Matthew Segal
LightNews LightNews
banner
segalmr.bsky.social
Matthew Segal
@segalmr.bsky.social
7.2K followers 590 following 1.2K posts
Civil Rights Lawyer | Personal Views | Not Legal Advice | https://as.tufts.edu/politicalscience/people/faculty/matthew-segal
Posts Replies Media Videos
segalmr.bsky.social
The Spider-Man meme except it’s federal and state officers threatening to arrest each other.

Things are going great.
October 24, 2025 at 9:54 PM
segalmr.bsky.social
seems like maybe Justice Sotomayor wasn't wrong
Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding.
October 24, 2025 at 2:48 AM
segalmr.bsky.social
NY COURT OF APPEALS: When the admin arm of the NY state court system sends guidance to NY judges about how to interpret the law, it cannot shield that guidance from public records requests by asserting a "sweeping" claim of attorney-client privilege with all judges.
www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decis...
NYCLU v. NY State Office of Court Administration OCA asserts that NYCLU’s request did not reasonably describe the records sought, and that any responsive materials would be subject to attorney-client privilege. On the first point, the parties now agree that an identifiable set of responsive documents exists and can be located by the agency, and NYCLU says that it wants nothing more. On the second point, OCA is not entitled to a blanket exemption for all potentially responsive documents based on a sweeping invocation of attorney-client privilege between its Counsel’s Office and all UCS judges. We therefore conclude that the Appellate Division erred in dismissing the FOIL proceeding as to the identified subset of documents, based solely upon OCA’s claim of a blanket attorney-client privilege exemption.
October 23, 2025 at 2:14 PM
segalmr.bsky.social
favorite sign so far
“Trump’s cameo in Home Alone 2 was poorly acted & unnecessary to the story”
October 18, 2025 at 4:11 PM
segalmr.bsky.social
To the extent I have a "teaching philosophy," it is this: www.tuftsdaily.com/article/2025...
"I’m trying to help the students to reason, to think, to do legal analysis, to consider how they could be wrong, to anticipate what the counter arguments to their positions might be, because I think those skills are really valuable, whether they become lawyers or not,” Segal said. “If you’re just conducting your work life convinced of your own righteousness, then you’ll be taken by surprise, by judges and by adversaries, because you will have failed to appreciate their point of view, and you will have failed to anticipate their arguments.”
October 4, 2025 at 3:09 PM
segalmr.bsky.social
Happy to be in Montana this morning for this important case.
Helena, MT
October 1, 2025 at 1:36 PM
segalmr.bsky.social
Yes, this is about Trump's needlessly cruel policies.

But it's also about Congress and the Judiciary failing, over the course of many years, to impose adequate guardrails on federal agents. abc7chicago.com/post/napervi...
"They had to jump off the roof, because to trap them, the agents knocked down the ladders so they could not leave the roof and basically they said either jump or stay up there," Fischer said.
September 21, 2025 at 9:25 PM
segalmr.bsky.social
Well when you put it that way...
"If children can record everyday events with ease, law enforcement cannot claim hardship to record perhaps its most consequential investigative act"
September 19, 2025 at 9:28 PM
segalmr.bsky.social
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAIʻI: The Hawaiʻi Constitution requires law enforcement to record *all* in-station custodial interrogations, and to record outside-the-station custodial interrogations when feasible. www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/u...
State v. Zuffante case caption Unrecorded interrogations frustrate the judiciary’s truth-detecting mission and mute rights promised by the Hawaiʻi Constitution. We conclude that recording is a necessary procedural safeguard that protects the right against self-incrimination, right to confrontation, and right to a fair trial. We hold that the Hawaii Constitution’s due process clause requires law enforcement to record in-station custodial interrogations. We also hold that article I, section 5 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution requires the recording of outside-thestation custodial interrogations when feasible. Thus, we recognize a new constitutional rule and overrule State v. Kekona, 77 Hawaii 403, 886 P.2d 740 (1994).
September 19, 2025 at 5:46 PM
segalmr.bsky.social
In times like these, I think about this speech by Ralph Gants, the late Chief Justice of the Mass. SJC, in Dec. 2016 — after Trump was elected.

Yes, judges should be wary of addressing issues that could arise in cases.

But no, they need not be silent.
www.mass.gov/doc/remarks-...
Address by Chief Justice Ralph D. Gants Supreme Judicial Court Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center Roxbury, MA December 16, 2016 Much has changed since I saw you last December, but what has not changed, not even a little, is the commitment of our judiciary in Massachusetts to practice what we preach, to provide every person in this Commonwealth with equal protection of the law and with the process due to each of us. I told you last year and I tell you again this year: "You do not stand alone; you have a Constitution and laws to protect your right to practice your religion, to protect you from discrimination and the denial of your equal rights, and to protect you from acts of violence that might be committed because of your religion or your nation of origin."
September 16, 2025 at 3:32 PM
segalmr.bsky.social
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT:

*ME Constitution provides greater protection against self-incrimination than U.S. Constitution.

