Legal Analysis

Map Drama in Missouri Draws 

Rebuke, Validates Voters Rights

    WASHINGTON — (ACLU) -- 9/27/2026  -- The U.S. Supreme Court has, for a third time, declined to allow an unlawful congressional map to be used in the 2026 midterm elections in Missouri.

    Less than two months before Election Day, two congressional candidates and two voters attempted to force the state once again to use the 2025 map that was a result of mid-decade redistricting, even though it had already been ruled unlawful by the Missouri Supreme Court, a ruling twice left in place by the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Campaign Legal Center, the ACLU of Missouri and ACLU Voting Rights Project filed amicus briefs at the Missouri Supreme Court, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, and three times at the U.S. Supreme Court, most recently on September 22, 2026, urging the Court to stay a rogue decision of the Eighth Circuit and a federal district court attempting to resurrect the 2025 map. Today the Supreme Court stayed those lower court decisions, definitively confirming that the 2026 election must take place under the lawful 2022 map.

   Mark Gaber, senior director of redistricting at Campaign Legal Center: “The gerrymandered map passed in 2025 in Missouri was never law, and yet self-interested, partisan politicians, and now two lower federal courts, have repeatedly attempted to impose it on voters for the 2026 midterms. This case should never have reached the Supreme Court three times, but we’re glad that the final outcome of these cases is Missourians having the opportunity to vote under a lawful map this fall.”

    Gillian Wilcox, director of litigation and policy for the ACLU of Missouri: “Politicians and elected officials have unleashed unnecessary but intentional chaos on Missouri voters, not for the benefit of their constituents but for themselves and the state actors in D.C. who designed and demanded these maps solely for partisan power grab. Voting has already begun and today's decision closes the door on the politicians’ shenanigans."

    Ming Cheung, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project: "The people of Missouri have the right to go to the polls and reject the State's attempt to gerrymander their congressional districts, and the Supreme Court has now confirmed, for the third time in as many weeks, that the State's unlawful districts cannot be used this November. Voting has already begun, and all efforts to cause confusion and chaos must cease. This saga began in 2025 when politicians tried to rig the map and take away representation from Kansas City residents, but the courts have now made clear that voters — not politicians — decide who represents them.”

Background:

    In September 2025, the Missouri General Assembly passed House Bill 1 (H.B. 1) which created a new, mid-decade, gerrymandered congressional map. In response, the people of Missouri exercised their rights under the Missouri Constitution by collecting signatures for a referendum petition on H.B. 1.

    On December 9, 2025, Missourians submitted over 300,000 signatures in support of the referendum. Under the Missouri Constitution, this should have suspended the implementation of the new map until voters had an opportunity to either approve or disapprove of it in the next election. However, Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins refused to certify the referendum petition and attempted to force voters to vote under the unlawful map.

    Secretary Hoskins’ actions were met with swift legal action, and after moving through multiple lawsuits, the U.S. Supreme Court denied multiple efforts by him and other political actors to retain the unlawful 2025 map in the upcoming midterms.

    This latest decision from the Supreme Court comes after an appeal of an Eighth Circuit ruling that the unlawful map must be used.   --  Initial date of press release: 9/25/26

Policy Impact

Analysis Shows Consequence

of Cuts to Food Programs

in Deep South

    MONTGOMERY, Ala.-- (SPLC) 9/6/2026 --  Just over a year since the dubiously named “One Big Beautiful Bill” (H.R. 1) was signed into law, communities across the country are more clearly seeing the ramifications of the massive cuts that are decimating basic needs programs designed to help families keep food on their tables. Coinciding with Hunger Action Month, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) recently released new research examining the impacts of the Trump administration’s nearly $190 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

    The SPLC’s research explores how H.R. 1 will create additional barriers for Black and rural communities who have faced a history of discrimination in food assistance policy and how states throughout the Deep South have responded to funding gaps created by the legislation.

    “The decision to cut families off from SNAP to help pay for tax breaks for the extraordinarily wealthy showed blatant disregard for the reality that everyday people, especially in the Deep South, have been living,” said Gina Azito Thompson, policy analyst, SPLC. “A year after H.R. 1 was signed, household bills are still far too high for so many families struggling to survive this affordability crisis, and yet many are callously being told to fend for themselves when it comes to putting food on the table.”

