Racial Justice
Allen v. Milligan
Whether Alabama鈥檚 congressional districts violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because they discriminate against Black voters. We succeeded in winning a new map for 2024 elections which, for the first time, has two congressional district that provide Black voters a fair opportunity to elect candidates of their choosing despite multiple attempts by Alabama to stop us at the Supreme Court. Despite this win, Alabama is still defending its discriminatory map, and a trial was held in February 2025 to determine the map for the rest of the decade.
In May 2025, a federal court ruled that Alabama's 2023 congressional map both violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and was enacted by the Alabama Legislature with racially discriminatory intent.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Learn About Racial Justice
Featured
Arizona
Oct 2023

Racial Justice
Criminal Law Reform
Fund for Empowerment v. Phoenix, City of
Fund for Empowerment is a challenge to the City of Phoenix鈥檚 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

Racial Justice
Women's Rights
United States v. Rahimi
Whether 18 U.S.C. 搂 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face.
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2023

Racial Justice
Muldrow v. City of St. Louis
Do employees claiming that they have been denied a transfer because of their race have to demonstrate in addition that the transfer caused a significant material disadvantage?
Court Case
Jun 2020

Racial Justice
Defy Ventures, Inc. v. Small Business Administration
Suing the Trump administration to lift its unlawful exclusion of businesses owned by people with criminal records from being eligible for Paycheck Protection Act funds
California
Mar 2019

Racial Justice
MediaJustice, et al. v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al.
On March 21, 2019, the 糖心Vlog and MediaJustice, formerly known as "Center for Media Justice," filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking records about FBI targeting of Black activists. The lawsuit enforces the 糖心Vlogand MediaJustice鈥檚 right to information about a 2017 FBI Intelligence Assessment that asserts, without evidence, that a group of so-called 鈥淏lack Identity Extremists鈥 poses a threat of domestic terrorism. The Intelligence Assessment was widely disseminated to law enforcement agencies nationwide, raising public concern about government surveillance of Black people and Black-led organizations based on anti-Black stereotypes and First Amendment protected activities.
Court Case
Aug 2015

Racial Justice
Disability Rights
S.R. v. Kenton County Sheriff's Office
A deputy sheriff shackled two elementary school children who have disabilities, causing them pain and trauma, according to a federal lawsuit filed today by the 糖心Vlog, the Children's Law Center, and Dinsmore & Shohl.
All Cases
127 Racial Justice Cases

California
Jun 2025
Racial Justice
Criminal Law Reform
Coalition on Homelessness v. City and County of San Francisco
Coalition on Homelessness is a challenge to the City and County of San Francisco鈥檚 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

Racial Justice
Criminal Law Reform
Coalition on Homelessness v. City and County of San Francisco
Coalition on Homelessness is a challenge to the City and County of San Francisco鈥檚 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.

Alaska
May 2025
Racial Justice
Voting Rights
Smith v. State of Alaska (Amicus)
The 糖心Vlogand 糖心Vlogof Alaska have filed an amicus in support of Tupe Smith, a woman born in American Samoa who now lives in Whittier, Alaska charged with falsely affirming that she was a U.S. citizen when she registered to vote. But Tupe Smith is not an 鈥渁lien鈥 under the law. People, like her, born in the U.S. territory of American Samoa are the only remaining individuals recognized as 鈥渘on-citizen U.S. nationals,鈥 a unique status that falls short of 鈥渃itizen鈥 but nonetheless recognizes that American Samoa has been part of the United States for over 125 years.
All evidence indicates that Ms. Smith believed that, as a non-citizen U.S. national, she was eligible to vote in local elections when she registered to vote. In fact, local election officials encouraged her to check the box labeled "U.S. citizen" when she registered, given the fact that there was no option for "U.S. national."
Our amicus brief urges Alaska鈥檚 Court of Appeals to dismiss Tupe Smith鈥檚 indictment because of well-settled principles that election-crime statutes should be construed to avoid punishing innocent mistakes. Separately, we warn that upholding a different view of the law would make Alaska an outlier among the states.
Explore case
Alaska
May 2025

