Smart Justice
Singleton v. Cannizzaro
The ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥ Trone Center for Justice and Equality, ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥ of Louisiana, and Civil Rights Corps, filed suit against District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro, his office in Orleans Parish, Louisiana, and several Assistant District Attorneys for systematically breaking the laws of Louisiana and of the U.S. Constitution.
View Case
Learn ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥ Smart Justice
Featured
Mississippi
Mar 2017
Smart Justice
Prisoners' Rights
Dockery v. Hall
The ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the Law Offices of Elizabeth Alexander, and the law firm of Covington & Burling LLP, filed a petition for class certification and expert reports for a federal lawsuit on behalf of prisoners at the East Mississippi Correctional Facility (EMCF). The lawsuit, which was filed in May 2013, describes the for-profit prison as hyper-violent, grotesquely filthy and dangerous. EMCF is operated "in a perpetual state of crisis" where prisoners are at "grave risk of death and loss of limbs." The facility, located in Meridian, Mississippi, is supposed to provide intensive treatment to the state's prisoners with serious psychiatric disabilities, many of whom are locked down in long-term solitary confinement.
All Cases
191 Smart Justice Cases
Alabama
Sep 2013
Smart Justice
+3 Issues
Henderson et al. v. Thomas et al.
A federal judge has ruled that the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC) can no longer discriminate against prisoners living with HIV by housing them separately from all other prisoners and categorically denying them equal access to prison rehabilitative programs, according to a landmark decision in a lawsuit filed by the ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥ National Prison Project, the AIDS Project, and the ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥ of Alabama. This ruling paves the way for prisoners living with HIV to have access to needed and appropriate services, and to the classes and training available to other prisoners.
Explore case
Alabama
Sep 2013
Smart Justice
+3 Issues
Henderson et al. v. Thomas et al.
A federal judge has ruled that the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC) can no longer discriminate against prisoners living with HIV by housing them separately from all other prisoners and categorically denying them equal access to prison rehabilitative programs, according to a landmark decision in a lawsuit filed by the ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥ National Prison Project, the AIDS Project, and the ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥ of Alabama. This ruling paves the way for prisoners living with HIV to have access to needed and appropriate services, and to the classes and training available to other prisoners.
Missouri
Sep 2013
Smart Justice
Criminal Law Reform
Barrett v. Claycomb
A federal district court has ruled that a public college in Missouri must end its unconstitutional program of requiring all of its students—irrespective of their course of study—to submit to suspicionless drug-testing.
Explore case
Missouri
Sep 2013
Smart Justice
Criminal Law Reform
Barrett v. Claycomb
A federal district court has ruled that a public college in Missouri must end its unconstitutional program of requiring all of its students—irrespective of their course of study—to submit to suspicionless drug-testing.
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 2013
Smart Justice
+2 Issues
Kansas v. Cheever
Whether the Fifth Amendment imposes any limits on the state's ability to introduce evidence derived from a court-ordered psychiatric examination of the defendant by the state's expert.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 2013
Smart Justice
+2 Issues
Kansas v. Cheever
Whether the Fifth Amendment imposes any limits on the state's ability to introduce evidence derived from a court-ordered psychiatric examination of the defendant by the state's expert.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2013
Smart Justice
+3 Issues
Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics
Whether human genes can be patented.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2013
Smart Justice
+3 Issues
Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics
Whether human genes can be patented.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2013
Smart Justice
+2 Issues
Maryland v. King
Whether collecting and analyzing DNA samples from arrestees without a warrant or consent violates the Fourth Amendment.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2013
Smart Justice
+2 Issues
Maryland v. King
Whether collecting and analyzing DNA samples from arrestees without a warrant or consent violates the Fourth Amendment.