This case asks whether Alabama law enforcement officers can demand physical ID when enforcing an Alabama that allows them to “Stop and Question” people they reasonably suspect of criminal activity. Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has already held that Alabama’s stop-and-question law does not authorize officers to demand physical ID, a federal district court in Alabama certified a question to the Alabama Supreme Court effectively asking the Court to reject that interpretation. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the Cato Institute, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Woods Foundation, and Kaplan Legal Services, filed an amicus brief urging the Alabama Supreme Court to agree with the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling. Our brief argues that the plain meaning of the stop-and-question law—given its title, its text, and the overall structure of the Alabama Code—rules out the possibility that it authorizes demands for physical documents. We also point out that interpreting the stop-and-question law to authorize document demands would render the law unconstitutional under both the U.S. and Alabama Constitutions.

This case challenges the federal government’s authority to remove people from their homes, jobs, and loved ones and remand them to federal prison absent any alleged violation or process.

This case asks whether a 12-year-old boy was in custody and entitled to Miranda warnings during a closed-door police interrogation by a school resource officer in the school building. The court of appeals held that he was not in custody, not entitled to Miranda warnings, and voluntarily incriminated himself. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative and the ACLU of Wisconsin filed an amicus brief arguing that admitting the boy’s statements into evidence not only violated the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution but Article I, Section 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution, and urging the Wisconsin Supreme Court to rest its decision on the state charter to better protect Wisconsinites’ civil liberties.

This case asks whether it violates equal protection principles to impose a prison sentence, instead of probation, based on a defendant’s inability to purchase a house. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative and the ACLU of Iowa filed an amicus brief arguing that imposing a harsher sentence based on a criminal defendant’s inability to purchase a home impinges on the equal protection guarantees in the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and article I, sections 1 and 6 of the Iowa Constitution.