*Any waiver of that protection must be "clear and unequivocal."

*Officers must "stop to clarify" ambiguous waivers.
www.courts.maine.gov/courts/sjc/l...
State v. McClain case caption We do not specify that the waiver be given orally or in writing, but we require that it be clear and unequivocal, like we require for all waivers of constitutional rights. If the waiver of the privilege is ambiguous, an officer must, before any questioning, stop to clarify whether the individual is in fact waiving the privilege against self-incrimination. If, after a suspect waives the privilege against self-incrimination, there is any ambiguous invocation of the privilege, including the attendant right to counsel, the officer must stop any questioning and clarify whether the individual is attempting to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination. If the privilege is being invoked, questioning must cease.
August 31, 2025 at 1:00 AM
segalmr.bsky.social
Richard Scarry's All We Do Is Work On Documents, That's All Anyone Does Anymore
August 26, 2025 at 2:06 PM
segalmr.bsky.social
FILED: Brief to Alabama Supreme Court on whether AL's stop-and-question law authorizes police to demand physical ID.

Case arises from arrest of pastor who was watering his neighbors' flowers. www.aclu.org/cases/jennin...
Jennings v. Smith BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, THE CATO INSTITUTE, THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER, AND THE WOODS FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT INTRODUCTION Responding to a 911 call about a suspicious “black male,” police officers confronted Pastor Michael Jennings while he was watering flowers in his neighbors’ yard. Jennings said he was “Pastor Jennings,” he lived across the street, and he was watering his neighbors’ flowers while they were away. Nevertheless, the police demanded physical identification and arrested Jennings after he refused to provide it. As amici explain below, Alabama law did not authorize that arrest. The question here is not whether it is understandable for the police to want to see a person’s physical ID to confirm that what he said is true. Instead, as certified to this Court, the question is whether Alabama Code § 15-5-30 authorizes officers to demand physical ID, on pain of arrest, from someone they deem to have provided “incomplete or unsatisfactory” oral answers to questions about their name, address, and actions. It does no such thing. Section 15-5-30 is entitled “Authority of Peace Officer to Stop and Question.” It authorizes the police, under certain circumstances, to stop someone and “demand of him his name, address, and an explanation of his actions.” Ala. Code § 15-5-30. But, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has squarely held, the statute nowhere authorizes straying beyond oral questioning into document demands. Edger v. McCabe, 84 F.4th 1230, 1239–40 (11th Cir. 2023). The Eleventh Circuit has applied that holding in this case. After Pastor Jennings sued in federal court, the Eleventh Circuit reversed a district court’s decision granting summary judgment to the arresting officers. It held that this case “falls within the purview of Edger,” and that the officers “lacked even arguable probable cause” to arrest Jennings because he orally provided the information required by § 15-5-30, and because the statute imposed “no legal obligation to provide his ID.” Jennings v. Smith, 2024 WL 4315127, at *3–4 (11th Cir. Sept. 27, 2024) (per curiam) (unpublished). On remand from the Eleventh Circuit, the district court certified a question that, in effect, asks this Court if it agrees with the Eleventh Circuit’s holdings in Edger and Jennings. This Court should do so. The plain meaning of § 15-5-30—given its title, its text, and the overall structure of the Alabama Code—rules out the possibility that it authorizes any demand for any document. The Legislature knows how to draft statutes requiring people to present physical identification. See Ala. Code §§ 13A-11-182 (felons), 32-6-9 (drivers), 17-9-30 (voters). It simply did not do that when crafting § 15-5-30 to authorize “questioning.” Even if § 15-5-30 were ambiguous, rules of construction would require resolving that ambiguity against construing the statute to authorize arrests and prosecutions for failing to supply physical ID. In construing statutes, this Court avoids interpretations that would expand criminal liability or expose statutes to constitutional challenge. Construing § 15-5-30 to authorize document demands would do both: it would expand criminal liability and render § 15-5-30 unconstitutional on multiple grounds. See, e.g., Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983) (striking down an identification law as unconstitutionally vague because its text lacked clear standards); White v. State, 267 So. 2d 802, 805 (Ala. Crim. App. 1972) (relying on section 45 of the Alabama Constitution to strike down part of the Act that created § 15-5-30 because, in authorizing searches for contraband, it exceeded the scope of the Act’s title, which authorized searches only for weapons). Accordingly, as amici explain below, this Court should hold that § 15-5-30 does not authorize any demands for physical identification.
August 15, 2025 at 1:25 PM
segalmr.bsky.social
Because my practice focuses on state courts, it's important for me to tell you that in Minnesota there is an all-judge band called the Reasonable Doubts. www.startribune.com/the-reasonab...
The Reasonable Doubts, Minnesota’s only all-judge band, is more than a guilty pleasure The band plays covers ranging from AC/DC to Beyoncé and serves as an outlet to release stress.
August 7, 2025 at 2:12 PM
segalmr.bsky.social
Reminder:

The political question doctrine, on which SCOTUS relied in deeming partisan gerrymandering claims nonjusticiable, is a FEDERAL doctrine.

