On December 5, 2024, the ACLU and the ACLU of Michigan filed an amicus brief in Woodruff v. Oliver, a wrongful arrest lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, arguing that the Detroit Police Department’s (DPD) reliance on flawed facial recognition technology (FRT) impermissibly tainted the investigation and failed to establish probable cause for the plaintiff’s arrest.

For state constitutional rights to be meaningful, they have to be enforceable by courts. This case will affect whether people can sue government officials in state court to stop the violation of their constitutional rights.

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.

Michigan requires boards of county canvassers to certify the results of an election within 14 days after the election based on the total number of votes reported from each location. The law doesn’t allow them to withhold certification. Kalamazoo Board of County Canvassers member, Robert Froman, has made clear that he would decline to certify the November 2024 election under certain circumstances. This lawsuit asks the state’s courts to make clear that Mr. Froman is duty bound to certify the election based on the number of votes reported.