Search
Filter Search
Planned Parenthood of Montana v. State (Planned Parenthood 3)
Upheld preliminary injunction against 2023 laws and an agency rule that limit Medicaid coverage for abortion, finding that they likely violate the right to a pre-viability abortion the Montana Supreme Court has recognized as protected by the state constitution's right to privacy, as well as the state's equal protection clause.
Planned Parenthood of Montana v. State (Planned Parenthood 4)
Upheld preliminary injunction against 2023 laws that prohibit dilation and evacuation abortions—the only outpatient procedure available in the second trimester in Montana—and require an ultrasound pre-abortion, effectively preventing telehealth mediation abortions. A majority of the court found that these laws likely violate the right to a pre-viability abortion the Montana Supreme Court has recognized as protected by the state constitution's right to privacy.
Michael Weinrib
Michael Weinrib is a law student at the University of Wisconsin Law School and an intern at the Brennan Center.
Rachel Seplow
Rachel Seplow is a law student at NYU School of Law and an intern at the Brennan Center.
Mohamed Nur
Mohamed Nur is a law student at Stanford Law School and an intern at the Brennan Center.
Ankita Joshi
Ankita Joshi is a law student at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law and an intern at the Brennan Center.
Disability Rights Under State Constitutions
Thirty-five years after the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, state constitutional anti-discrimination clauses, voting rights, and educational guarantees can expand protections for people with disabilities.
Marcelius Braxton
Marcelius Braxton is the director of the Center for Social Change and Belonging and an affiliate associate teaching professor of Philosophy and African Studies at Penn State University.
How State Courts Pushed Back on an Infamous U.S. Supreme Court Case
Dred Scott, widely considered a stain on the U.S. Supreme Court’s history, denied citizenship to Black Americans in 1857. Many state supreme courts refused to follow it.
Natalie R. v. State of Utah
Plaintiffs claim that state's policy of promoting fossil-fuel development violates their substantive due process rights to life and to be free from government conduct that endangers health and safety
