Our Work

State courts are encountering a new type of “vote dilution” claim, which asserts that certain election rules or practices are unconstitutional because they increase the hypothetical risk that fraudulent votes which will be cast, which would dilute the weight of “legal” ballots. These hypothetical vote dilution claims increasingly invoke state constitutional rights. With sparse, unsettled, and often conflicting precedent on these types of claims, state courts may understandably find these claims difficult to adjudicate, especially in the highly charged election space. This Report offers state courts context on these claims and analytical frameworks with which to evaluate them under state constitutions.

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.

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 But during both Trump Administrations, officials rescinded those guidelines.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.

The case arose after a new Republican majority in the Michigan House refused to send several bills passed by a previous Democratic-controlled legislature to the governor to become law.

"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.

From Portland to Minneapolis, aggressive actions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents against citizens and noncitizens alike have been well documented. Many of these encounters raise grave constitutional concerns. Yet it may surprise—and alarm—many to learn that there is often no viable path to sue federal officers if they violate your constitutional rights, even egregiously.

Horizontal, interbranch competition is only one species of checks and balances. Especially in moments of politically consolidated federal power, the Constitution’s structure offers another, potentially more meaningful safeguard: the states.

State legislatures regularly propose and enact laws that seek to shape the substantive outcomes of state courts. These measures, including court-packing efforts, jurisdiction-stripping laws, and more creative maneuvers to change judicial selection or authority, would amount to legal earthquakes at the federal level. At the state level, these efforts often receive virtually no attention. This Essay brings the potent category of outcome-shaping court reform measures into focus and evaluates it as a question of state constitutional law.