State Attorney General Rejects Wakefield Ban on Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers

This case asks whether Georgia’s insanity defense statutes can be construed to contain an exception for cases where defendants allegedly triggered their own insanity by discontinuing their medication weeks before the alleged crimes. The State argues for such an exception, even though the text of the insanity defense statutes expressly pins the availability of the defenses to the defendant’s mental condition “at the time of” the alleged crimes. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Georgia, filed an amicus brief arguing that even if the State’s interpretation of the statutory text were reasonable, its argument should still be rejected because it contradicts the rule of lenity. The rule of lenity is a well-established canon of statutory construction requiring that, if a criminal statute can reasonably be interpreted in different ways, courts must adopt the interpretation most favorable to the accused.

This case asks whether the state can arrest, charge, and convict someone under Montana’s obstruction statute for exercising their federal and state constitutional right to record police officers in public spaces. The defendant was filming a traffic stop when police instructed him to move farther away. When he did not move as far as they wanted, they arrested him for obstructing a peace officer. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Montana, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant arguing that the officer’s refusal to allow the defendant to peacefully record police activity from a public sidewalk was, in effect, a content-based restriction on speech that could not be justified under strict scrutiny. Even if the restriction was not content-based, our brief argues that it is not a reasonable time place or manner restriction.

ANNAPOLIS, Md. – The Maryland Supreme Court issued a ruling this week in the case Moira Akers v. State, overturning Moira Akers’ conviction on the grounds of inadmissible evidence. Moira suffered a traumatic stillbirth only to be charged with murder and sentenced to 30 years in prison. Despite the fact that abortion is legal in Maryland, prosecutors used her internet search history, in which she researched pregnancy termination options, and lack of prenatal care as evidence that she intended to commit a crime. By effectively criminalizing Moira’s ability to even contemplate an abortion, prosecutors undermined state law guaranteeing her right to make her own reproductive decisions. The court found that this improperly admitted evidence was irrelevant as a matter of law because Moira’s consideration of abortion and lack of prenatal care bore no logical connection to whether she would cause harm to a person. Accordingly, the court reversed Moira’s convictions. Statement from David Rocah, senior staff attorney, ACLU of Maryland: “The Maryland Supreme Court’s ruling overturning this wrongful conviction and striking evidence of Moira’s attempt to inform herself about her options during her pregnancy is a victory for both Moira Akers and the people of Maryland, who affirmed the state constitutional right to an abortion at the ballot box just last year. This ruling should serve as a cautionary tale that even states that safeguard abortion are not immune to unjust prosecutorial threats.” Statement from Lauren Johnson, director of the Abortion Criminal Defense Initiative at the American Civil Liberties Union: “We’re glad the court set this important precedent for abortion rights in Maryland and reversed Moira’s conviction. It was the right decision, though Moira should have never been put in this position by the state. This ruling should serve as a reminder that even states that have safeguarded abortion are not immune to unjust prosecutorial threats. It’s crucial that we stay vigilant. We must continue to fight back against the harm that the state inflicts against pregnant people. The ACLU remains committed to fighting for reproductive freedom across our country.”

PHOENIX – The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Arizona, Prison Law Office, and Disability Rights Arizona asked a federal judge today to appoint a receiver to take over the management of healthcare in Arizona prisons. The request was made in a long-running class action lawsuit originally filed in 2012 on behalf of the nearly 30,000 people incarcerated by the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry (ADCRR). The receiver, an independent authority appointed by the court, would assume control of ADCRR’s medical and mental health care systems and ensure that they meet constitutional standards. The request for receivership follows years of well-documented systemic healthcare failures in Arizona’s prisons, despite multiple court orders and over a decade of litigation. In April 2023, U.S. District Judge Roslyn O. Silver issued a sweeping order acknowledging the failure to provide constitutionally adequate medical care and requiring ADCRR to make substantial changes. Since then, independent experts appointed by Judge Silver have issued multiple reports detailing ADCRR’s failure to comply with the court’s orders or to take necessary actions to remedy the systemic failures, resulting in preventable deaths, permanent injuries, and needless suffering. Corene Kendrick, deputy director at the ACLU’s National Prison Project, had the following statement: “Nearly two years after Judge Silver ordered Arizona officials to make comprehensive improvements to prison medical and mental health care, and over a decade after we filed this case, the state and its for-profit health care vendors have failed to address the avoidable suffering and deaths in their prisons. Appointing a receiver is a rare step reserved for the most extreme situations, but here we are. The stakes are life and death for the people in Arizona prisons not receiving the care they desperately need.” Below are additional statements from: Rita Lomio, senior staff attorney at the Prison Law Office: “Judge Silver has described the financial cost of this litigation as ‘astronomical.’ The cost in terms of human suffering and preventable death is incalculable. Federal judges have used almost every tool at their disposal to address the crisis in the Arizona state prisons over the last decade, including millions of dollars in contempt fines, enforcement orders, and appointment of experts. Nothing has worked. The only remaining option with any realistic chance of success is receivership. A receiver can build systems, efficiencies, and competence, with the goal of transferring authority back to the State as soon as possible and finally ending this case.” Maya Abela, deputy legal director at Disability Rights Arizona: “For too long people in ADCRR have been placed at risk of serious harm and death because of the lack of appropriate mental health and medical care. People with disabilities are dying. These conditions must come to an end. The injunction must be implemented so that class members can obtain the relief the court has ordered, and at this stage it is abundantly clear that the action needed to advance this goal is appointment of a receiver.”