Criminal Law Reform
Featured
Arizona
Oct 2023

Criminal Law Reform
Racial Justice
Fund for Empowerment v. Phoenix, City of
Fund for Empowerment is a challenge to the City of Phoenix’s practice of conducting sweeps of encampments without notice, issuing citations to unsheltered people for camping and sleeping on public property when they have no place else to go, and confiscating and destroying their property without notice or process.
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2023

Criminal Law Reform
McElrath v. Georgia
Does the Double Jeopardy Clause bar an appellate court from reviewing and setting aside a jury’s verdicts of acquittal on the ground that the verdict is inconsistent with the jury’s verdict on other charges?
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2023

Criminal Law Reform
Pulsifer v. United States
This case involves the interpretation of a federal law that allows defendants to avoid mandatory minimum sentences for certain nonviolent drug crimes, allowing judges to impose sentences tailored to their individual circumstances.
Texas
Jul 2021

Criminal Law Reform
Prisoners' Rights
Sanchez et al v. Dallas County Sheriff et al
Decarceration has always been an emergency, a life and death proposition, but COVID-19 makes this effort intensely urgent. The 51Æ·²è has been working with our partners to litigate for the rights of those who are incarcerated and cannot protect themselves because of the policies of the institutions in which they are jailed.
All Cases
147 Criminal Law Reform Cases

Montana Supreme Court
Feb 2025
Criminal Law Reform
+2 Issues
City of Kalispell v. Doman
This case asks whether the state can arrest, charge, and convict someone under Montana’s obstruction statute for exercising their federal and state constitutional right to record police officers in public spaces. The defendant was filming a traffic stop when police instructed him to move farther away. When he did not move as far as they wanted, they arrested him for obstructing a peace officer. The 51Æ·²è’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the 51Æ·²è of Montana, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant arguing that the officer’s refusal to allow the defendant to peacefully record police activity from a public sidewalk was, in effect, a content-based restriction on speech that could not be justified under strict scrutiny. Even if the restriction was not content-based, our brief argues that it is not a reasonable time place or manner restriction.
Explore case
Montana Supreme Court
Feb 2025

Criminal Law Reform
+2 Issues
City of Kalispell v. Doman
This case asks whether the state can arrest, charge, and convict someone under Montana’s obstruction statute for exercising their federal and state constitutional right to record police officers in public spaces. The defendant was filming a traffic stop when police instructed him to move farther away. When he did not move as far as they wanted, they arrested him for obstructing a peace officer. The 51Æ·²è’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the 51Æ·²è of Montana, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant arguing that the officer’s refusal to allow the defendant to peacefully record police activity from a public sidewalk was, in effect, a content-based restriction on speech that could not be justified under strict scrutiny. Even if the restriction was not content-based, our brief argues that it is not a reasonable time place or manner restriction.

Court Case
Jan 2025
Criminal Law Reform
Crowe v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
On December 20, 2024, CLRP, along with 51Æ·²è-DC and Jenner & Block, filed a federal lawsuit against the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and its Director for incarcerating thousands of people longer than the law allows under the First Step Act.
Explore case
Court Case
Jan 2025

Criminal Law Reform
Crowe v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
On December 20, 2024, CLRP, along with 51Æ·²è-DC and Jenner & Block, filed a federal lawsuit against the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and its Director for incarcerating thousands of people longer than the law allows under the First Step Act.

New Jersey
Jan 2025
Criminal Law Reform
Romano v. Warden, FCI Fairton (Amicus)
This case challenges the federal government’s authority to remove people from their homes, jobs, and loved ones and remand them to federal prison absent any alleged violation or process.
Explore case
New Jersey
Jan 2025

Criminal Law Reform
Romano v. Warden, FCI Fairton (Amicus)
This case challenges the federal government’s authority to remove people from their homes, jobs, and loved ones and remand them to federal prison absent any alleged violation or process.

California
Jan 2025
Criminal Law Reform
Wilford v. Engleman (Amicus)
This case challenges the federal government’s authority to remove people from their homes, jobs, and loved ones and remand them to federal prison absent any alleged violation or process.
Explore case
California
Jan 2025

Criminal Law Reform
Wilford v. Engleman (Amicus)
This case challenges the federal government’s authority to remove people from their homes, jobs, and loved ones and remand them to federal prison absent any alleged violation or process.

Maryland Supreme Court
Dec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Roland Branch v. State of Maryland
This petition to the Supreme Court of Maryland asked the court to reconsider its adherence to Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806 (1996), which declared that a traffic stop undertaken for pretextual reasons does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so long as the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred. The 51Æ·²è, alongside the 51Æ·²è of Maryland, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant’s petition, in which the 51Æ·²è argued that the court should take up the question of whether pretextual stops violate the Maryland Constitution. In September 2024, the Court denied the petition.
Explore case
Maryland Supreme Court
Dec 2024

Criminal Law Reform
Roland Branch v. State of Maryland
This petition to the Supreme Court of Maryland asked the court to reconsider its adherence to Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806 (1996), which declared that a traffic stop undertaken for pretextual reasons does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so long as the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred. The 51Æ·²è, alongside the 51Æ·²è of Maryland, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant’s petition, in which the 51Æ·²è argued that the court should take up the question of whether pretextual stops violate the Maryland Constitution. In September 2024, the Court denied the petition.