As the Supreme Court of Wyoming has explained, state supreme courts are free to reject this doctrine altogether. law.justia.com/cases/wyomin...
The federal doctrine of nonjusticiable political question, as discussed and applied in Baker and later federal decisions, has no relevancy and application in state constitutional analysis. For example, Justice Brennan himself wrote in 1977: And of course state courts that rest their decisions wholly or even partly on state law need not apply federal principles of standing and justiciability that deny litigants access to the courts.
August 5, 2025 at 1:32 AM
segalmr.bsky.social
For some reason not every MA criminal defense atty is cheering for a bill under which, starting in FY27, they'd be paid $85/hr for appointed district court cases and subject to potential antitrust enforcement if they decide to do something else with their time. www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/...
What passed also included language aimed at preventing a standoff in the future. It says bar advocates who refuse to accept new clients because of their pay may constitute a violation of the state's antitrust laws.
August 4, 2025 at 1:34 AM
segalmr.bsky.social
MN SUPREME COURT: those seeking to compel the disclosure of newsgathering material cannot defeat the MN reporter's shield law simply by alleging that the newsgathering involved trespass or some other illegality. mncourts.gov/__data/asset...
Section 595.023 does not qualify its protection by specifying that it applies only to information obtained in a lawful manner. The plain, unqualified language of the MFFIA is clear.
July 16, 2025 at 6:09 PM
segalmr.bsky.social
Is this what SCOTUS had in mind when it held that the president's majestic decisionmaking processes must be immunized against criminal exposure?
Trump: Because of the fact that Rosie O'Donnell is not in the best interests of our Great Country, I am giving serious consideration to taking away her Citizenship. She is a Threat to Humanity, and should remain in the wonderful Country of Ireland, if they want her. GOD BLESS AMERICA!
July 12, 2025 at 3:54 PM
segalmr.bsky.social
FILED: @aclu.org & @acluofwi.bsky.social amicus brief with Wisconsin Supreme Court concerning the in-school police interrogation of a 12yo boy www.aclu-wi.org/en/press-rel...
INTRODUCTION This case arises from a closed-door police interrogation of a twelve-year-old boy inside a tiny school office. The court of appeals held that during this police interrogation, and at a later interrogation involving police and an assistant principal, the boy was not in custody, was not entitled to Miranda warnings, and voluntarily incriminated himself. That holding is mistaken. As other briefs have shown, admitting the boy’s statements into evidence violated the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The ACLU amici write separately because, apart from the Fifth Amendment, this Court should hold that admitting the boy’s statements into evidence also violated Article I, Section 8, of the Wisconsin Constitution.... Amicus brief introduction, continued Amicus brief introduction, continued
July 10, 2025 at 2:52 PM
segalmr.bsky.social
A justice of MA's highest court has issued an order:

(1) paving the way for unrepresented defendants to be released amid attorney work stoppage; and

(2) finding that attorney compensation rates starting at $65/hr "have proven inadequate to secure the representation... of indigent defendants."
Whether there is a shortage of available defense counsel and, if so, what has caused the shortage. There is a shortage of available defense counsel caused in large part by inadequate compensation rates. The Courts do not dispute that "low rates of compensation" caused the work stoppage, which then resulted in "a significant shortage of counsel willing to represent indigent criminal defendants" in the courts at issue. Courts' Resp., at 10-11. Current compensation rates are set by State statute, and for district court assignments, the statutory compensation rate is sixty-five dollars per hour. See G. L. c. 211D, § 11 (a); SoF, ¶ 81; Smith Aff., ¶ 6. These rates have proven inadequate to secure the representation by bar advocates of indigent defendants in the Courts.
July 4, 2025 at 1:59 PM
segalmr.bsky.social
WI SUPREME COURT: Statutory abortion ban enacted in 1849 is not in effect because it has been impliedly repealed by subsequent legislation. www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/D...
¶1 REBECCA FRANK DALLET, J. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215, 231 (2022), the United States Supreme Court overruled decades of precedent including Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and held for the first time that the United States Constitution does not protect the right to abortion. In the wake of that decision, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit seeking a declaration that WIS. STAT. § 940.04(1) (2023–24)1—a statute dating back to 1849 that criminalizes the intentional destruction of an unborn child—does not ban abortion. ¶2 We conclude that comprehensive legislation enacted over the last 50 years regulating in detail the “who, what, where, when, and how” of abortion so thoroughly covers the entire subject of abortion that it was meant as a substitute for the 19th century near-total ban on abortion. Accordingly, we hold that the legislature impliedly repealed § 940.04(1) as to abortion, and that § 940.04(1) therefore does not ban abortion in the State of Wisconsin.
July 2, 2025 at 2:06 PM
segalmr.bsky.social
You know how the Trump DOJ is abandoning the Biden DOJ's pattern-or-practice investigations of police misconduct?

