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.

In October 2022, the Biden administration confirmed the existence of the White House’s latest set of policy rules governing the United States’ use of lethal force outside of recognized battlefields abroad. These new rules are known as the “Presidential Policy Memorandum (PPM).” The administration made the partially-redacted PPM public in response to the latest in a series of ACLU lawsuits to force transparency about the U.S. government’s secretive, unlawful, and controversial use of lethal force abroad, including through the use of drones.

Hundreds if not thousands of Salt Lake City, Utah, residents have nowhere safe to stay and must live and sleep in public. This case—brought by a small group of residents and businesses—involves the question whether this citywide homelessness crisis constitutes a nuisance under Utah state law. It also presents the question whether Salt Lake City can be ordered to clear encampments, forcibly relocate people who are unhoused, and enforce vague and overbroad laws criminalizing homelessness where doing so will likely, if not certainly, violate unhoused people’s state and federal constitutional rights. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative and Trone Center for Justice and Equality, along with the ACLU of Utah and the Salt Lake Legal Defenders Association, represent amici curiae in the trial court who oppose the plaintiffs’ nuisance claims and their request for relief.

Ashker is a multi-year legal and advocacy struggle led by directly-impacted people to reform California’s use of solitary confinement and end its systemic reliance on fabricated confidential information to discipline people in prison.

Whether a damages remedy should be available when a federal agent violated the plaintiff’s First and Fourth Amendment rights by entering private property without a warrant, throwing the plaintiff to the ground without justification, and then retaliated against him for exercising his right to seek redress from the government.