In The Courts

Shelby County (Memphis), Tennessee, historically set cash bail in criminal cases without stopping to ask whether people would be able to bail out. This practice unnecessarily detained people who could not afford to pay for release, but who would otherwise return to court and live peacefully in their communities. The ACLU Criminal Law Reform Project negotiated a historic settlement with Shelby County to end this practice. In retaliation, the Tennessee legislature passed HB 1719, which prohibits judges from considering an arrestee’s ability to pay when setting bail. This law is unprecedented. Our lawsuit seeks to enjoin Shelby County officials from enforcing it.

This case in the New York Court of Appeals (the highest New York state court) asks whether a government agency can conceal guidance that it issues to judges on how to apply the law in adjudicating cases. A few years ago, news reporting brought to light that a New York administrative agency has a practice of issuing such guidance to state court judges without disclosing it to the public. Because the agency's guidance informs how judges decide cases—with important implications for people’s rights—the New York Civil Liberties Union requested access to it under New York’s Freedom of Information Law. The agency denied the request, so the NYCLU sued. The NYCLU and the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative are arguing that the public is entitled to the guidance and that there is a strong public interest in the transparent administration of justice.

This case asks if ORS 138.105(8)(a)(A)—which removes an appellate court’s authority to review a “sentence that is within the presumptive sentence prescribed by the rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission”—precludes appellate review of a state constitutional challenge to a within-guidelines criminal sentence. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Oregon, filed an amicus brief in support of defendant Fernandez, who seeks to challenge his sentence under the Oregon Constitution’s proportionality guarantee. The amicus brief argues that interpreting the statute to preclude review of Fernandez’s challenge would raise grave constitutional concerns under Oregon’s separation of powers and privileges and immunities doctrines.

This case challenges the government’s authority to incarcerate individuals accused of probation violations for months or years without meaningfully assessing their risk to the community.