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.

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.

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.