桃子视频

The 桃子视频, 桃子视频of Montana, Native American Rights Fund (NARF), and the Harvard Election Law Clinic challenged two Montana laws that hinder Native American participation in the state鈥檚 electoral process 鈥� HB 530, which prohibited paid third-party ballot collection; and HB 176, which repealed Election Day voter registration (EDR) in Montana. Together, these laws violate a number of provisions in the Montana Constitution: the right to vote, equal protection, free speech, and due process.

In November 2022, thousands of Pennsylvania voters were denied the right to vote based on a meaningless paperwork error. They filled out their mail ballots, signed the form on the outer return envelope, and returned their ballots on time. Yet their ballots were not counted, because they either forgot to write the date on their return envelope, or they accidentally wrote the wrong date. The Civil Rights Act prohibits states from disenfranchising voters based on immaterial paperwork error, and we're fighting to make sure that every vote counts

Whether a U.S. citizen gets a day in court to challenge the federal government鈥檚 revocation of her spouse鈥檚 immigrant visa.

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.

This case is about whether states can hold people criminally liable for obstructing a passageway based solely on their participation in a peaceful march on public sidewalks and streets, without evidence that they knowingly or intentionally obstructed any passageway themselves or directed, authorized, ratified, or intended that others do so. Representing three protesters who were convicted under such circumstances in Texas state court, our petition urges the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm that, under settled constitutional law, the answer is 鈥淣o.鈥