Amicus Briefs

On September 3, 2026, the State Democracy Research Initiative filed an amicus brief on behalf of eight legal scholars encouraging the court to be mindful of the Wisconsin Constitution's foundational democratic commitments. The brief explains that this constitutionally embedded democracy principle prevents mapmakers from manipulating electoral districts for partisan advantage, and that partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable. (The brief expresses no view on the ultimate merits of the plaintiffs' specific claim.)

On August 20, 2026, the State Democracy Research Initiative filed an amicus brief on behalf of eight legal scholars encouraging the court to be mindful of the Wisconsin Constitution's foundational democratic commitments. The brief explains that this constitutionally embedded democracy principle prevents mapmakers from seeking to suppress electoral competition and accountability and that such anti-competitive gerrymandering claims are justiciable. (The brief expresses no view on the ultimate merits of the plaintiffs' specific claim.)

On August 5, the State Democracy Research Initiative’s faculty co-directors, Miriam Seifter and Rob Yablon, filed an amicus brief with 5 other legal scholars in United States v. New York et al., a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal concerns whether the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution bars three provisions of New York’s Driver’s License Access and Privacy Act that seek to limit disclosure of sensitive state data for immigration enforcement purposes. The federal government sued, arguing that New York’s policies were preempted by federal law and violated the judge-made doctrine of “intergovernmental immunity.” DOJ has made similar arguments in a range of recent cases.

On June 17, 2026, the State Democracy Research Initiative’s faculty co-directors, Miriam Seifter and Rob Yablon, filed an amicus brief with six other legal scholars in United States v. New York et al., a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal concerns whether the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution bars New York’s “Protect Our Courts Act” and several executive orders that limit state cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

In a case concerning whether a federal statute, the Westfall Act, precludes all state-law damages actions against federal officials, even those based on federal constitutional violations, the State Democracy Research Initiative filed an amicus brief explaining that the U.S. Constitution’s structure envisions an active role for state laws and institutions in redressing the constitutional violations of federal actors, and, historically, state-level causes of action were the primary way for individuals to recover for injuries caused by such actors.

In a case challenging the Oregon Department of Justice's creation of a sweeping domestic surveillance program, State Democracy Research Initiative filed an amicus brief arguing that, in the absence of explicit statutory authorization, mere inclusion of funding for the program in an omnibus appropriations law does not amount to proper authorization of the program itself.

The State Democracy Research Initiative filed an amicus brief urging the Arizona Supreme court to uphold a voter-initiated statute requiring the disclosure of major donors to "dark money" political groups.

In a case determining whether the state constitution prohibits election officials from excluding timely-received absentee ballots because they lack a written date on the return envelope, the State Democracy Research Initiative filed an amicus brief arguing that the practice is inconsistent with the Pennsylvania Constitution's democratic commitments.

In a challenge to the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules's ability to indefinitely block administrative rules promulgated by executive agencies, the State Democracy Research Initiative filed an amicus brief arguing that this power violates the Wisconsin Constitution by allowing an unrepresentative legislative committee make binding statewide policy decisions. In 2025, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that legislative vetoes over administrative rules violate the Wisconsin Constitution’s bicameralism and presentment requirements.

In a challenge to Governor Tony Evers use of his partial veto powers to extend a school funding increase from two to 402 years, the State Democracy Research Initiative filed an amicus brief arguing that this use of the power violates constitutional limits on the power and is contrary to the constitution's democratic commitments. In 2025, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that Governor Evers had not violated the limits on the partial veto power.