This case will determine whether Minnesotans who prove ongoing discrimination by a city government are entitled to a court order blocking that discrimination, or whether Minnesota cities are instead immune from that type of directive. The ACLU’s SSCI and the ACLU of Minnesota filed an amicus brief arguing that cities are not immune from such a court order. But even if they can be, they shouldn’t be considered immune from claims brought under Minnesota’s antidiscrimination statute in light of the statute’s broad purpose and the Minnesota Constitution’s guarantee of a remedy for all injuries and wrongs. The outcome of the case could have serious implications for the enforcement of Minnesota’s civil rights laws.

This case involves a state constitutional challenge to South Carolina’s 2022 congressional redistricting plan, which legislators admit was drawn to entrench a 6-1 Republican majority in the state’s federal delegation. Plaintiff the League of Women Voters of South Carolina has asked the state’s Supreme Court to conclude that the congressional map is an unlawful partisan gerrymander that violates the state constitution.

The Minnesota Supreme Court is poised to decide whether there are any circumstances in which someone subjected to an unconstitutional traffic stop can suppress evidence that he temporarily avoided the police when they initiated the unconstitutional stop. The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that evidence of even temporary “flight” can never be suppressed—even when someone simply delays acquiescing to an unconstitutional traffic stop—on the theory that fleeing from the police is a crime. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Minnesota and the law firm Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, filed an amicus brief arguing that Article I, Sections 8 and 10 of the Minnesota Constitution—which guarantee Minnesotans remedies for constitutional violations and protect them from unreasonable searches and seizures—require a broad application of the exclusionary rule. Accordingly, we argue that the Court should use a flexible, multi-factor test that can allow for suppression of evidence where a suspect, as in this case, responds to an illegal stop or seizure with nonviolent attempts to keep himself safe.

This case presents the question whether Oregonians retain a state constitutional privacy interest in their medical records, even when those records are held by health care providers. It could have important implications for patients who obtain abortions, gender-affirming care, and other health care that might be targeted by local or out-of-state law enforcement.