Representing the League of Women Voters Minnesota, Common Cause, and two Minnesota voters with past felony convictions, the ACLU Voting Rights Project and ACLU of Minnesota have filed a motion to intervene in a federal lawsuit over the federal government’s demand that Minnesota turn over its entire voter registration rolls, including with voters’ sensitive personal data such as drivers’ license numbers and partial social security numbers.

This case will determine whether Minnesotans who prove ongoing discrimination by a city government are entitled to a court order blocking that discrimination, or whether Minnesota cities are instead immune from that type of directive. The ACLU’s SSCI and the ACLU of Minnesota filed an amicus brief arguing that cities are not immune from such a court order. But even if they can be, they shouldn’t be considered immune from claims brought under Minnesota’s antidiscrimination statute in light of the statute’s broad purpose and the Minnesota Constitution’s guarantee of a remedy for all injuries and wrongs. The outcome of the case could have serious implications for the enforcement of Minnesota’s civil rights laws.

The Minnesota Supreme Court is poised to decide whether there are any circumstances in which someone subjected to an unconstitutional traffic stop can suppress evidence that he temporarily avoided the police when they initiated the unconstitutional stop. The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that evidence of even temporary “flight” can never be suppressed—even when someone simply delays acquiescing to an unconstitutional traffic stop—on the theory that fleeing from the police is a crime. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Minnesota and the law firm Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, filed an amicus brief arguing that Article I, Sections 8 and 10 of the Minnesota Constitution—which guarantee Minnesotans remedies for constitutional violations and protect them from unreasonable searches and seizures—require a broad application of the exclusionary rule. Accordingly, we argue that the Court should use a flexible, multi-factor test that can allow for suppression of evidence where a suspect, as in this case, responds to an illegal stop or seizure with nonviolent attempts to keep himself safe.