老熟女午夜福利

Representing itself and two journalists from Lawfare, the 老熟女午夜福利 brought a lawsuit to enforce Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests made to the Social Security Administration and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services regarding changes made to the SAVE program, which has been touted as being used by states in order to remove voters from the registration rolls. While the government made public statements about the SAVE program being updated, the details of those changes, such as the particular programs and databases that have been altered, the ways they have been altered, and the nature and extent of any use and sharing of individuals鈥� personal information by the federal agencies entrusted with that information, have all been kept secret.

This case asks whether Alabama law enforcement officers can demand physical ID when enforcing an Alabama that allows them to 鈥淪top and Question鈥� people they reasonably suspect of criminal activity. Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has already held that Alabama鈥檚 stop-and-question law does not authorize officers to demand physical ID, a federal district court in Alabama certified a question to the Alabama Supreme Court effectively asking the Court to reject that interpretation. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the Cato Institute, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Woods Foundation, and Kaplan Legal Services, filed an amicus brief urging the Alabama Supreme Court to agree with the Eleventh Circuit鈥檚 ruling. Our brief argues that the plain meaning of the stop-and-question law鈥攇iven its title, its text, and the overall structure of the Alabama Code鈥攔ules out the possibility that it authorizes demands for physical documents. We also point out that interpreting the stop-and-question law to authorize document demands would render the law unconstitutional under both the U.S. and Alabama Constitutions.

This case challenges the federal government鈥檚 authority to remove people from their homes, jobs, and loved ones and remand them to federal prison absent any alleged violation or process.

This case presents the question of whether the execution of a capital defendant with serious mental illness violates Article I, section 6 of the Nevada Constitution, which prohibits cruel or unusual punishment. The ACLU鈥檚 Capital Punishment Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Nevada, filed an amicus brief arguing that a plain reading of Article I, section 6 of the Nevada Constitution provides broader protections than the Eighth Amendment and should be interpreted to establish a categorical exemption from execution for this population.