Our Work

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."

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.

Election administrators in the U.S. face persistent financial strain with local governments and their tax bases shouldering most costs while state and federal support remains limited. At the same time, states collect billions each year in unclaimed funds, which are assets like abandoned bank accounts and forgotten insurance proceeds. States are increasingly using unclaimed funds to support public programs like education and housing, but none have earmarked them for election administration.

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.

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.