Report Reform is urgently needed to prevent civil asset forfeiture abuses from undermining public efforts to cut poverty and boost opportunity.
Issue Brief Justice will be delayed for millions of Americans if the Senate refuses to do its job and vote on a Supreme Court nominee.
The fight over the vacant seat on the Supreme Court shows the importance of the lower courts and the high cost of Senate obstruction.
The U.S. Supreme Court has said that legislatures cannot draw districts based on race—but the North Carolina Supreme Court didn’t get the memo.
Billy Corriher highlights how, after June's U.S. Supreme Court ruling guaranteed marriage equality for same-sex couples, elected justices in the South continue to place politics before the law.
Issue Brief Judges and magistrates in some southern states are still defying the U.S. Supreme Court’s marriage equality decision.
Report A new CAP report looks at the challenge of sustaining judicial diversity on the bench in the face of big-money judicial elections.
A D.C. group pushed voter suppression measures then spent millions to elect the North Carolina Supreme Court justices hearing lawsuits against these changes.
Overly broad state religious freedom restoration acts, or RFRAs, threaten true religious freedom and could have far-reaching negative consequences.
By upholding Florida’s ban on judges directly seeking campaign cash, the Supreme Court recognizes money’s corrosive effect on judicial elections.
Elected judges in Alabama cater to their conservative constituents by defying marriage equality and sentencing convicts to death.
Billy Corriher writes that officials in Alabama are essentially arguing that the Constitution does not apply in their state.
Video This new minidocumentary from Legal Progress showcases the real human impact of special interest money that is infiltrating judicial elections by featuring one North Carolina family’s story of how coal ash pollution poisoned their community.
Most states ban the personal solicitation of campaign cash, but the U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide whether these laws violate judicial candidates’ free speech rights.
Spending on judicial elections reached $15 million in 2014—a record for a midterm election—fueled by money from attorneys and corporate litigants.