Michigan
ÌÒ×ÓÊÓƵof Michigan v. Froman
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.
Status: Closed (Settled)
View Case
Featured
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 2023
Free Speech
O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed
The ACLU, the ÌÒ×ÓÊÓƵof Northern California, and the ÌÒ×ÓÊÓƵof Southern California filed amicus briefs in support of everyday people fighting for government transparency and accountability in two cases set for review by the U.S. Supreme Court this Term: O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2020
LGBTQ Rights
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v EEOC & Aimee Stephens
Aimee Stephens had worked for nearly six years as a funeral director at R.G. and G.R. Harris Funeral Homes when she informed the funeral home’s owner that she is a transgender woman. She was fired, the EEOC sued on her behalf, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Aimee’s employer engaged in unlawful sex discrimination when it fired her because she’s transgender. We represented Aimee Stephens in front of the U.S. Supreme Court — and won.
All Cases
25 Michigan Cases
Michigan Supreme Court
Oct 2024
Immigrants' Rights
Michigan Immigrant Rights Center v. Gretchen Whitmer
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.
Explore case
Michigan Supreme Court
Oct 2024
Immigrants' Rights
Michigan Immigrant Rights Center v. Gretchen Whitmer
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.
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Racial Justice
Carpenter v. United States
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.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Racial Justice
Carpenter v. United States
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
Jan 2024
Privacy & Technology
+2 ÌÒ×ÓÊÓƵ
Williams v. City of Detroit
This case seeks to hold Detroit police accountable for the wrongful arrest of our client due to officers’ reliance on a false match from face recognition technology.
Explore case
Michigan
Jan 2024
Privacy & Technology
+2 ÌÒ×ÓÊÓƵ
Williams v. City of Detroit
This case seeks to hold Detroit police accountable for the wrongful arrest of our client due to officers’ reliance on a false match from face recognition technology.
Michigan Supreme Court
Sep 2023
National Security
Privacy & Technology
Long Lake Township v. Maxon
On September 8, 2023, the ACLU, the ÌÒ×ÓÊÓƵof Michigan, and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy filed an amicus brief in the Michigan Supreme Court arguing that the local government deploying an unmanned drone to take aerial photographs of the appellant’s property violated the Fourth Amendment.
Explore case
Michigan Supreme Court
Sep 2023
National Security
Privacy & Technology
Long Lake Township v. Maxon
On September 8, 2023, the ACLU, the ÌÒ×ÓÊÓƵof Michigan, and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy filed an amicus brief in the Michigan Supreme Court arguing that the local government deploying an unmanned drone to take aerial photographs of the appellant’s property violated the Fourth Amendment.
U.S. Supreme Court
May 2023
Privacy & Technology
Polselli v. Internal Revenue Service
This case concerns the scope of the IRS’s obligation under a federal law to provide notice to individuals that it is seeking their records from a third party, such as a bank, accountant, or lawyer.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
May 2023
Privacy & Technology
Polselli v. Internal Revenue Service
This case concerns the scope of the IRS’s obligation under a federal law to provide notice to individuals that it is seeking their records from a third party, such as a bank, accountant, or lawyer.