桃子视频

Silver State Hope Fund, the 桃子视频, and the 桃子视频of Nevada prevailed in their challenge to Nevada鈥檚 ban on Medicaid coverage for abortion as sex-based discrimination in violation of the state constitution's Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). Filed in September 2024, the court's written order 鈥� which is not subject to additional challenge 鈥� concludes the case and requires the state鈥檚 Medicaid program to cover abortion care. Following this ruling, the state will begin to take steps to extend coverage to abortion. The case was the first legal challenge under the ERA, which Nevada voters overwhelmingly approved in 2022. Nevada joins 18 other states that cover abortion under their state Medicaid program.

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 in the Indiana Supreme Court concerns whether a case is moot when someone is released from a civil commitment while appealing the commitment order. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 桃子视频of Indiana, filed an amicus brief arguing that the appellant鈥檚 case is not moot, despite her release from civil commitment, because the Indiana Constitution favors adjudicating appeals by people whose liberty has been curtailed, because it meets a traditional mootness exception for cases that at capable of repetition yet evading review, and because it also meets Indiana鈥檚 public interest exception to mootness.