State Supreme Court
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
59 State Supreme Court Cases
Kansas Supreme Court
Apr 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Kansas v. Harper
Five transgender Kansans are challenging an effort by Kansas Attorney General Kobach to require the state to issue driver’s licenses with a gender marker that reveals their sex assigned at birth. The Attorney General is asking a state court to apply a new state law that defines “sex” to functionally erase the existence of transgender people under the law.
Explore case
Kansas Supreme Court
Apr 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Kansas v. Harper
Five transgender Kansans are challenging an effort by Kansas Attorney General Kobach to require the state to issue driver’s licenses with a gender marker that reveals their sex assigned at birth. The Attorney General is asking a state court to apply a new state law that defines “sex” to functionally erase the existence of transgender people under the law.
Hawaii Supreme Court
Apr 2025
Criminal Law Reform
State of Hawaiʻi v. Zuffante
In 1994, the Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi held in State v. Kekona that the due process clause of the Hawai‘i Constitution does not require custodial interrogations to be recorded. More than 30 years later, with advances in technology that have made recording far easier, this case asks whether this decision should be reconsidered. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Hawai‘i filed an amicus brief arguing that the Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi should now hold that custodial interrogations must be recorded in order to be admissible in court, either as a matter of due process or as an exercise of the Court’s supervisory authority over lower courts.
Explore case
Hawaii Supreme Court
Apr 2025
Criminal Law Reform
State of Hawaiʻi v. Zuffante
In 1994, the Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi held in State v. Kekona that the due process clause of the Hawai‘i Constitution does not require custodial interrogations to be recorded. More than 30 years later, with advances in technology that have made recording far easier, this case asks whether this decision should be reconsidered. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Hawai‘i filed an amicus brief arguing that the Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi should now hold that custodial interrogations must be recorded in order to be admissible in court, either as a matter of due process or as an exercise of the Court’s supervisory authority over lower courts.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Mar 2025
Voting Rights
Baxter v. Philadelphia Board of Elections
Eligible Philadelphia-area voters who submitted mail ballots in the September 17, 2024 special election only to have their votes set aside because they omitted or miswrote the correct date on their outer return envelope – even though the date is not used for any purpose – sued to have their votes count. Plaintiffs urge the courts to rule that enforcing the irrelevant envelope-dating requirement to disenfranchise eligible voters violates the Pennsylvania Constitution's Free and Equal Elections Clause.
Explore case
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Mar 2025
Voting Rights
Baxter v. Philadelphia Board of Elections
Eligible Philadelphia-area voters who submitted mail ballots in the September 17, 2024 special election only to have their votes set aside because they omitted or miswrote the correct date on their outer return envelope – even though the date is not used for any purpose – sued to have their votes count. Plaintiffs urge the courts to rule that enforcing the irrelevant envelope-dating requirement to disenfranchise eligible voters violates the Pennsylvania Constitution's Free and Equal Elections Clause.
New York Supreme Court
Feb 2025
Smart Justice
Free Speech
NYCLU v. New York State Office of Court Administration
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.
Explore case
New York Supreme Court
Feb 2025
Smart Justice
Free Speech
NYCLU v. New York State Office of Court Administration
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.
Montana Supreme Court
Feb 2025
Free Speech
+2 Issues
City of Kalispell v. Doman
This case asks whether the state can arrest, charge, and convict someone under Montana’s obstruction statute for exercising their federal and state constitutional right to record police officers in public spaces. The defendant was filming a traffic stop when police instructed him to move farther away. When he did not move as far as they wanted, they arrested him for obstructing a peace officer. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Montana, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant arguing that the officer’s refusal to allow the defendant to peacefully record police activity from a public sidewalk was, in effect, a content-based restriction on speech that could not be justified under strict scrutiny. Even if the restriction was not content-based, our brief argues that it is not a reasonable time place or manner restriction.
Explore case
Montana Supreme Court
Feb 2025
Free Speech
+2 Issues
City of Kalispell v. Doman
This case asks whether the state can arrest, charge, and convict someone under Montana’s obstruction statute for exercising their federal and state constitutional right to record police officers in public spaces. The defendant was filming a traffic stop when police instructed him to move farther away. When he did not move as far as they wanted, they arrested him for obstructing a peace officer. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Montana, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant arguing that the officer’s refusal to allow the defendant to peacefully record police activity from a public sidewalk was, in effect, a content-based restriction on speech that could not be justified under strict scrutiny. Even if the restriction was not content-based, our brief argues that it is not a reasonable time place or manner restriction.