Our Work

Shortly after a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer shot and killed a woman in Minneapolis on Wednesday, city leaders began looking into whether the officer had violated state criminal law. States have a long history of prosecuting federal officials for allegedly using excessive force on the job. And when federal courts agree that the force may not have been legally justified, they have allowed the state prosecution to proceed.

Amid federal upheaval, myriad important legal and policy developments continue to unfold at the state level. The Essays in this Special Issue were presented at, or grew out of, the fifth annual Public Law in the States Conference hosted by the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School in May 2025.

The U.S. Justice Department has demanded states' complete, unredacted vote registration lists. States have mostly declined to provide their full, unredacted voter registration lists. This report examines the questions raised by the federal government's demands about the long-established authority of states to administer elections and the scope of the federal government’s role in the voter registration process.

Federal laws and institutions have long played a central role in addressing public corruption. This report considers the potential for states to play a more central role in addressing public corruption. To date, the vast majority of state public corruption prosecutions have involved misconduct by state or local officials. But beyond addressing public corruption at the state and local levels, state law also provides an underexplored pathway for deterring and punishing corrupt conduct at the federal level.

As the federal government carries out aggressive immigration raids in major cities across the U.S., state officials are facing off with the federal government over a centuries-old question: When can states prosecute federal officials for violating state criminal law?

Property owners have challenged programs meant to assist vulnerable populations, alleging they are unconstitutional takings of private property for public use.

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.

As concerns mount about the conduct of federal agents, the possible solution of state-created damages remedies for federal constitutional violations is gaining steam in states. It’s what Professor Akhil Amar once dubbed “converse § 1983.” As the State Democracy Research Initiative details, the core idea is simple: States can enact (or amend existing) civil rights statutes that allow damages suits against any person — including a federal officer — who violates federal constitutional rights. While there are some unanswered questions and likely hurdles, the historical pedigree and legal footing for such remedies is perhaps stronger than some skeptics might assume.

This Report describes the recently enacted mask ban in California and the proposed laws in other states. Under existing precedent, mask bans are neither clearly prohibited nor clearly permissible. This Report also provides an overview of other options states may have to address masking by federal law enforcement.