In recent years, federal courts have relied on what’s called the “political question doctrine” to refuse to review legal claims of wrongdoing, even those involving egregious constitutional harm. Using the political question doctrine, federal courts have turned away claims from people seeking justice on the theory that court review of those claims would embroil the courts in matters best left to the political process. Whether state courts should adopt a parallel political question doctrine—and thus limit access to justice for people whose civil rights and liberties have been violated—is an open question in many states. This case involves the scope of Utah courts’ authority to review important constitutional claims.

This free-speech case concerns a prosecution for “stalking” based on evidence of a defendant’s speech alone, without any requirement of subjective intent. Freedom of speech is a bedrock protection of both the Maine Constitution and the United States Constitution. This protection requires, at minimum, that a criminal defendant cannot be prosecuted for stalking carried out via speech alone unless the state proves a subjective-intent element beyond a reasonable doubt. This protection ensures that states do not prosecute and punish people for their protected speech. In October 2023, the ACLU and the ACLU of Maine filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, asking the court to vacate a defendant’s stalking conviction that was based on his speech alone, without any evidence as to subjective intent.

Hundreds if not thousands of Salt Lake City, Utah, residents have nowhere safe to stay and must live and sleep in public. This case—brought by a small group of residents and businesses—involves the question whether this citywide homelessness crisis constitutes a nuisance under Utah state law. It also presents the question whether Salt Lake City can be ordered to clear encampments, forcibly relocate people who are unhoused, and enforce vague and overbroad laws criminalizing homelessness where doing so will likely, if not certainly, violate unhoused people’s state and federal constitutional rights. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative and Trone Center for Justice and Equality, along with the ACLU of Utah and the Salt Lake Legal Defenders Association, represent amici curiae in the trial court who oppose the plaintiffs’ nuisance claims and their request for relief.

On September 8, 2023, the ACLU, the ACLU of Michigan, and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy filed an amicus brief in the Michigan Supreme Court arguing that the local government deploying an unmanned drone to take aerial photographs of the appellant’s property violated the Fourth Amendment.