Criminal Law Reform

Featured

Arizona
Oct 2023
Fund for Empowerment v. Phoenix, City of

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.
Fund For Empowerment V. Phoenix, City Of. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2023
McElrath v. Georgia

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?
Mcelrath V. Georgia. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2023
Pulsifer v. United States

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.
Pulsifer V. United States. Explore Case.
Texas
Jul 2021
Sanchez et al v. Dallas County Sheriff et al

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 ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµhas 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.
Sanchez Et Al V. Dallas County Sheriff Et Al. Explore Case.

All Cases

157 Criminal Law Reform Cases

State v. Fenderson
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 ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµof 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
State V. Fenderson. Explore Case.
Michigan Supreme Court
Jun 2025
State v. Fenderson

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 ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµof 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.
State V. Fenderson. Explore Case.
State v. Bishop
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 ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµof 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
State V. Bishop. Explore Case.
Tennessee
May 2025
State v. Bishop

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 ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµof 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.
State V. Bishop. Explore Case.
Coronell, et al. v. Georgia
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
Coronell, Et Al. V. Georgia. Explore Case.
Georgia
May 2025
Coronell, et al. v. Georgia

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.
Coronell, Et Al. V. Georgia. Explore Case.
State of Hawaiʻi v. Zuffante
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 ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµof 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
State Of Hawaiʻi V. Zuffante. Explore Case.
Hawaii Supreme Court
Apr 2025
State of Hawaiʻi v. Zuffante

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 ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµof 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.
State Of Hawaiʻi V. Zuffante. Explore Case.
Just City, Inc. v. Bonner
Tennessee
Mar 2025

Criminal Law Reform

Smart Justice

Just City, Inc. v. Bonner

Shelby County (Memphis), Tennessee, historically set cash bail in criminal cases without stopping to ask whether people would be able to bail out. This practice unnecessarily detained people who could not afford to pay for release, but who would otherwise return to court and live peacefully in their communities. The ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµCriminal Law Reform Project negotiated a historic settlement with Shelby County to end this practice. In retaliation, the Tennessee legislature passed HB 1719, which prohibits judges from considering an arrestee’s ability to pay when setting bail. This law is unprecedented. Our lawsuit seeks to enjoin Shelby County officials from enforcing it.
Explore case
Just City, Inc. V. Bonner. Explore Case.
Tennessee
Mar 2025
Just City, Inc. v. Bonner

Criminal Law Reform

Smart Justice

Just City, Inc. v. Bonner

Shelby County (Memphis), Tennessee, historically set cash bail in criminal cases without stopping to ask whether people would be able to bail out. This practice unnecessarily detained people who could not afford to pay for release, but who would otherwise return to court and live peacefully in their communities. The ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµCriminal Law Reform Project negotiated a historic settlement with Shelby County to end this practice. In retaliation, the Tennessee legislature passed HB 1719, which prohibits judges from considering an arrestee’s ability to pay when setting bail. This law is unprecedented. Our lawsuit seeks to enjoin Shelby County officials from enforcing it.
Just City, Inc. V. Bonner. Explore Case.
23
4
56...