    A critical lifeline for people experiencing hunger, SNAP provides food assistance to more than 6.1 million people in the Deep South, or approximately 15% of all SNAP households in the country. Unfortunately, H.R. 1 not only initiated the largest federal funding cuts to SNAP in history, but it also expanded work reporting requirements for older adults and parents of children aged 14 and older, restricting eligibility for the program. From July 2025 to April 2026, SNAP participation nationwide fell by an estimated 4.5 million people. And between July 2025 and February 2026, SNAP enrollments in the Deep South fell by about:

• Alabama: 40,000 (5.5%)
• Florida: 300,000 (10.6%)
• Georgia: 80,000 (6.0%)
• Louisiana: 120,000 (14.9%)
• Mississippi: 34,000 (9.5%)

    States are also grappling with a steep increase in costs to run the program. While the federal government had previously covered half of the administrative costs for SNAP, states will now be required to shoulder 75% of the expenses. They could also face drastic financial penalties for inaccuracies in assistance distribution. By fiscal year 2028 (October 2027), states may have to pay hundreds of millions more just to keep the same number of people enrolled in SNAP.

    “Our states are already feeling the dire consequences of H.R. 1 cuts on their budgets. And while they have increased funding to cover the added administrative costs of SNAP for next year, these are temporary fixes that sometimes end up pulling money from other critical programs like childcare assistance,” said Theresa Lau, senior policy counsel, SPLC. “When the extremely steep costs hit in late 2027 and they can’t find those quick fixes, we unfortunately know how many of our states are primed to respond: further cuts to assistance and new eligibility requirements that kick even more people off of these programs. Families in the Deep South won’t be able to afford that.”

    Additionally, the SPLC’s research outlines a number of actions that both federal and state governments can take to shore up food assistance programs, as well as healthcare programs, which also saw drastic cuts due to H.R. 1, resulting in significant loss of insurance coverage for Americans.

    Poverty, food insecurity, poor nutrition and health are closely intertwined, underscoring the importance of effective healthcare and food assistance programs, especially for communities in the Deep South. To help raise awareness about the interconnected systemic issues that trap communities in harmful economic conditions, the SPLC launched the Poverty Is Not a Line campaign earlier this year, which explores how to understand the experiences of people living in poverty. While the campaign aims to build momentum for policy solutions to address issues such as food insecurity, community members can also take direct action to help combat the hunger crisis in the United States by donating to and volunteering at local food banks.  Press release date: 9/3/26)

Privacy Rights

ACLU Responds to Flock's 

Proposed Changes As Opposition 

to Surveillance System Grows

    NEW YORK – (ACLU) -- 8/13/2026 -- Amid nationwide outcry against its automatic license plate readers, Flock Safety announced today that it will reduce its standard data retention policy and allegedly provide more control over local data searches, among other changes. However, according to American Civil Liberties Union’s new analysis, many of the proposed changes seem to be a thinly veiled PR attempt to counter communities’ genuine privacy concerns with its mass surveillance system with largely hollow security promises, rather than an earnest effort to address them. While the ACLU acknowledges one potentially positive development, most of the proposed changes stand little chance of making a positive difference for civil liberties.

    “Transforming an exceptionally dangerous mass surveillance system into one that is fully protective of civil rights and civil liberties is a difficult, if not impossible task. That is even more the case with a company like Flock, whose nearly $1 billion in venture capitalist funding has locked it into an operational model that seeks to trade our privacy for massive profits,” said Chad Marlow, senior policy counsel at ACLU. “Given that Flock’s latest announcement still appears more focused on addressing a PR problem than the significant privacy and other harms its products create, we will continue to analyze the company’s proposals fairly and honestly. We just won’t be holding our breath.”

    Flock operates more than 120,000 automatic license plate readers in at least 6,000 cities across the country, raising serious concerns around mass surveillance, data privacy, and how police and the government can use this data to go after immigrants, protestors, and others. Just this week, the Institute for Justice published a database with more than 100 incidents of ALPR abuse, including romantic stalking, wrongful stops and detentions, non-law enforcement use, and other types of misconduct.

