This case in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concerns the admissibility of a fourteen-year-old defendant’s confession following a Texas Ranger’s coercive interrogation. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Texas, filed an amicus brief arguing that the defendant’s confession was induced by positive promises, and is inadmissible, particularly given his juvenile status and the circumstances of the interrogation.

This case pending before the Montana Supreme Court asks, among other things, whether the claims of sixteen youth plaintiffs challenging Montana energy policy present a political question under the Montana Constitution. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Montana, filed an amicus brief arguing that the claims do not present a political question and, moreover, that state courts should not wholesale adopt the federal political questions doctrine.

This case in the Tennessee Supreme Court asks whether the right to petition is an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Tennessee, filed an amicus brief focused on the scope and importance of the right to petition under the Tennessee Constitution.

This case in the Iowa Supreme Court asks whether a city ordinance that mandates rental inspections every five years, irrespective of whether a tenant consents to the inspection and in the absence of individualized probable cause, violates the state constitution. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative assisted the ACLU of Iowa in filing an amicus brief to argue that tenants have a right under the Iowa Constitution to be free from non-consensual searches of their rented homes, absent a showing of individualized probable cause. The case remains pending.

This case in the Mississippi Supreme Court is a post-conviction appeal of a pro se defendant, Mr. Soweto Love, who argued that his guilty plea was not entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Mississippi, filed an amicus brief arguing that the law is on Mr. Love’s side, but urging the Court to exercise its discretion to inform Mr. Love that a win could resuscitate his charge and expose him to longer sentences. Consistent with the ACLU amicus brief, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that the trial court had plainly erred by misinforming Mr. Love that his applicable mandatory minimum was one year of imprisonment on each count to which he had pled guilty, when in in fact the mandatory minimum sentence was five years’ imprisonment on each count. The Court remanded Mr. Love’s case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing.