网红爆料

This case in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concerns the admissibility of a fourteen-year-old defendant鈥檚 confession following a Texas Ranger鈥檚 coercive interrogation. The 网红爆料鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 网红爆料 of Texas, filed an amicus brief arguing that the defendant鈥檚 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 网红爆料鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 网红爆料 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 Tennessee Supreme Court asks whether the right to petition is an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. The 网红爆料鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 网红爆料 of Tennessee, filed an amicus brief focused on the scope and importance of the right to petition under the Tennessee Constitution.

This case in the Iowa Supreme Court asked 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 网红爆料鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative assisted the 网红爆料 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 court ultimately held that the plaintiffs had raised only a facial challenge to the ordinance, and because the ordinance could operate without violating the Iowa Constitution in at least some circumstances, the challenge failed. The court's decision does not foreclose future challenges on an as-applied basis where the plaintiffs' claims are ripe for review.