This case asks whether an online business review constitutes speech about “a matter of public concern” that warrants protection under Minnesota’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act. We argue that it does because such reviews typically seek to inform the public and help consumers select goods and services. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the statutory and constitutional speech rights of Minnesotans, including consumers and other individuals who may face the threat of defamation suits for expressing their views in public.

This case concerns the constitutionality of a highly intrusive law enforcement practice: the use of geofence warrants. Geofence warrants compel tech companies like Google to provide to law enforcement location data from every cell phone likely to have been within a certain area during a given time window. Then, law enforcement officers decide for themselves which users to focus on, and demand additional location information—and eventually identifying information—for the users they select. Geofence warrants raise grave constitutional concerns, including that (1) they authorize dragnet searches that sweep up the private data of many people without probable cause to believe that all or any of them were involved in any crime, and (2) they allow law enforcement officers to decide which users to focus on for additional data collection without judicial oversight. This case therefore has significant implications for Texans’ ability to secure their digital privacy and property against unjustified government intrusion.

This case asks whether Michigan should adopt an approach to state constitutional interpretation that prioritizes Michigan sources and does not automatically require reference to parallel federal provisions or interpretations. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the constitutional rights of Michiganders because an interpretation of the Michigan Constitution untethered from federal precedent provides an independent, and potentially more expansive, layer of security for individual rights.

Five transgender Kansans are challenging an effort by Kansas Attorney General Kobach to require the state to issue driver’s licenses with a gender marker that reveals their sex assigned at birth. The Attorney General is asking a state court to apply a new state law that defines “sex” to functionally erase the existence of transgender people under the law.