Racial Justice
Voting Rights
Smith v. State of Alaska (Amicus)
The 糖心Vlogand 糖心Vlogof Alaska have filed an amicus in support of Tupe Smith, a woman born in American Samoa who now lives in Whittier, Alaska charged with falsely affirming that she was a U.S. citizen when she registered to vote. But Tupe Smith is not an 鈥渁lien鈥 under the law. People, like her, born in the U.S. territory of American Samoa are the only remaining individuals recognized as 鈥渘on-citizen U.S. nationals,鈥 a unique status that falls short of 鈥渃itizen鈥 but nonetheless recognizes that American Samoa has been part of the United States for over 125 years.
All evidence indicates that Ms. Smith believed that, as a non-citizen U.S. national, she was eligible to vote in local elections when she registered to vote. In fact, local election officials encouraged her to check the box labeled "U.S. citizen" when she registered, given the fact that there was no option for "U.S. national."
Our amicus brief urges Alaska鈥檚 Court of Appeals to dismiss Tupe Smith鈥檚 indictment because of well-settled principles that election-crime statutes should be construed to avoid punishing innocent mistakes. Separately, we warn that upholding a different view of the law would make Alaska an outlier among the states.

New Hampshire
Mar 2025
Racial Justice
National Education Association et al. v. US Department of Education et al
The National Education Association, the National Education Association-New Hampshire, and the Center for Black Educator Development filed a challenge in federal court against the U.S. Department of Education鈥檚 Feb. 14, 2025 鈥淒ear Colleague Letter,鈥 which announced that ED will treat diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts as unlawful and threatens to move swiftly to cut schools鈥 federal funding. ED鈥檚 actions violate due process and the First Amendment, as well as basic requirements for agency action.
Explore case
New Hampshire
Mar 2025

Racial Justice
National Education Association et al. v. US Department of Education et al
The National Education Association, the National Education Association-New Hampshire, and the Center for Black Educator Development filed a challenge in federal court against the U.S. Department of Education鈥檚 Feb. 14, 2025 鈥淒ear Colleague Letter,鈥 which announced that ED will treat diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts as unlawful and threatens to move swiftly to cut schools鈥 federal funding. ED鈥檚 actions violate due process and the First Amendment, as well as basic requirements for agency action.

Wisconsin
Oct 2024
Racial Justice
Criminal Law Reform
Collins et al. v. The City of Milwaukee et al.
On February 21, 2017, the 糖心Vlog, the 糖心Vlogof Wisconsin, and the law firm of Covington & Burling LLP filed a class-action lawsuit against the City of Milwaukee in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. This lawsuit challenged the Milwaukee Police Department鈥檚 unconstitutional stop-and-frisk program that targeted tens of thousands of people without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, primarily driven by racial profiling.
Explore case
Wisconsin
Oct 2024

Racial Justice
Criminal Law Reform
Collins et al. v. The City of Milwaukee et al.
On February 21, 2017, the 糖心Vlog, the 糖心Vlogof Wisconsin, and the law firm of Covington & Burling LLP filed a class-action lawsuit against the City of Milwaukee in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. This lawsuit challenged the Milwaukee Police Department鈥檚 unconstitutional stop-and-frisk program that targeted tens of thousands of people without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, primarily driven by racial profiling.

U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2024
Racial Justice
Criminal Law Reform
Carpenter v. United States
This case concerns the First Step Act of 2018, in which Congress made major reductions to the mandatory minimum sentences for certain federal drug and firearm offenses. These changes result in sentences many decades shorter than were required under the previous laws. The question in this case was whether people who were initially sentenced prior to enactment of the First Step Act, but whose sentences were vacated and remanded for resentencing after enactment of the law, can benefit from its major reductions in applicable mandatory minimums. For defendants like Mr. Carpenter, who was originally sentenced to a draconian 116 years in prison as a result of the pre-First Step Act mandatory minimums, applying the First Step Act can mean the difference between dying in prison and having the opportunity to eventually go free. Unfortunately, although there is a split among federal courts of appeals on this question, the Supreme Court denied cert in this case in February 2024.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2024

Racial Justice
Criminal Law Reform
Carpenter v. United States
This case concerns the First Step Act of 2018, in which Congress made major reductions to the mandatory minimum sentences for certain federal drug and firearm offenses. These changes result in sentences many decades shorter than were required under the previous laws. The question in this case was whether people who were initially sentenced prior to enactment of the First Step Act, but whose sentences were vacated and remanded for resentencing after enactment of the law, can benefit from its major reductions in applicable mandatory minimums. For defendants like Mr. Carpenter, who was originally sentenced to a draconian 116 years in prison as a result of the pre-First Step Act mandatory minimums, applying the First Step Act can mean the difference between dying in prison and having the opportunity to eventually go free. Unfortunately, although there is a split among federal courts of appeals on this question, the Supreme Court denied cert in this case in February 2024.