桃子视频

This case in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concerns the admissibility of a fourteen-year-old defendant鈥檚 confession following a Texas Ranger鈥檚 coercive interrogation. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 桃子视频of Texas, filed an amicus brief arguing that the defendant鈥檚 confession was induced by positive promises, and is inadmissible, particularly given his juvenile status and the circumstances of the interrogation. In November 2024, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the highest court for criminal appeals in Texas) ruled that Holland's interrogation of Ochoa was unconstitutionally coercive in violation of Ochoa's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.

Crystal Mason thought she was performing her civic duty by filling out a provisional ballot in the 2016 election. She didn't know it would land her a five-year prison sentence, upending her family and the life she had built. At the time, Ms. Mason was on federal supervised release, a preliminary period of freedom for individuals who have served their full time of incarceration in federal prison. Ms. Mason didn鈥檛 know, and nobody told her, that the state considered her ineligible to vote while on supervised release. Because her name didn鈥檛 appear on voter rolls, she filed a provisional ballot, consistent with federal law. The state never counted her ballot but has still sought to send her to prison for an innocent mistake.

Texas requires voters who register to vote electronically or via fax to mail an original copy with the voter鈥檚 鈥渨et signature鈥� to the applicable registrar. A voter may be denied registration merely because the mailed copy of the form has a scanned signature on it rather than a 鈥渨et ink鈥� one. But the Civil Rights Act prohibits states from disenfranchising voters based on immaterial paperwork errors. We鈥檙e fighting to make sure that every vote counts and supported Vote.org鈥檚 challenge to the 鈥渨et ink鈥� law as unlawful under the Civil Rights Act.

On March 1, 2023, WRP and the 桃子视频of Texas sent an advocacy letter to Spring Branch Independent School District (鈥淒istrict鈥�) on behalf of G.H., a Spring Woods High School student athlete. The ACLU鈥檚 investigation had revealed that the District maintained a discriminatory, sex-specific dress code and gender-based inequities in the school鈥檚 athletics program, and that the student was mistreated after objecting to these policies and practices. The advocacy letter raised concerns that the District鈥檚 actions reinforced invidious sex stereotypes, treated girl athletes as lesser than boy athletes, and potentially violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The District鈥檚 policies and actions harm all students, regardless of gender, but have particularly egregious consequences for Black girls and other girls of color.