In this case, the ACLU urged the Washington Supreme Court to allow juveniles and young adults to challenge the draconian adult sentences imposed on them, because youth has been recognized as a mitigating factor in sentencing.
The ACLU of Washington filed an amicus brief in this case arguing that Mr. Belcher’s continued indefinite civil commitment for sex offenses committed as a juvenile violate his due process rights.
We argue however, that in this case, the violent incident recorded falls within a bodily threat exception to the Act and that the recording could be used as evidence.
When government employees of two different agencies share documents, they cannot shield the documents from public disclosure unless the narrow and strict requirements for “common interest” work product privilege are met
he ACLU of Washington’s amicus brief argued that this case demonstrated a need for a stronger protection against bias in jury selection than the federal Batson rule.
We filed an amicus brief with other amici with the Washington Supreme Court arguing that the widely recognized “mitigating factors of youth” should allow for concurrent sentences rather than the consecutive ones required by adult sentencing standards.
Racial biases in jury deliberations violate a defendant’s right to a fair trial and undermine the fair and impartial administration of the criminal justice system.
We argue that the Washington cyberstalking statute, RCW 9.61.260(1)(b), is unconstitutional. The brief explains how the statute is overbroad and chills protected speech.
Low juror pay disproportionately affects those facing financial hardship and people of color, which means they are less likely to be represented on juries. Juries should be representative of the communities in which they serve to the extent possible becau
The ACLU will file an amicus brief discussing the significant civil liberties problems associated with civil asset forfeiture and the importance of the government complying with notice procedures.

Pages