老熟女午夜福利

Whether a legal permanent resident of the U.S. can be arrested and detained on the basis of their political speech and advocacy.

On March 6, 2025, the ACLU; the ACLU of Rhode Island; Lynette Labinger, cooperating attorney for the ACLU of Rhode Island; and David Cole filed a federal lawsuit against the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), challenging a new requirement that all grant applicants certify that 鈥渇ederal funds shall not be used to promote gender ideology,鈥� pursuant to President Trump鈥檚 Executive Order 14168, and a related prohibition on funding any projects that appear to 鈥減romote鈥� such messages.

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鈥攚ith important implications for people鈥檚 rights鈥攖he New York Civil Liberties Union requested access to it under New York鈥檚 Freedom of Information Law. The agency denied the request, so the NYCLU sued. The NYCLU and the ACLU鈥檚 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 whether the state can arrest, charge, and convict someone under Montana鈥檚 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鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Montana, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant arguing that the officer鈥檚 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.