Criminal Law Reform
Featured
Arizona
Oct 2023

Criminal Law Reform
Racial Justice
Fund for Empowerment v. Phoenix, City of
Fund for Empowerment is a challenge to the City of Phoenix’s practice of conducting sweeps of encampments without notice, issuing citations to unsheltered people for camping and sleeping on public property when they have no place else to go, and confiscating and destroying their property without notice or process.
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2023

Criminal Law Reform
McElrath v. Georgia
Does the Double Jeopardy Clause bar an appellate court from reviewing and setting aside a jury’s verdicts of acquittal on the ground that the verdict is inconsistent with the jury’s verdict on other charges?
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2023

Criminal Law Reform
Pulsifer v. United States
This case involves the interpretation of a federal law that allows defendants to avoid mandatory minimum sentences for certain nonviolent drug crimes, allowing judges to impose sentences tailored to their individual circumstances.
Texas
Jul 2021

Criminal Law Reform
Prisoners' Rights
Sanchez et al v. Dallas County Sheriff et al
Decarceration has always been an emergency, a life and death proposition, but COVID-19 makes this effort intensely urgent. The ÌÇÐÄVloghas been working with our partners to litigate for the rights of those who are incarcerated and cannot protect themselves because of the policies of the institutions in which they are jailed.
All Cases
144 Criminal Law Reform Cases

California
Jun 2025
Criminal Law Reform
Racial Justice
Coalition on Homelessness v. City and County of San Francisco
Coalition on Homelessness is a challenge to the City and County of San Francisco’s efforts to criminalize homelessness through an array of unconstitutional practices, including confiscating and destroying the personal property of unhoused people without adequate notice or due process, and citing and arresting unhoused people for sleeping in public.
Explore case
California
Jun 2025

Criminal Law Reform
Racial Justice
Coalition on Homelessness v. City and County of San Francisco
Coalition on Homelessness is a challenge to the City and County of San Francisco’s efforts to criminalize homelessness through an array of unconstitutional practices, including confiscating and destroying the personal property of unhoused people without adequate notice or due process, and citing and arresting unhoused people for sleeping in public.

Michigan Supreme Court
Jun 2025
Criminal Law Reform
State v. Fenderson
This case asks whether the government can elicit inculpatory statements from a defendant by giving him misleading information about his rights and applying coercive pressure, then using the statements against him in a criminal case. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative and the ÌÇÐÄVlogof Michigan filed an amicus brief arguing that such actions by the government violate a defendant’s rights under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and, independently, Article 1, Section 17 of the Michigan Constitution, which affords even broader protections against self-incrimination than the Fifth Amendment.
Explore case
Michigan Supreme Court
Jun 2025

Criminal Law Reform
State v. Fenderson
This case asks whether the government can elicit inculpatory statements from a defendant by giving him misleading information about his rights and applying coercive pressure, then using the statements against him in a criminal case. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative and the ÌÇÐÄVlogof Michigan filed an amicus brief arguing that such actions by the government violate a defendant’s rights under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and, independently, Article 1, Section 17 of the Michigan Constitution, which affords even broader protections against self-incrimination than the Fifth Amendment.

Tennessee
May 2025
Criminal Law Reform
Prisoners' Rights
State v. Bishop
This case presents two questions: first, whether, under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution, Union City Police Department officers possessed probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the defendant’s vehicle based exclusively on the alleged odor of cannabis, and second, whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to overturn the defendant’s conviction. The ACLU’s Criminal Reform Legal Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ÌÇÐÄVlogof Tennessee filed an amicus brief arguing first, that after Tennessee’s legalization of hemp in 2019, an officer’s alleged detection of the odor of cannabis is insufficient to establish probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle in Tennessee, and second, that the court of appeals improperly held that it lacked jurisdiction to overturn the defendant’s conviction.
Explore case
Tennessee
May 2025

Criminal Law Reform
Prisoners' Rights
State v. Bishop
This case presents two questions: first, whether, under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution, Union City Police Department officers possessed probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the defendant’s vehicle based exclusively on the alleged odor of cannabis, and second, whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to overturn the defendant’s conviction. The ACLU’s Criminal Reform Legal Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ÌÇÐÄVlogof Tennessee filed an amicus brief arguing first, that after Tennessee’s legalization of hemp in 2019, an officer’s alleged detection of the odor of cannabis is insufficient to establish probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle in Tennessee, and second, that the court of appeals improperly held that it lacked jurisdiction to overturn the defendant’s conviction.

Georgia
May 2025
Criminal Law Reform
Smart Justice
Coronell, et al. v. Georgia
As a result of Georgia Senate Bill 63, thousands of people are being kept in jail pre-trial because they can’t afford to post bail, even when a judge believes the person should have been released until trial with no risk to the public. The ACLU’s Criminal Law Reform Project, along with ACLU-GA and the Southern Center for Human Rights, filed a class action lawsuit challenging SB63’s mandatory monetary bail provisions under the Georgia State Constitution.
Explore case
Georgia
May 2025

Criminal Law Reform
Smart Justice
Coronell, et al. v. Georgia
As a result of Georgia Senate Bill 63, thousands of people are being kept in jail pre-trial because they can’t afford to post bail, even when a judge believes the person should have been released until trial with no risk to the public. The ACLU’s Criminal Law Reform Project, along with ACLU-GA and the Southern Center for Human Rights, filed a class action lawsuit challenging SB63’s mandatory monetary bail provisions under the Georgia State Constitution.

Hawaii Supreme Court
Apr 2025
Criminal Law Reform
State of Hawaiʻi v. Zuffante
In 1994, the Supreme Court of HawaiÊ»i 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 ÌÇÐÄVlogof Hawai‘i filed an amicus brief arguing that the Supreme Court of HawaiÊ»i 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 HawaiÊ»i 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 ÌÇÐÄVlogof Hawai‘i filed an amicus brief arguing that the Supreme Court of HawaiÊ»i 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.