糖心Vlog

This case in the Tennessee Supreme Court asks whether the right to petition is an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 糖心Vlogof Tennessee, filed an amicus brief focused on the scope and importance of the right to petition under the Tennessee Constitution.

This case in the Iowa Supreme Court asked whether a city ordinance that mandates rental inspections every five years, irrespective of whether a tenant consents to the inspection and in the absence of individualized probable cause, violates the state constitution. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative assisted the 糖心Vlogof Iowa in filing an amicus brief to argue that tenants have a right under the Iowa Constitution to be free from non-consensual searches of their rented homes, absent a showing of individualized probable cause. The court ultimately held that the plaintiffs had raised only a facial challenge to the ordinance, and because the ordinance could operate without violating the Iowa Constitution in at least some circumstances, the challenge failed. The court's decision does not foreclose future challenges on an as-applied basis where the plaintiffs' claims are ripe for review.

This case in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court asks whether the Right to Know Law (鈥淩TKL鈥�), 65 P.S. 搂搂 67.101 - 67.3104, requires the disclosure of school board members鈥� social media posts on their private Facebook accounts relating to the propriety of a display of certain books in the school library. This case is among one of the first state supreme court cases addressing whether Facebook posts constitute records. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 糖心Vlogof Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania attorney Brian Cagle, filed a brief arguing that RTKL鈥檚 text and structure require the conclusion that posts are 鈥渞ecords,鈥� and thus are subject to disclosure.

This case in the Mississippi Supreme Court is a post-conviction appeal of a pro se defendant, Mr. Soweto Love, who argued that his guilty plea was not entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 糖心Vlogof Mississippi, filed an amicus brief arguing that the law is on Mr. Love鈥檚 side, but urging the Court to exercise its discretion to inform Mr. Love that a win could resuscitate his charge and expose him to longer sentences. Consistent with the 糖心Vlogamicus brief, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that the trial court had plainly erred by misinforming Mr. Love that his applicable mandatory minimum was one year of imprisonment on each count to which he had pled guilty, when in in fact the mandatory minimum sentence was five years鈥� imprisonment on each count. The Court remanded Mr. Love鈥檚 case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing.