Abdullahi Khalif Noor is a Somali refugee, who was a cab driver living in Seattle when convicted of rape and assault, and sentenced to life imprisonment. He has always maintained his innocence. He challenged his convictions in Washington state courts, arguing that prosecutors had suppressed evidence of his innocence in violation of due process and Brady v. Maryland.   Unsuccessful in the Washington state courts, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. He was again unsuccessful, and sought to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Ordinarily, when a party loses in federal district court they can immediately appeal the decision. But Mr. Noor was barred from doing so because he had not obtained a document Congress has required habeas petitioners receive from federal courts before they can appeal since 1908 — then called a certificate of probable cause, but now called a certificate of appealability (COA).

In Galloway v. Mississippi, the ACLU represents a man on Mississippi’s death row whose trial attorneys relied on a mere twenty-two-page presentation in support of a life sentence, without first conducting the background investigation that would have enabled them to make informed decisions about what evidence to present. A constitutionally adequate investigation would have uncovered voluminous mitigating evidence that could have caused the jury to decide for life instead of death. The Mississippi Supreme Court rejected Mr. Galloway’s claim by speculating that trial counsel had an alternative “strategy” that precluded their doing a full presentation of the abuse he suffered as a child and his mental disabilities—even though Mr. Galloway’s lawyers asserted no such strategic judgment.

This long-running Oklahoma death-penalty case raises two issues:   1) Will the State of Oklahoma be permitted to execute Glossip, despite overwhelming evidence that he is innocent, and despite a confession by the State’s Attorney General that the state obtained his conviction by hiding crucial evidence impeaching its star witness?; and   2) Will the Court reaffirm its longstanding commitment to Due-Process-Clause precedent requiring the government to disclose favorable evidence in its possession to the accused and to correct false testimony introduced against the accused?

If the death penalty is racist, arbitrary and serves no valid penological purpose, does it violate the Kansas Constitution? The ACLU, together with the ACLU of Kansas and law firm Hogan Lovells US LLP, challenged the Kansas death penalty statute under the Kansas Constitution and United States Constitution in the case of Kansas v. Kyle Young. Mr. Young is a Black man who faced a capital trial in Sedgwick County, Kansas. Prosecutors sought a death sentence. The Sedgwick County District Court held an unprecedented evidentiary hearing in February 2023.