independent, and potentially more expansive, layer of security for individual rights. -
News & CommentaryMar 2026
Civil Liberties
Your Questions Answered: Can Congress Stop President Trump's Illegal War Against Iran?. Explore News & Commentary.Your Questions Answered: Can Congress Stop President Trump's Illegal War Against Iran?
Amid President Donald Trump's unconstitutional war against Iran, ACLU experts break down who has the power to declare war — and how Congress can assert its war powers. -
New YorkMar 2026
Civil Liberties
Poe Et Al. V. Harris-madden Et Al.. Explore Case.Poe et al. v. Harris-Madden et al.
The ACLU, NYCLU, Family Justice Law Center, Brooklyn Defender Services, Center for Family Representation, NYU School of Law Family Defense Clinic, and Sullivan & Cromwell have filed a federal class action lawsuit on behalf of three New York parents challenging unconstitutional delays in the appeals process for reports on the Statewide Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment (SCR). Parents who challenge their placement on the registry often wait months—sometimes more than a year—for a final decision. While they wait, they can be shut out of jobs in childcare, education, healthcare, and other fields involving children, and barred from adopting or fostering. Low-income parents, parents of color, and disabled parents are disproportionately policed by the family regulation system—also known as the child welfare system—and more likely to end up on the registry. This lawsuit seeks to ensure that parents have a way to clear their names in a timely manner.