Supreme Court Term 2025-2026

This case in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court asks whether the Right to Know Law (“RTKL”), 65 P.S. §§ 67.101 - 67.3104, requires the disclosure of school board members’ social media posts on their private Facebook accounts relating to the propriety of a display of certain books in the school library. This case is among one of the first state supreme court cases addressing whether Facebook posts constitute records. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania attorney Brian Cagle, filed a brief arguing that RTKL’s text and structure require the conclusion that posts are “records,” and thus are subject to disclosure.

This case in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concerns the admissibility of a fourteen-year-old defendant’s confession following a Texas Ranger’s coercive interrogation. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Texas, filed an amicus brief arguing that the defendant’s confession was induced by positive promises, and is inadmissible, particularly given his juvenile status and the circumstances of the interrogation. In November 2024, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the highest court for criminal appeals in Texas) ruled that Holland's interrogation of Ochoa was unconstitutionally coercive in violation of Ochoa's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.

This case pending before the Montana Supreme Court asks, among other things, whether the claims of sixteen youth plaintiffs challenging Montana energy policy present a political question under the Montana Constitution. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Montana, filed an amicus brief arguing that the claims do not present a political question and, moreover, that state courts should not wholesale adopt the federal political questions doctrine.

This case in the Mississippi Supreme Court is a post-conviction appeal of a pro se defendant, Mr. Soweto Love, who argued that his guilty plea was not entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Mississippi, filed an amicus brief arguing that the law is on Mr. Love’s side, but urging the Court to exercise its discretion to inform Mr. Love that a win could resuscitate his charge and expose him to longer sentences. Consistent with the ACLU amicus brief, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that the trial court had plainly erred by misinforming Mr. Love that his applicable mandatory minimum was one year of imprisonment on each count to which he had pled guilty, when in in fact the mandatory minimum sentence was five years’ imprisonment on each count. The Court remanded Mr. Love’s case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing.