Mass Incarceration

All Cases

158 Mass Incarceration Cases

Henderson et al. v. Thomas et al.
Alabama
Sep 2013

Mass Incarceration

+3 ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµ

Henderson et al. v. Thomas et al.

A federal judge has ruled that the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC) can no longer discriminate against prisoners living with HIV by housing them separately from all other prisoners and categorically denying them equal access to prison rehabilitative programs, according to a landmark decision in a lawsuit filed by the ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµNational Prison Project, the AIDS Project, and the ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµof Alabama. This ruling paves the way for prisoners living with HIV to have access to needed and appropriate services, and to the classes and training available to other prisoners.
Explore case
Henderson Et Al. V. Thomas Et Al.. Explore Case.
Alabama
Sep 2013
Henderson et al. v. Thomas et al.

Mass Incarceration

+3 ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµ

Henderson et al. v. Thomas et al.

A federal judge has ruled that the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC) can no longer discriminate against prisoners living with HIV by housing them separately from all other prisoners and categorically denying them equal access to prison rehabilitative programs, according to a landmark decision in a lawsuit filed by the ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµNational Prison Project, the AIDS Project, and the ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµof Alabama. This ruling paves the way for prisoners living with HIV to have access to needed and appropriate services, and to the classes and training available to other prisoners.
Henderson Et Al. V. Thomas Et Al.. Explore Case.
Missouri
Sep 2013

Mass Incarceration

Criminal Law Reform

Barrett v. Claycomb

A federal district court has ruled that a public college in Missouri must end its unconstitutional program of requiring all of its students—irrespective of their course of study—to submit to suspicionless drug-testing.
Explore case
Barrett V. Claycomb. Explore Case.
Missouri
Sep 2013

Mass Incarceration

Criminal Law Reform

Barrett v. Claycomb

A federal district court has ruled that a public college in Missouri must end its unconstitutional program of requiring all of its students—irrespective of their course of study—to submit to suspicionless drug-testing.
Barrett V. Claycomb. Explore Case.
Kansas v. Cheever
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 2013

Mass Incarceration

+2 ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµ

Kansas v. Cheever

Whether the Fifth Amendment imposes any limits on the state's ability to introduce evidence derived from a court-ordered psychiatric examination of the defendant by the state's expert.
Explore case
Kansas V. Cheever. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 2013
Kansas v. Cheever

Mass Incarceration

+2 ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµ

Kansas v. Cheever

Whether the Fifth Amendment imposes any limits on the state's ability to introduce evidence derived from a court-ordered psychiatric examination of the defendant by the state's expert.
Kansas V. Cheever. Explore Case.
BRCA
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2013

Mass Incarceration

+3 ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµ

Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics

Whether human genes can be patented.
Explore case
Association For Molecular Pathology V. Myriad Genetics. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2013
BRCA

Mass Incarceration

+3 ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµ

Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics

Whether human genes can be patented.
Association For Molecular Pathology V. Myriad Genetics. Explore Case.
DNA
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2013

Mass Incarceration

+2 ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµ

Maryland v. King

Whether collecting and analyzing DNA samples from arrestees without a warrant or consent violates the Fourth Amendment.
Explore case
Maryland V. King. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2013
DNA

Mass Incarceration

+2 ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµ

Maryland v. King

Whether collecting and analyzing DNA samples from arrestees without a warrant or consent violates the Fourth Amendment.
Maryland V. King. Explore Case.
34
5
67...