Here's a theory about how defense & civil rights lawyers should respond. www.law360.com/articles/234...
Under Biden, the U.S. Department of Justice had initiated 12 pattern-or-practice investigations of state and local law enforcement agencies. The Trump DOJ might abandon all of them. Ironically, while the federal government retreats from its own findings of police misconduct, state governments cannot simply ignore those findings. In fact, they may be legally obligated to act on them. That's because the Biden-era DOJ findings may have triggered significant legal obligations for state and local prosecutors under the Brady rule.
June 29, 2025 at 6:57 PM
segalmr.bsky.social
Consistently wearing uniforms might clear up any confusion
LOS ANGELES DODGERS: This morning, ICE agents came to Dodger Stadium and requested permission to access the parking lots. They were denied entry to the grounds by the organization. Tonight’s game will be played as scheduled. ICE: False. We were never there.
June 20, 2025 at 12:47 AM
segalmr.bsky.social
MONTANA SUPREME COURT: Three state laws restricting abortion access violate the MT Constitution. juddocumentservice.mt.gov/getDocByCTra...
Justice Beth Baker delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 The State of Montana appeals a Thirteenth Judicial District Court order that declared unconstitutional and permanently enjoined the enforcement of three laws passed by the 2021 Montana Legislature regulating abortion. We address the following issues on appeal: 1. Does a 20-week ban on abortions violate Montana’s constitutional guarantees of individual privacy or equal protection of the law? 2. Do restrictions on medication abortions and requirements that providers give patients certain information violate Montana’s constitutional guarantees of individual privacy and free speech? 3. Does a law mandating that providers offer patients the opportunity to view an ultrasound and listen to a fetal heart tone violate Montana’s constitutional guarantee of individual privacy? We affirm. CONCLUSION ¶127 Reproductive decisions are among the most intimate that a person may make in their lifetime. This includes the decision to obtain a pre-viability abortion and the decision to carry a pregnancy to term—both of which carry widely varying personal considerations, decisions, hardships, and desires that are deeply unique and personal to each individual in Montana, and both of which are protected under the state constitutional right to privacy. We do not take lightly the varying beliefs that fuel the disputes surrounding these issues. The case before us follows decades of precedent that the Montana Constitution’s right to privacy guarantees, absent a compelling state interest, “the right to be let alone”—which long has been recognized as one of the most important rights. Gryczan, 283 Mont. at 455, 942 P.2d at 125. This privacy right includes the right to personal and procreative autonomy under the Montana Constitution, wholly independent of federal constitutional standards. Armstrong, ¶¶ 39, 41 (citing Gryczan, 283 Mont. at 448, 942 P.2d at 121). The State has not established that the challenged laws address a medically acknowledged bona fide health risk to justify infringing on the right of individuals to make medical judgments affecting their bodies in partnership with their health care provider, or that they are narrowly tailored to meet the compelling interests it asserts. Armstrong, ¶¶ 41, 62; Weems, ¶ 37. ¶128 We affirm the District Court’s order declaring HB 136, HB 140, and HB 171 unconstitutional under Article II, Section 10, of the Montana Constitution. We also affirm its order declaring HB 136 unconstitutional under Article II, Section 4, of the Montana Constitution, and declaring HB 171 unconstitutional as impermissible viewpoint discrimination under Article II, Section 7, of the Montana Constitution. Accordingly, we affirm the District Court’s judgment permanently enjoining the enforcement of §§ 50-20-601 through -606, 50-20-701 through -714, 50-20-105(4) and 50-20-113, MCA (2021), and the 2021 amendments to § 50-20-109, MCA.
June 10, 2025 at 1:37 PM
segalmr.bsky.social
actual quote by a Massachusetts DA, based on no evidence whatsoever (it's not even an ACLU case) www.masslive.com/westernmass/...
“These are efforts funded by George Soros and the ACLU, so they’re just going to keep spending money until there’s nowhere to spend it,” he told The Republican on Wednesday. “So they’re going to appeal to the Supreme Court. It won’t get accepted. It won’t go anywhere.” When asked why he thought they were involved, Gulluni said: “Money. It’s called money.” Gulluni was unavailable Thursday for additional explanation.
May 30, 2025 at 3:41 PM