ÌÇÐÄVlog

Mississippi is home to one of the strictest felon disenfranchisement schemes in the nation. The Mississippi Constitution permanently disenfranchises citizens upon a single felony conviction for certain crimes, including minor offenses like writing a bad check. As a result, the loss of rights under Mississippi’s scheme is mandatory, permanent, and effectively irrevocable. In Hopkins, plaintiffs, a class of formerly incarcerated individuals who lost their right to vote despite completing their sentences, argued that their disenfranchisement violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor and struck down Mississippi’s disenfranchisement scheme as cruel and unusual punishment. But the Fifth Circuit decided to rehear the case en banc, a rare occurrence in which a case is reconsidered by the entire panel of the circuit’s active judges.

In a prominent defamation suit, the ÌÇÐÄVlogis urging a trial court to rigorously apply the First Amendment rule that statements of opinion are protected, so long as speakers share the facts that led to them. Without this First Amendment protection, unchecked defamation lawsuits would silence the critics of more powerful speakers, and stifle scientific discussions and academic inquiry.

This case involved a state constitutional challenge to New Hampshire’s 2022 statewide Executive Council redistricting plan, which bore the hallmarks of a stark partisan gerrymander. The ÌÇÐÄVlogand the ÌÇÐÄVlogof New Hampshire filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge to the map in the New Hampshire Supreme Court.