Supreme Court Term 2025-2026

South Dakota enacted a law in March 2026 that requires new voters to provide unnecessary documentation of their U.S. citizenship when registering to vote. The state has rushed implementation of the law, and in doing so, trampled over voters’ rights: South Dakota officials have imposed burdens above and beyond what the statute requires and have failed to give voters accurate information about their registration status or opportunities to fix any issues. The League of Women Voters of South Dakota and Jaysen Hill, an individual voter, have challenged the state’s administration of its new requirement, seeking to ensure the state complies with federal law.

Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) and fusion centers are joint federal-state law enforcement intelligence hubs with a long history of investigating, collecting, and disseminating information on protesters and communities of color, but the public has little information about how these entities work and their impact on our rights. In May 2024, the ACLU filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act seeking the release of records on the use of JTTFs and fusion centers to target protesters and communities of color and the adequacy of the privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties policies that apply to them. When the government failed to release records, we filed suit in July 2024 to compel public disclosure of these documents. After the government produced records, the ACLU dismissed the case in July 2025.

The Minnesota Supreme Court is poised to decide whether there are any circumstances in which someone subjected to an unconstitutional traffic stop can suppress evidence that he temporarily avoided the police when they initiated the unconstitutional stop. The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that evidence of even temporary “flight” can never be suppressed—even when someone simply delays acquiescing to an unconstitutional traffic stop—on the theory that fleeing from the police is a crime. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Minnesota and the law firm Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, filed an amicus brief arguing that Article I, Sections 8 and 10 of the Minnesota Constitution—which guarantee Minnesotans remedies for constitutional violations and protect them from unreasonable searches and seizures—require a broad application of the exclusionary rule. Accordingly, we argue that the Court should use a flexible, multi-factor test that can allow for suppression of evidence where a suspect, as in this case, responds to an illegal stop or seizure with nonviolent attempts to keep himself safe.