Smart Justice
Singleton v. Cannizzaro
The ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ Trone Center for Justice and Equality, ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ of Louisiana, and Civil Rights Corps, filed suit against District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro, his office in Orleans Parish, Louisiana, and several Assistant District Attorneys for systematically breaking the laws of Louisiana and of the U.S. Constitution.
View Case
Learn ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ Smart Justice
Featured
Mississippi
Mar 2017

Smart Justice
Prisoners' Rights
Dockery v. Hall
The ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the Law Offices of Elizabeth Alexander, and the law firm of Covington & Burling LLP, filed a petition for class certification and expert reports for a federal lawsuit on behalf of prisoners at the East Mississippi Correctional Facility (EMCF). The lawsuit, which was filed in May 2013, describes the for-profit prison as hyper-violent, grotesquely filthy and dangerous. EMCF is operated "in a perpetual state of crisis" where prisoners are at "grave risk of death and loss of limbs." The facility, located in Meridian, Mississippi, is supposed to provide intensive treatment to the state's prisoners with serious psychiatric disabilities, many of whom are locked down in long-term solitary confinement.
All Cases
190 Smart Justice Cases

Nevada Supreme Court
Nov 2023
Smart Justice
Criminal Law Reform
Cannabis Equity & Inclusion Community v. Nevada Board of Pharmacy
Nevadans, like voters in many states, have chosen to legalize marijuana for medicinal and recreational use. In Nevada, these changes—adopted through citizen ballot initiatives and, in the case of medical marijuana, enshrined in the Nevada Constitution—were intended to ensure that marijuana is regulated much like alcohol and that law enforcement resources are focused on violent crime, not the prosecution of non-violent drug offenses. Despite these legal changes, Nevada’s Board of Pharmacy continues to regulate marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance for purposes of state law, akin to the Board’s treatment of cocaine and fentanyl. The Board’s scheduling designation for marijuana has enormous implications for criminal defendants in Nevada since state law makes it a felony to possess or engage in certain other activity with respect to a Schedule I controlled substance, as designated by the Board.
This case, brought by an individual and organization harmed by the Board’s scheduling designation for marijuana, involves the question whether the designation violates the Nevada Constitution and state statutes. The ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ of Nevada is counsel in the case, and the ºìÐÓÊÓÆµâ€™s State Supreme Court Initiative is co-counsel on appeal.
In August 2024, the Court held that Pool and CEIC lack standing to challenge marijuana's designation as a Schedule I substance but recognized that other individuals could appropriately do so in the future. The Court did not reach the merits in reversing the district court’s positive decision.
Explore case
Nevada Supreme Court
Nov 2023

Smart Justice
Criminal Law Reform
Cannabis Equity & Inclusion Community v. Nevada Board of Pharmacy
Nevadans, like voters in many states, have chosen to legalize marijuana for medicinal and recreational use. In Nevada, these changes—adopted through citizen ballot initiatives and, in the case of medical marijuana, enshrined in the Nevada Constitution—were intended to ensure that marijuana is regulated much like alcohol and that law enforcement resources are focused on violent crime, not the prosecution of non-violent drug offenses. Despite these legal changes, Nevada’s Board of Pharmacy continues to regulate marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance for purposes of state law, akin to the Board’s treatment of cocaine and fentanyl. The Board’s scheduling designation for marijuana has enormous implications for criminal defendants in Nevada since state law makes it a felony to possess or engage in certain other activity with respect to a Schedule I controlled substance, as designated by the Board.
This case, brought by an individual and organization harmed by the Board’s scheduling designation for marijuana, involves the question whether the designation violates the Nevada Constitution and state statutes. The ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ of Nevada is counsel in the case, and the ºìÐÓÊÓÆµâ€™s State Supreme Court Initiative is co-counsel on appeal.
In August 2024, the Court held that Pool and CEIC lack standing to challenge marijuana's designation as a Schedule I substance but recognized that other individuals could appropriately do so in the future. The Court did not reach the merits in reversing the district court’s positive decision.

West Virginia
Aug 2023
Smart Justice
Criminal Law Reform
United States v. Myles
This case challenges a presumption of pretrial detention that applies to nearly all people charged with federal drug offenses.
Explore case
West Virginia
Aug 2023

Smart Justice
Criminal Law Reform
United States v. Myles
This case challenges a presumption of pretrial detention that applies to nearly all people charged with federal drug offenses.

U.S. Supreme Court
Jul 2023
Smart Justice
Criminal Law Reform
Daves v. Dallas County
Whether federal courts have the power to remedy systemic unconstitutional pretrial detention practices that remain unchecked by state courts.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jul 2023

Smart Justice
Criminal Law Reform
Daves v. Dallas County
Whether federal courts have the power to remedy systemic unconstitutional pretrial detention practices that remain unchecked by state courts.

California
May 2023
Smart Justice
Prisoners' Rights
Rosas v. Luna
Rosas v. Luna is a class action lawsuit brought by the ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ of Southern California (ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ SoCal), the ºìÐÓÊÓÆµâ€™s National Prison Project (NPP), and the law firm of Paul Hastings LLP in 2012 against the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD) over its routine, excessive, and unnecessary use of force against incarcerated people in the Los Angeles Jail system.
Explore case
California
May 2023

Smart Justice
Prisoners' Rights
Rosas v. Luna
Rosas v. Luna is a class action lawsuit brought by the ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ of Southern California (ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ SoCal), the ºìÐÓÊÓÆµâ€™s National Prison Project (NPP), and the law firm of Paul Hastings LLP in 2012 against the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD) over its routine, excessive, and unnecessary use of force against incarcerated people in the Los Angeles Jail system.

South Carolina
Mar 2023
Smart Justice
Racial Justice
Brown v. Lexington County, et al
This case is part of a nationwide fight against criminalization of poverty and, specifically, debtors' prisons. On June 1, 2017, the ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ's Racial Justice Program, the ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ of South Carolina, and Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC filed a federal lawsuit challenging the illegal arrest and incarceration of indigent people in Lexington County, South Carolina, for failure to pay fines and fees, without determining willfulness or providing assistance to counsel. Those targeted by this long-standing practice could avoid jail only if they paid the entire amount of outstanding court fines and fees up front and in full. Indigent people who were unable to pay were incarcerated for weeks to months without ever seeing a judge, having a court hearing, or receiving help from a lawyer. The result was one of the most draconian debtors’ prisons uncovered by the ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ since 2010.
Explore case
South Carolina
Mar 2023

Smart Justice
Racial Justice
Brown v. Lexington County, et al
This case is part of a nationwide fight against criminalization of poverty and, specifically, debtors' prisons. On June 1, 2017, the ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ's Racial Justice Program, the ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ of South Carolina, and Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC filed a federal lawsuit challenging the illegal arrest and incarceration of indigent people in Lexington County, South Carolina, for failure to pay fines and fees, without determining willfulness or providing assistance to counsel. Those targeted by this long-standing practice could avoid jail only if they paid the entire amount of outstanding court fines and fees up front and in full. Indigent people who were unable to pay were incarcerated for weeks to months without ever seeing a judge, having a court hearing, or receiving help from a lawyer. The result was one of the most draconian debtors’ prisons uncovered by the ºìÐÓÊÓÆµ since 2010.