ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û

Although Texas law clearly prohibits prosecuting people for terminating their pregnancies, Starr County officials indicted, arrested, and jailed Lizelle Gonzalez for having an abortion. The ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û’s Abortion Criminal Defense Initiative and Criminal Law Reform Project, alongside the ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û of Texas and south Texas firm Garza Martinez, are representing Ms. Gonzalez in a lawsuit against Starr County and local officials based on violations of Ms. Gonzalez’s constitutional rights.

This case in the Iowa Supreme Court asks whether a city ordinance that mandates rental inspections every five years, irrespective of whether a tenant consents to the inspection and in the absence of individualized probable cause, violates the state constitution. The ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û’s State Supreme Court Initiative assisted the ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û of Iowa in filing an amicus brief to argue that tenants have a right under the Iowa Constitution to be free from non-consensual searches of their rented homes, absent a showing of individualized probable cause. The case remains pending.

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 ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û 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 ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û 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.

This federal class-action lawsuit alleges that the federal government’s post-conviction supervision system in Washington, D.C., violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by systematically failing to accommodate the needs of people with disabilities on supervision.