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
New Jersey Supreme Court
Nov 2023
![Usachenok v. State of New Jersey](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Usachenok v. State of New Jersey
The New Jersey Department of Treasury maintains a policy that requires employers investigating workplace discrimination to “request” confidentiality from all witnesses with respect to any information related to the investigation. This case involves whether a confidentiality policy of this kind violates the free speech rights under the New Jersey Constitution of state employees who are witnesses, and whether those rights are broader than the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment free speech right. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative and Women’s Rights Project, along with the ACLU of New Jersey, filed an amicus brief in the New Jersey Supreme Court, urging that court to revive a government employee’s speech claim challenging the confidentiality policy and to interpret the New Jersey Constitution’s speech protection more broadly than federal constitutional law. In April 2024, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in our favor and reversed the judgment of the Appellate Division.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![Usachenok v. State of New Jersey](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
New Jersey Supreme Court
Women's Rights
Free Speech
Usachenok v. State of New Jersey
The New Jersey Department of Treasury maintains a policy that requires employers investigating workplace discrimination to “request” confidentiality from all witnesses with respect to any information related to the investigation. This case involves whether a confidentiality policy of this kind violates the free speech rights under the New Jersey Constitution of state employees who are witnesses, and whether those rights are broader than the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment free speech right. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative and Women’s Rights Project, along with the ACLU of New Jersey, filed an amicus brief in the New Jersey Supreme Court, urging that court to revive a government employee’s speech claim challenging the confidentiality policy and to interpret the New Jersey Constitution’s speech protection more broadly than federal constitutional law. In April 2024, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in our favor and reversed the judgment of the Appellate Division.
Nov 2023
Status: Ongoing
View case
Nevada Supreme Court
Nov 2023
![Cannabis Equity & Inclusion Community v. Nevada Board of Pharmacy](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Cannabis Equity & Inclusion Community v. Nevada Board of Pharmacy
Nevadans, like voters in many states, have chosen to legalize marijuana for medicinal and recreational use. In Nevada, these changes—adopted through citizen ballot initiatives and, in the case of medical marijuana, enshrined in the Nevada Constitution—were intended to ensure that marijuana is regulated much like alcohol and that law enforcement resources are focused on violent crime, not the prosecution of non-violent drug offenses. Despite these legal changes, Nevada’s Board of Pharmacy continues to regulate marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance for purposes of state law, akin to the Board’s treatment of cocaine and fentanyl. The Board’s scheduling designation for marijuana has enormous implications for criminal defendants in Nevada since state law makes it a felony to possess or engage in certain other activity with respect to a Schedule I controlled substance, as designated by the Board.
This case, brought by an individual and organization harmed by the Board’s scheduling designation for marijuana, involves the question whether the designation violates the Nevada Constitution and state statutes. The ACLU of Nevada is counsel in the case, and the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative is co-counsel on appeal.
In August 2024, the Court held that Pool and CEIC lack standing to challenge marijuana's designation as a Schedule I substance but recognized that other individuals could appropriately do so in the future. The Court did not reach the merits in reversing the district court’s positive decision.
Status: Closed
View case
![Cannabis Equity & Inclusion Community v. Nevada Board of Pharmacy](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Nevada Supreme Court
Criminal Law Reform
Smart Justice
Cannabis Equity & Inclusion Community v. Nevada Board of Pharmacy
Nevadans, like voters in many states, have chosen to legalize marijuana for medicinal and recreational use. In Nevada, these changes—adopted through citizen ballot initiatives and, in the case of medical marijuana, enshrined in the Nevada Constitution—were intended to ensure that marijuana is regulated much like alcohol and that law enforcement resources are focused on violent crime, not the prosecution of non-violent drug offenses. Despite these legal changes, Nevada’s Board of Pharmacy continues to regulate marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance for purposes of state law, akin to the Board’s treatment of cocaine and fentanyl. The Board’s scheduling designation for marijuana has enormous implications for criminal defendants in Nevada since state law makes it a felony to possess or engage in certain other activity with respect to a Schedule I controlled substance, as designated by the Board.
This case, brought by an individual and organization harmed by the Board’s scheduling designation for marijuana, involves the question whether the designation violates the Nevada Constitution and state statutes. The ACLU of Nevada is counsel in the case, and the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative is co-counsel on appeal.
In August 2024, the Court held that Pool and CEIC lack standing to challenge marijuana's designation as a Schedule I substance but recognized that other individuals could appropriately do so in the future. The Court did not reach the merits in reversing the district court’s positive decision.
Nov 2023
Status: Closed
View case
Utah Supreme Court
Nov 2023
![Natalie R. v. State of Utah](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Natalie R. v. State of Utah
In recent years, federal courts have relied on what’s called the “political question doctrine” to refuse to review legal claims of wrongdoing, even those involving egregious constitutional harm. Using the political question doctrine, federal courts have turned away claims from people seeking justice on the theory that court review of those claims would embroil the courts in matters best left to the political process. Whether state courts should adopt a parallel political question doctrine—and thus limit access to justice for people whose civil rights and liberties have been violated—is an open question in many states. This case involves the scope of Utah courts’ authority to review important constitutional claims.
View case
![Natalie R. v. State of Utah](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Utah Supreme Court
Prisoners' Rights
Natalie R. v. State of Utah
In recent years, federal courts have relied on what’s called the “political question doctrine” to refuse to review legal claims of wrongdoing, even those involving egregious constitutional harm. Using the political question doctrine, federal courts have turned away claims from people seeking justice on the theory that court review of those claims would embroil the courts in matters best left to the political process. Whether state courts should adopt a parallel political question doctrine—and thus limit access to justice for people whose civil rights and liberties have been violated—is an open question in many states. This case involves the scope of Utah courts’ authority to review important constitutional claims.
Nov 2023
View case
Maine Supreme Court
Nov 2023
![State v. Labbe](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
State v. Labbe
This free-speech case concerns a prosecution for “stalking” based on evidence of a defendant’s speech alone, without any requirement of subjective intent. Freedom of speech is a bedrock protection of both the Maine Constitution and the United States Constitution. This protection requires, at minimum, that a criminal defendant cannot be prosecuted for stalking carried out via speech alone unless the state proves a subjective-intent element beyond a reasonable doubt. This protection ensures that states do not prosecute and punish people for their protected speech. In October 2023, the ACLU and the ACLU of Maine filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, asking the court to vacate a defendant’s stalking conviction that was based on his speech alone, without any evidence as to subjective intent.
Status: Closed
View case
![State v. Labbe](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Maine Supreme Court
Free Speech
State v. Labbe
This free-speech case concerns a prosecution for “stalking” based on evidence of a defendant’s speech alone, without any requirement of subjective intent. Freedom of speech is a bedrock protection of both the Maine Constitution and the United States Constitution. This protection requires, at minimum, that a criminal defendant cannot be prosecuted for stalking carried out via speech alone unless the state proves a subjective-intent element beyond a reasonable doubt. This protection ensures that states do not prosecute and punish people for their protected speech. In October 2023, the ACLU and the ACLU of Maine filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, asking the court to vacate a defendant’s stalking conviction that was based on his speech alone, without any evidence as to subjective intent.
Nov 2023
Status: Closed
View case
Kentucky Supreme Court
Nov 2023
![KY](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/11/Depositphotos_466943004_S-600x400.jpg)
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Graham (Amicus)
State legislatures are responsible for creating state legislative and U.S. congressional districts. In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Rucho v. Common Cause that federal courts have no authority to review claims that states have sorted voters along partisan lines to favor one political party over others. However, challenges to partisan gerrymandering continue in many state courts, and this case involves one such constitutional challenge in Kentucky.
Status: Closed
View case
![KY](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/11/Depositphotos_466943004_S-600x400.jpg)
Kentucky Supreme Court
Voting Rights
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Graham (Amicus)
State legislatures are responsible for creating state legislative and U.S. congressional districts. In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Rucho v. Common Cause that federal courts have no authority to review claims that states have sorted voters along partisan lines to favor one political party over others. However, challenges to partisan gerrymandering continue in many state courts, and this case involves one such constitutional challenge in Kentucky.
Nov 2023
Status: Closed
View case