Supreme Court Term 2025-2026

Nevadans, like voters in many states, have chosen to legalize marijuana for medicinal and recreational use. In Nevada, these changes—adopted through citizen ballot initiatives and, in the case of medical marijuana, enshrined in the Nevada Constitution—were intended to ensure that marijuana is regulated much like alcohol and that law enforcement resources are focused on violent crime, not the prosecution of non-violent drug offenses. Despite these legal changes, Nevada’s Board of Pharmacy continues to regulate marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance for purposes of state law, akin to the Board’s treatment of cocaine and fentanyl. The Board’s scheduling designation for marijuana has enormous implications for criminal defendants in Nevada since state law makes it a felony to possess or engage in certain other activity with respect to a Schedule I controlled substance, as designated by the Board. This case, brought by an individual and organization harmed by the Board’s scheduling designation for marijuana, involves the question whether the designation violates the Nevada Constitution and state statutes. The ACLU of Nevada is counsel in the case, and the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative is co-counsel on appeal. In August 2024, the Court held that Pool and CEIC lack standing to challenge marijuana's designation as a Schedule I substance but recognized that other individuals could appropriately do so in the future. The Court did not reach the merits in reversing the district court’s positive decision.

In recent years, federal courts have relied on what’s called the “political question doctrine” to refuse to review legal claims of wrongdoing, even those involving egregious constitutional harm. Using the political question doctrine, federal courts have turned away claims from people seeking justice on the theory that court review of those claims would embroil the courts in matters best left to the political process. Whether state courts should adopt a parallel political question doctrine—and thus limit access to justice for people whose civil rights and liberties have been violated—is an open question in many states. This case involves the scope of Utah courts’ authority to review important constitutional claims.

This free-speech case concerns a prosecution for “stalking” based on evidence of a defendant’s speech alone, without any requirement of subjective intent. Freedom of speech is a bedrock protection of both the Maine Constitution and the United States Constitution. This protection requires, at minimum, that a criminal defendant cannot be prosecuted for stalking carried out via speech alone unless the state proves a subjective-intent element beyond a reasonable doubt. This protection ensures that states do not prosecute and punish people for their protected speech. In October 2023, the ACLU and the ACLU of Maine filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, asking the court to vacate a defendant’s stalking conviction that was based on his speech alone, without any evidence as to subjective intent.

In September 2023, the ACLU, the ACLU of Colorado, The Boston University Center for Antiracist Research, the law firm Mintz Levin, and other partners filed an amicus brief with the Colorado Supreme Court arguing that mandatory life-without-parole (LWOP) sentences for strict liability felony murder are “cruel and unusual” in violation of the Colorado and U.S. Constitutions. The brief focuses on how these mandatory LWOP sentences drive racial injustice.