This case concerns the First Step Act of 2018, in which Congress made major reductions to the mandatory minimum sentences for certain federal drug and firearm offenses. These changes result in sentences many decades shorter than were required under the previous laws. The question in this case was whether people who were initially sentenced prior to enactment of the First Step Act, but whose sentences were vacated and remanded for resentencing after enactment of the law, can benefit from its major reductions in applicable mandatory minimums. For defendants like Mr. Carpenter, who was originally sentenced to a draconian 116 years in prison as a result of the pre-First Step Act mandatory minimums, applying the First Step Act can mean the difference between dying in prison and having the opportunity to eventually go free. Unfortunately, although there is a split among federal courts of appeals on this question, the Supreme Court denied cert in this case in February 2024.

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.

In this case, the Iowa Supreme Court considered when rap lyrics are admissible evidence in criminal trials. The State sought further review of a court of appeals decision which reversed the defendant's criminal convictions and remanded for a trial based on errors in the admission of evidence. Together with the Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project and the ACLU of Iowa, the State Supreme Court Initiative filed an amicus brief arguing that such evidence should usually be excluded because it is rarely probative and yet creates a high risk of prejudice to the defendant. The Iowa Supreme Court ultimately reversed the Court of Appeals decision, but for narrow and fact-specific reasons. And the Iowa Supreme Court acknowledged that, in cases not involving the peculiar facts of Canady's case, other courts had expressed concerns about the risk that a jury will unfairly use rap lyrics and music as evidence of a defendant's guilt.

Mieles v. Ronald McDonald House of the Greater Hudson Valley et al. challenges a discriminatory housing policy that bans individuals with a wide range of convictions from critical housing without consideration of the nature, severity, or recency of the conviction or incident, or an individualized assessment. Such policies unjustly and disproportionately exclude Latine and Black people from housing, in violation of the Federal Housing Act and New York State Human Rights law.