For more than two decades, criminal defendants in Massachusetts have experienced a recurring counsel crisis, with defendants periodically going unrepresented due to low attorney compensation rates. Despite many opportunities, the Legislature has failed to raise rates high enough to remedy the constitutional violation. At present, the compensation rate for district court cases is $75 per hour. Consequently, in a case brought by the Committee for Public Counsel Services—the Massachusetts public defender agency—the ACLU of Massachusetts and the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative filed an amicus brief urging the Court to hold that the statute setting attorney compensation rates is unconstitutional. This case has important implications for the right to counsel and access to justice in Massachusetts.

This case presents the question whether a person can be convicted of disorderly conduct for speech that the state deems “obscene” but that does not actually qualify as unprotected obscenity under the First Amendment. The outcome of this case could have serious implications for free speech and the rights of criminal defendants in Pennsylvania, where law enforcement frequently misuses the disorderly conduct statute to punish constitutionally protected speech.

This case asks whether state officials in Rhode Island can be held liable for their discriminatory acts under the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act (RICRA), a state anti-discrimination law. The State of Rhode Island asserts that it has sovereign immunity as to claims brought under the RICRA and therefore cannot be sued for damages for violating that law. The State Supreme Court Initiative and the ACLU of Rhode Island filed an amicus brief arguing that the State is wrong: discrimination claims under the RICRA are covered by the State Tort Claims Act’s broad waiver of state sovereign immunity for “all actions of torts.” Thus, state officials may be held liable when they engage in discrimination prohibited by the RICRA, allowing harmed Rhode Islanders to seek redress.

This case asks whether the trial record, without more, demonstrates that a defendant’s constitutional right to adequate legal representation has been violated, where the record reveals that the defendant’s attorney never sought to suppress the only incriminating evidence that the State had against them. The ACLU’s SSCI and the ACLU of Utah filed an amicus brief arguing that the defendant's trial counsel in this case was indeed ineffective and that holding otherwise would undermine the right to effective assistance of counsel.