Our Work

"A recently proposed California bill would create a new avenue for individuals seeking relief for constitutional rights violations by federal officials. The proposal – which cleared the state Senate in a 30-10 vote and is currently pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee – is part of a broader national trend, with similar legislation proposed in Illinois, New York and Connecticut."

Mail voting is under unprecedented federal pressure heading into the 2026 midterm elections. From the White House to the Supreme Court to Congress, a series of developments is threatening a form of voting that tens of millions of Americans rely on—and that was relatively uncontroversial until just a few years ago. This explainer examines how mail voting became a partisan battleground, what the current federal threats mean for mail voting, and what states, election officials, and advocates can do in response.

Litigation over election results serves an important role in legitimizing the democratic process, but when these challenges drag on for months, they can undermine that legitimacy and leave citizens without representation. North Carolina’s 2024 Supreme Court race, for example, took six months of post-election litigation to resolve, and some observers worry that similar delays could affect control of Congress in 2027. This Explainer examines the gaps in state laws that increase the risk of prolonged election contests and shows how state supreme courts can use their supervisory and rulemaking powers to ensure prompt resolution of such proceedings.

"Two federal appeals courts will soon weigh whether state election officials must turn their unredacted voter rolls over to the Justice Department—an argument President Donald Trump’s administration has yet to win in court. . . . “I do find that fascinating how all the district courts are reaching the same kind of bottom line that the Justice Department loses, but they’re getting there with different reasoning,” said Derek Clinger, senior counsel and director of partnerships with the University of Wisconsin law school’s State Democracy Research Initiative."

For decades, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) limited enforcement operations at so-called “sensitive locations” like courthouses, schools, or hospitals. But during both Trump Administrations, officials rescinded those guidelines. This report discusses states and localities’ ability to adopt their own state-law policies to protect “sensitive locations” from the disruption of warrantless immigration arrests.

"'It has arguably never been harder in American history than it is today, in 2026, to sue a federal official for money damages if they violate your constitutional rights,' Harrison Stark of University of Wisconsin Law School said."

"Politicians at all levels of government have called for reforms to deescalate tensions arising from federal immigration enforcement in their states. One common proposal is banning law enforcement officers — including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection officers — from wearing masks."

State and local governments are increasingly using property law to push back on ICE operations. This report unpacks the viability of these efforts, from banning new detention centers to barring officers from staging operations on city property.

"Proposals to prohibit federal immigration agents from masking their faces have gained new life in states — thanks in part to a court ruling that blocked the nation’s first such law, in California."

"A California law aimed at prohibiting ICE agents from wearing masks was struck down in court earlier this year. The carve-out that led to the successful Trump administration challenge came out of negotiations between the offices of Gov. Gavin Newsom and Sen. Scott Wiener. Newsom and Wiener have said they were proud to pass the first attempt at an ICE mask ban, and efforts to pass a new version are underway."