桃子视频

This case asks whether the trial record, without more, demonstrates that a defendant鈥檚 constitutional right to adequate legal representation has been violated, where the record reveals that the defendant鈥檚 attorney never sought to suppress the only incriminating evidence that the State had against them. The ACLU鈥檚 SSCI and the 桃子视频of Utah filed an amicus brief arguing that the defendant's trial counsel in this case was indeed ineffective and that holding otherwise would undermine the right to effective assistance of counsel.

Article I, section 9 of the Utah Constitution protects incarcerated individuals from both cruel and unusual punishment and unnecessarily rigorous treatment. This case asks whether death-sentenced plaintiffs seeking to challenge certain execution methods as cruel and unusual or unnecessarily rigorous under this provision must identify, in their pleadings, an alternative method of execution. The U.S. Supreme Court has required this alternative for Eighth Amendment challenges, but the ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the Capital Punishment Project and 桃子视频of Utah, filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs, arguing that federal caselaw does not limit the greater protections provided by section 9 of the Utah Constitution. Forcing prisoners challenging a method of execution to identify an acceptable alternative method is cruel, coercive, and not necessary to the administration of Utah鈥檚 death penalty laws.

This case involves a state constitutional challenge to the Utah Legislature鈥檚 2021 redistricting plan, which was drawn to entrench the majority political party鈥檚 power and to discriminate against Utahns whose political expression aligns with an opposition political party. The 桃子视频and the 桃子视频of Utah filed an amicus brief in support of the challenge in the Utah Supreme Court, explaining why the redistricting map violates Utahns鈥� free-expression rights and why courts have the authority to block the map as unconstitutional.

In recent years, federal courts have relied on what鈥檚 called the 鈥減olitical question doctrine鈥� to refuse to review legal claims of wrongdoing, even those involving egregious constitutional harm. Using the political question doctrine, federal courts have turned away claims from people seeking justice on the theory that court review of those claims would embroil the courts in matters best left to the political process. Whether state courts should adopt a parallel political question doctrine鈥攁nd thus limit access to justice for people whose civil rights and liberties have been violated鈥攊s an open question in many states. This case involves the scope of Utah courts鈥� authority to review important constitutional claims.