Press Releases

The ACLU is at the Supreme Court for oral arguments in West Virginia v. B.P.J. Follow live coverage of the fight to defend trans kids.

Self-serving legal justification for data purchases is among documents obtained via FOIA

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.