A Prison Project guide to habeas relief versus civil-rights suit: the facts behind Preiser v. Rodriguez, its legal rule, limits, and evidence families can preserve.
A Prison Project guide to RLUIPA institutionalized persons: the facts behind Cutter v. Wilkinson, its legal rule, limits, and evidence families can preserve.
A Prison Project guide to RLUIPA religious practice accommodation: the facts behind Holt v. Hobbs, its legal rule, limits, and evidence families can preserve.
A Prison Project guide to journalist access and prison communication: the facts behind Pell v. Procunier, its legal rule, limits, and evidence families can preserve.
A Prison Project guide to outgoing personal correspondence: the facts behind Procunier v. Martinez, its legal rule, limits, and evidence families can preserve.
A Prison Project guide to DNA testing requests and Section 1983: the facts behind Skinner v. Switzer, its legal rule, limits, and evidence families can preserve.
Digital tracking systems, forensic cellphone extraction tools, and predictive algorithms are raising a critical question: How much surveillance authority should a child welfare agency have, and who is watching the investigators?
For families involved in child protective services investigations, the prospect of government agencies using police-grade surveillance technology raises serious concerns about privacy, consent, and constitutional protections.
A Prison Project guide to equal protection race segregation: the facts behind Johnson v. California, its legal rule, limits, and evidence families can preserve.
A Prison Project guide to retroactive application of juvenile sentencing rules: the facts behind Montgomery v. Louisiana, its legal rule, limits, and evidence families can preserve.
A Prison Project guide to supermax notice and review: the facts behind Wilkinson v. Austin, its legal rule, limits, and evidence families can preserve.
