This case concerns whether prosecutors can admit evidence that a person exercised their right to decide whether to terminate their pregnancy as proof of intent for murder. Here, the prosecution’s use of this evidence at Moira Akers’ trial denied her due process, resulting in an unjust conviction and a 30-year prison term. The ACLU’s Abortion Criminal Defense Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Maryland, filed an amicus brief arguing that allowing admission of this evidence not only violated Ms. Akers’ rights but chills the right of all Marylanders to freely decide whether to continue or end their pregnancies. The Maryland Supreme Court issued a ruling on February 19th, 2025 overturning Moira Akers’ conviction on the grounds of inadmissible evidence.

This case in the Tennessee Supreme Court asks whether the right to petition is an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Tennessee, filed an amicus brief focused on the scope and importance of the right to petition under the Tennessee Constitution.

This case in the Iowa Supreme Court asked whether a city ordinance that mandates rental inspections every five years, irrespective of whether a tenant consents to the inspection and in the absence of individualized probable cause, violates the state constitution. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative assisted the ACLU of Iowa in filing an amicus brief to argue that tenants have a right under the Iowa Constitution to be free from non-consensual searches of their rented homes, absent a showing of individualized probable cause. The court ultimately held that the plaintiffs had raised only a facial challenge to the ordinance, and because the ordinance could operate without violating the Iowa Constitution in at least some circumstances, the challenge failed. The court's decision does not foreclose future challenges on an as-applied basis where the plaintiffs' claims are ripe for review.

In 2020, in Held v. Montana, sixteen youth plaintiffs challenged Montana’s energy policy as violating the Montana Constitution. After several years of litigation, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed that Montanans have a constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment. In January 2026, Montana youth filed a second case, Held II, to enforce the Court’s decision after the Legislature enacted new laws that the plaintiffs contend undermine the constitutional protections recognized in the Court’s earlier decision and permit continued approval of fossil fuel projects that worsen climate harms. The State moved to transfer Held II to a different district under SB 97, a law that gives the government a special right to forum shop in cases challenging new laws and makes it significantly harder for Montanans to pursue such challenges. SB 97 thus raises serious access-to-justice concerns in this case and any others in which people are seeking relief from allegedly unconstitutional laws.