Our Work

"Derek Clinger, senior staff attorney with the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School, pointed to Carter’s comprehensive discussion of the 1960 Civil Rights Act (CRA), and the DOJ rarely-invoked demands under it for access to voter registration records. “That’ll be the most read part by the other courts,” Clinger said, noting that the agency failed to provide a written basis for the record demands — a reason for believing the states were acting unlawfully — as required by the CRA."

"States have broad power to regulate within their borders unless the U.S. Constitution bars it, but many of these laws raise novel issues that courts will have to sort out, said Harrison Stark, senior counsel with the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School."

"Bridget Lavender, a staff attorney with the State Democracy Research Initiative, said LA County could still pursue its own case, even if the pending state laws are struck down. That could lead to what she described as 'a situation where we have different outcomes between the two cases.'

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.

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?

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.

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.

Victims of unconstitutional federal actions often have difficulty recovering money damages for their injuries. This Report discusses a potential remedial pathway that is beginning to garner interest among policymakers and litigants: state-created causes of action authorizing people to sue federal officials for damages.

This report explores when states can or cannot pursue prosecutions against federal officials and what that has looked like in practice. This practice stretches back to at least the early 1800s, but it comes with a mixed track record.