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
Massachusetts Supreme Court
Dec 2023
![Graham v. Hampden County District Attorney](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Graham v. Hampden County District Attorney
Federal and state constitutional law requires prosecutors to inquire into and disclose misconduct by members of their prosecution teams. In Massachusetts, the Supreme Judicial Court has applied those principles, and others, in cases that have led to the mass exoneration of people convicted of drug crimes with the assistance of former state chemists who committed misconduct. In Graham, the ACLU and public defenders are asking the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to apply those same principles to a situation where the U.S. Department of Justice has alleged a pattern or practice of misconduct by members of a police department—specifically, the Narcotics Bureau of the Springfield (MA) Police Department. The Springfield investigation was the DOJ’s sole pattern-or-practice investigation during the Trump Administration, but the DOJ has opened several such investigations during the Biden Administration. Graham appears to be the first state supreme court case in the country to consider whether DOJ pattern-or-practice findings can trigger duties under state law to investigate and disclose the misconduct alleged by the DOJ. In a major victory, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in January 2024 that the Hampden County District Attorney’s Office violated its duties to disclose and inquire about exculpatory evidence of widespread misconduct by Springfield police.
Status: Closed
View case
![Graham v. Hampden County District Attorney](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Massachusetts Supreme Court
Capital Punishment
Graham v. Hampden County District Attorney
Federal and state constitutional law requires prosecutors to inquire into and disclose misconduct by members of their prosecution teams. In Massachusetts, the Supreme Judicial Court has applied those principles, and others, in cases that have led to the mass exoneration of people convicted of drug crimes with the assistance of former state chemists who committed misconduct. In Graham, the ACLU and public defenders are asking the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to apply those same principles to a situation where the U.S. Department of Justice has alleged a pattern or practice of misconduct by members of a police department—specifically, the Narcotics Bureau of the Springfield (MA) Police Department. The Springfield investigation was the DOJ’s sole pattern-or-practice investigation during the Trump Administration, but the DOJ has opened several such investigations during the Biden Administration. Graham appears to be the first state supreme court case in the country to consider whether DOJ pattern-or-practice findings can trigger duties under state law to investigate and disclose the misconduct alleged by the DOJ. In a major victory, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in January 2024 that the Hampden County District Attorney’s Office violated its duties to disclose and inquire about exculpatory evidence of widespread misconduct by Springfield police.
Dec 2023
Status: Closed
View case
New Hampshire Supreme Court
Dec 2023
![nh](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/03/new-hampshire-600x400.jpg)
Brown v. Secretary of State (Amicus)
This case involved a state constitutional challenge to New Hampshire’s 2022 statewide Executive Council redistricting plan, which bore the hallmarks of a stark partisan gerrymander. The ACLU and the ACLU of New Hampshire filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge to the map in the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
![nh](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/03/new-hampshire-600x400.jpg)
New Hampshire Supreme Court
Voting Rights
Brown v. Secretary of State (Amicus)
This case involved a state constitutional challenge to New Hampshire’s 2022 statewide Executive Council redistricting plan, which bore the hallmarks of a stark partisan gerrymander. The ACLU and the ACLU of New Hampshire filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge to the map in the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
Dec 2023
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
Massachusetts Supreme Court
Nov 2023
![Image of a cell-phone displaying location information on a map.](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/09/blog-geolocation-500x280.jpg)
Commonwealth v. Arrington
In this amicus brief, the ACLU and its coalition partners urged robust application of the legal standard governing the admissibility of expert testimony and technical evidence, especially in cases involving opaque or proprietary algorithms.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![Image of a cell-phone displaying location information on a map.](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2019/09/blog-geolocation-500x280.jpg)
Massachusetts Supreme Court
Criminal Law Reform
+2 Issues
Commonwealth v. Arrington
In this amicus brief, the ACLU and its coalition partners urged robust application of the legal standard governing the admissibility of expert testimony and technical evidence, especially in cases involving opaque or proprietary algorithms.
Nov 2023
Status: Ongoing
View case
Ohio Supreme Court
Nov 2023
![ohio](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2021/12/Ohio-600x400.jpg)
League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Commission (State House and Senate Challenge)
The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Ohio, and Covington & Burling LLP filed a lawsuit on Sept. 23, 2021, in Ohio Supreme Court challenging Ohio’s newly drawn maps for state House and Senate districts that give extreme and unfair advantage to the Republican Party.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
![ohio](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2021/12/Ohio-600x400.jpg)
Ohio Supreme Court
Voting Rights
League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Commission (State House and Senate Challenge)
The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Ohio, and Covington & Burling LLP filed a lawsuit on Sept. 23, 2021, in Ohio Supreme Court challenging Ohio’s newly drawn maps for state House and Senate districts that give extreme and unfair advantage to the Republican Party.
Nov 2023
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
Ohio Supreme Court
Nov 2023
![Icon on a hand dropping ballot in ballot box](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2022/08/BallotBox-300x300-copy.png)
State of Ohio v. Urbanek (Amicus)
Mr. Edward Urbanek’s conviction is inconsistent with federal voting rights. Specifically, the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) requires that states allow a voter to complete a provisional ballot when their registration status or eligibility cannot be verified immediately. Under the Ohio courts' interpretation, any voter who completes a provisional ballot and is ultimately found ineligible is “attempting” to vote unlawfully. That interpretation would defeat the purpose of HAVA and provisional ballots.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
![Icon on a hand dropping ballot in ballot box](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2022/08/BallotBox-300x300-copy.png)
Ohio Supreme Court
Voting Rights
State of Ohio v. Urbanek (Amicus)
Mr. Edward Urbanek’s conviction is inconsistent with federal voting rights. Specifically, the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) requires that states allow a voter to complete a provisional ballot when their registration status or eligibility cannot be verified immediately. Under the Ohio courts' interpretation, any voter who completes a provisional ballot and is ultimately found ineligible is “attempting” to vote unlawfully. That interpretation would defeat the purpose of HAVA and provisional ballots.
Nov 2023
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case