    One of the changes announced is that Flock will decrease its standard data retention option to one week from 30 days. This seems positive at first blush, but as the ACLU’s breakdown explains, the devil will be in the details. For example, an exception to the data retention policy is something called “Evidence Mode, which is “when a search is tied to a case number, that data is preserved instead of aging out after 7 days.” As the ACLU notes, “If ‘Evidence Mode’ only retains hit result data that police determine may be evidence in an active investigation of a specific case, then the change may be a positive one. But if Evidence Mode triggers the retention of any ALPR data that is searched, then the new mode could indefinitely retain all the ALPR data Flock collects and shares nationally.”

    Another “change” the company is implementing is that local police will be able to decide what types of offenses other Flock customers can search their data for. The ACLU contends that this is not new. Flock has attempted this before, and the security measure failed because police were easily able to circumvent the system’s requirement that they input the purpose of their search.

    Finally, Flock announced that in response to the reports of police abuse, they will now require reasons for a search, and that they plan to universally roll out its audit assistance tool to detect police misuse. Flock’s announcement fails to note how easily users have circumvented “search reason” security measures in the past or how its new policy improves the quality of the feature. And while providing “Audit Assistance” to all departments makes sense, the ACLU notes that there is no evidence that the tool works consistently to address what the Washington Post observed is a growing pattern of police officers turning Flock into a personal stalking tool. To determine the efficacy of this tool, Flock needs to have it analyzed by an independent evaluator. Until then, the ACLU says, “we don’t know if the tool is a real security measure or just window dressing.”

    Dozens of communities across the country have successfully convinced their leaders to cancel Flock contracts, suspend their ALPR programs, or deactivate the cameras, with many more cities considering new legislation to rein in this mass warrantless surveillance tech. In June, the ACLU launched its “Get the Flock Out” campaign to bring together the litigation, advocacy, and legislative efforts of ACLU affiliates in each state, show how communities across the country are fighting back against the spread of Flock and other license plate readers, and lay out how lawmakers at the local, state, and federal level can best protect our rights.

Litigation

AU Lawsuit Forced So-Called 

Religious Liberty Commission 

to Release Documents to the Public

    New York – (AU) -- 8/1/26 -- A federal judge dismissed a challenge July 27 brought against the Trump administration’s so-called “Religious Liberty” Commission by a multifaith coalition that challenged the unlawful creation and operation of the biased body.

    Earlier this year, Interfaith Alliance, Muslims For Progressive Values, Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Hindus For Human Rights united to file a lawsuit challenging the unlawful creation of the so-called “Religious Liberty” Commission. The lawsuit highlights violations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), including the unbalanced and biased viewpoints assembled for the panel and the unlawfully secretive refusal to disclose public documents and information related to the Commission’s work.

    The coalition is represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Democracy Forward in the matter.

    The order dismissing the case comes on the heels of a significant victory in the matter for the coalition. In a major milestone on April 28, government disclosures in the lawsuit revealed many of the documents the unlawful and secretive commission had been hiding from the public. In a late-night filing just before a court deadline, the government notified the court that it had finally publicly posted many of the Religious Liberty Commission’s transcripts, meeting minutes, witness testimonies, run of show, hearing summaries, and hearing recommendations. Those documents are available here.

    The long overdue publication of these documents was a resounding concession by the government and a significant victory for the coalition that demonstrated the necessity of challenging the administration’s unlawful actions.

    Today’s order ends the case for now in the district court, after crucial documents have been released. In addition, after plaintiffs filed suit, the commission agreed to make a draft report available for public comment and hold a public meeting to respond to issues raised by interested parties and members of the public. These actions increase transparency and give the public an opportunity to be heard.
Religious Liberty Commission does not promote true religious freedom

    In response to the ruling, the coalition issued the following joint statement:

    “Even before this decision, our litigation helped uncover the information the Trump-Vance administration attempted to hide from the public about this biased and unlawful body. Religious liberty and pluralism are foundational American values, and we remain committed to fighting for a democracy that does not promote a single religious belief and ignores others. We are grateful that this case achieved a major goal by forcing greater transparency, and we will continue our work.”

    The case was Interfaith Alliance et al. v. Trump et al. and the legal team on this case included Jenny Samuels from Americans United and Anna Deffebach, Robin Thurston, and Ayesha Khan from Democracy Forward.

    Read the original complaint here.

*Perryman also serves as a member of the Board of Interfaith Alliance.