This case raises the question whether New Mexico courts should retire their current, federal-centric approach to interpreting the New Mexico Constitution—a method known as the “interstitial approach”—and embrace an independent approach that would allow them to more readily diverge from federal courts in light of New Mexico’s own law, history, and values. The Court’s decision could have major implications for New Mexicans’ ability to vindicate their state constitutional rights.

This case asks whether government officials who intentionally violate the law are immune from damages suits under a state statute governing such suits, and if so, whether the statute itself violates the Open Courts Clause of the Utah Constitution. Utah’s Open Courts Clause, like similar provisions in thirty-nine other states across the country, protects an individual’s right to seek judicial remedies for wrongs committed against them. It therefore serves as an important tool that does not exist in the U.S. Constitution to hold government actors accountable.

This case asks whether the stop, search, and arrest of an individual after a traffic stop was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The case arises from a remarkable set of facts: although motivated by a desire to search Mr. Arias’s car for drugs, the police initiated the stop based on a day-old alleged traffic infraction and then arrested Mr. Arias for allegedly neglecting to stop his car immediately when the police initiated the stop. The ACLU joined an amicus brief authored by the ACLU of Massachusetts and the law firm Proskauer Rose, which argues that the police actions in this case were unconstitutional for three reasons. First, pretextual traffic stops, such as this one, violate the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Second, arrests for misdemeanors not involving breaches of the peace also violate the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Third, the statute prohibiting drivers from neglecting to stop is unconstitutionally vague as applied to this case.

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.