State Supreme Court
Featured
Tennessee Supreme Court
Apr 2026
Capital Punishment
Tony Von Carruthers v. State of Tennessee
Tennessee plans to execute Tony Carruthers on May 21 even though they refuse to run a simple fingerprint comparison and DNA testing that could prove what Tony has been arguing for 30 years - that he is innocent of this crime and that Tennessee convicted and sentenced the wrong man to death.
All Cases
84 State Supreme Court Cases
Kentucky Supreme Court
Dec 2025
Civil Liberties
Commonwealth v. Davis and Commonwealth v. Kentucky Education Association
This case asks whether Kentucky’s legislature can legally favor some unions by giving them preferential treatment and disfavor others. A recent law does just that: SB 7 prohibits public employers from allowing their employees to use payroll deductions for union dues yet expressly exempts law enforcement and fire protection unions from this prohibition. Two state circuit courts and the Court of Appeals have held that this law violates the Kentucky Constitution’s equal protection guarantee. The State now appeals to the Kentucky Supreme Court. The Court’s decision has important implications for equal protection, free speech, and labor rights in Kentucky.
Explore case
Kentucky Supreme Court
Dec 2025
Civil Liberties
Commonwealth v. Davis and Commonwealth v. Kentucky Education Association
This case asks whether Kentucky’s legislature can legally favor some unions by giving them preferential treatment and disfavor others. A recent law does just that: SB 7 prohibits public employers from allowing their employees to use payroll deductions for union dues yet expressly exempts law enforcement and fire protection unions from this prohibition. Two state circuit courts and the Court of Appeals have held that this law violates the Kentucky Constitution’s equal protection guarantee. The State now appeals to the Kentucky Supreme Court. The Court’s decision has important implications for equal protection, free speech, and labor rights in Kentucky.
Michigan Supreme Court
Dec 2025
Criminal Law Reform
People of the State of Michigan v. Serges
At the core of this case is the question of whether the government can extract and test our DNA without a warrant. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative and Project on Speech, Privacy, and Technology, together with the ACLU of Michigan, filed an amicus brief arguing that, since our DNA contains vast amounts of highly sensitive information about us, DNA testing and extraction constitute a search and therefore require a warrant under both the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, section 11 of the Michigan Constitution. If there were no warrant requirement, as the State urges, police would be able to arrest someone for one offense, even pretextually, and limitlessly test their DNA to investigate unrelated crimes. This would especially impact people from marginalized populations who are most likely to be subject to these police practices.
Explore case
Michigan Supreme Court
Dec 2025
Criminal Law Reform
People of the State of Michigan v. Serges
At the core of this case is the question of whether the government can extract and test our DNA without a warrant. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative and Project on Speech, Privacy, and Technology, together with the ACLU of Michigan, filed an amicus brief arguing that, since our DNA contains vast amounts of highly sensitive information about us, DNA testing and extraction constitute a search and therefore require a warrant under both the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, section 11 of the Michigan Constitution. If there were no warrant requirement, as the State urges, police would be able to arrest someone for one offense, even pretextually, and limitlessly test their DNA to investigate unrelated crimes. This would especially impact people from marginalized populations who are most likely to be subject to these police practices.
Massachusetts Supreme Court
Nov 2025
Criminal Law Reform
Committee for Public Counsel Services v. Middlesex and Suffolk District Courts
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.
Explore case
Massachusetts Supreme Court
Nov 2025
Criminal Law Reform
Committee for Public Counsel Services v. Middlesex and Suffolk District Courts
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.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Nov 2025
Free Speech
Commonwealth v. Johnson
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.
Explore case
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Nov 2025
Free Speech
Commonwealth v. Johnson
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.
Rhode Island Supreme Court
Oct 2025
Civil Liberties
Parente et al. v. Lefebvre et al.
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.
Explore case
Rhode Island Supreme Court
Oct 2025
Civil Liberties
Parente et al. v. Lefebvre et al.
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.