State Supreme Court
Featured
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Sep 2024
![A worker processes mail-in ballots.](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2020/07/WEB20-Processing-Mail-In-Ballots-WordPress-1110x740-1-600x400.jpg)
Black Political Empowerment Project v. Schmidt
A statewide coalition of nonpartisan community organizations sued Pennsylvania Secretary of State Al Schmidt and election officials in Philadelphia and Allegheny County state court, demanding an end to the disqualification of mail-in ballots for inconsequential date errors. This practice violates the fundamental right to vote in free and equal elections guaranteed by the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Status: Ongoing
View case
Minnesota Supreme Court
Aug 2024
![Minnesota](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/04/Minnesota.jpg)
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Hunt
The ACLU and ACLU of Minnesota intervened as defendants to block an attempt by Minnesota Voters Alliance -- a private plaintiff group -- to challenge a law that restored voting rights to individuals convicted of a felony while they are "not incarcerated for the offense" and "including any period when they are on work release."
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
South Carolina Supreme Court
Jul 2024
![South CArolina Supreme](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/07/GQStblrWIAAVtQW-600x315.jpg)
League of Women Voters of South Carolina v. Alexander
This case involves a state constitutional challenge to South Carolina’s 2022 congressional redistricting plan, which legislators admit was drawn to entrench a 6-1 Republican majority in the state’s federal delegation. Plaintiff the League of Women Voters of South Carolina has asked the state’s Supreme Court to conclude that the congressional map is an unlawful partisan gerrymander that violates the state constitution.
Status: Ongoing
View case
Stay informed about our latest work in the courts.
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU's privacy statement.
All Cases
41 State Supreme Court Cases
Oregon Supreme Court
Sep 2024
![Huskey v. Oregon Department of Corrections](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Huskey v. Oregon Department of Corrections
This case in the Oregon Supreme Court centers on whether Article I, Section 41(3) of the Oregon Constitution, which provides that Oregon prisoners lack legally enforceable rights to prison jobs and training, bars prisoners from collecting damages relating to lost prison jobs and training caused by the alleged breach of a settlement agreement by prison officials. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Oregon, filed an amicus brief arguing that that plaintiff Arnold Huskey, an incarcerated individual whose identity was used in Department of Corrections training materials, is entitled to damages notwithstanding Article I, Section 41(3), because plaintiffs in contract disputes never have to show standalone legal rights to the damages they claim. Instead, they need only show that the damages were reasonably foreseeable consequences of the alleged breach of contract.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![Huskey v. Oregon Department of Corrections](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Oregon Supreme Court
Prisoners' Rights
Huskey v. Oregon Department of Corrections
This case in the Oregon Supreme Court centers on whether Article I, Section 41(3) of the Oregon Constitution, which provides that Oregon prisoners lack legally enforceable rights to prison jobs and training, bars prisoners from collecting damages relating to lost prison jobs and training caused by the alleged breach of a settlement agreement by prison officials. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Oregon, filed an amicus brief arguing that that plaintiff Arnold Huskey, an incarcerated individual whose identity was used in Department of Corrections training materials, is entitled to damages notwithstanding Article I, Section 41(3), because plaintiffs in contract disputes never have to show standalone legal rights to the damages they claim. Instead, they need only show that the damages were reasonably foreseeable consequences of the alleged breach of contract.
Sep 2024
Status: Ongoing
View case
Indiana Supreme Court
Sep 2024
![J.F. v. St. Vincent Hospital](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
J.F. v. St. Vincent Hospital
This case in the Indiana Supreme Court concerns whether a case is moot when someone is released from a civil commitment while appealing the commitment order. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Indiana, filed an amicus brief arguing that the appellant’s case is not moot, despite her release from civil commitment, because the Indiana Constitution favors adjudicating appeals by people whose liberty has been curtailed, because it meets a traditional mootness exception for cases that at capable of repetition yet evading review, and because it also meets Indiana’s public interest exception to mootness.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![J.F. v. St. Vincent Hospital](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Indiana Supreme Court
Civil Liberties
J.F. v. St. Vincent Hospital
This case in the Indiana Supreme Court concerns whether a case is moot when someone is released from a civil commitment while appealing the commitment order. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Indiana, filed an amicus brief arguing that the appellant’s case is not moot, despite her release from civil commitment, because the Indiana Constitution favors adjudicating appeals by people whose liberty has been curtailed, because it meets a traditional mootness exception for cases that at capable of repetition yet evading review, and because it also meets Indiana’s public interest exception to mootness.
Sep 2024
Status: Ongoing
View case
Ohio Supreme Court
Sep 2024
![State v. Morris](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
State v. Morris
This case in the Ohio Supreme Court concerns the scope of the state constitutional right to counsel. The police in this case interrogated the defendant, Isaiah Morris, without mentioning his already-appointed counsel or asking him to waive his right to counsel. This procedural circumstance risks confusing criminal defendants and undermining their state constitutional rights. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Ohio and WilmerHale, filed an amicus brief arguing that merely providing a defendant notice of Miranda rights falls short of the bare minimum requirements for a valid waiver.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![State v. Morris](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Ohio Supreme Court
Prisoners' Rights
State v. Morris
This case in the Ohio Supreme Court concerns the scope of the state constitutional right to counsel. The police in this case interrogated the defendant, Isaiah Morris, without mentioning his already-appointed counsel or asking him to waive his right to counsel. This procedural circumstance risks confusing criminal defendants and undermining their state constitutional rights. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Ohio and WilmerHale, filed an amicus brief arguing that merely providing a defendant notice of Miranda rights falls short of the bare minimum requirements for a valid waiver.
Sep 2024
Status: Ongoing
View case
Kansas Supreme Court
Aug 2024
![Kansas v. Harper](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Kansas v. Harper
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.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![Kansas v. Harper](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Kansas Supreme Court
LGBTQ Rights
Kansas v. Harper
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.
Aug 2024
Status: Ongoing
View case
Colorado Supreme Court
Aug 2024
![Weld County](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/08/Weld-County-Commissioner-District-Map-March-2024-1-600x524.jpg)
League of Women Voters of Greeley, Weld County v. Board of County Commissioners of Weld County (Amicus)
When drawing its new maps, the Weld County Board of County Commissioners violated Colorado law imposing specific requirements meant to guarantee that county commission districts are drawn transparently and fairly, such that voters are empowered to elect responsive and accountable commissioners. A Colorado district court granted summary judgment to voter plaintiffs who challenged the maps, but the Board appealed the decision, arguing in part that voters lacked standing and a right of action to challenge the unlawful districts.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![Weld County](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/08/Weld-County-Commissioner-District-Map-March-2024-1-600x524.jpg)
Colorado Supreme Court
Voting Rights
League of Women Voters of Greeley, Weld County v. Board of County Commissioners of Weld County (Amicus)
When drawing its new maps, the Weld County Board of County Commissioners violated Colorado law imposing specific requirements meant to guarantee that county commission districts are drawn transparently and fairly, such that voters are empowered to elect responsive and accountable commissioners. A Colorado district court granted summary judgment to voter plaintiffs who challenged the maps, but the Board appealed the decision, arguing in part that voters lacked standing and a right of action to challenge the unlawful districts.
Aug 2024
Status: Ongoing
View case