Matthew Segal

@segalmr

Civil Rights Lawyer | Personal Views | Not Legal Advice

615 Following7,956 Followers1,573 Posts

Bluesky

Is this your profile?Claim it and segalmr.dirty.social is yours.Claim profile

Matthew Segal@segalmr· 1d

As law enforcement relies more heavily on technology to identify suspects, a key issue will be whether courts and legislatures make law enforcement — not the misidentified suspects — bear the costs of the inevitable mistakes. www.nytimes.com/2026/08/12/u...

Matthew Segal@segalmr· 1d

🫤 montanafreepress.org/2026/08/13/j...

Responding to a question from Judge Halligan about how the law would be enforced, Johnson said that if a restroom user suspects a person of using a bathroom that does not match their biological sex, they will likely take a photo of the person with their cell phone as evidence. The facility where the incident occurred could then be sued “for not taking reasonable steps” to comply with the law, he said. Asked by the judge what those reasonable steps could be, Johnson replied, “That’s what the courts are going to have to decide.”

Matthew Segal@segalmr· 7d

great job everyone

Matthew Segal@segalmr· 9d

NEW: Like new laws in VT and CT, the Massachusetts PROTECT Act authorizes suits against govt officials, including *federal* officials, for violating the U.S. Constitution. malegislature.gov/Bills/194/H5...

Matthew Segal@segalmr· 11d

As a civil rights lawyer, I've argued that it's racially discriminatory to single out one group and argue that its taste in music — e.g., rap — reflects a propensity for violence. This argument is no different. It is simply, profoundly racist.

Matthew Segal@segalmr· 15d

The ACLU/ACLU-MI amicus brief made an argument along those lines: www.aclu.org/cases/people...

Matthew Segal@segalmr· 15d

ATTENTION STATE CONSTITUTION APPRECIATORS: Here's a significant defense of state constitutional independence, courtesty of the Michigan Supreme Court. www.courts.michigan.gov/siteassets/c...

In so holding, these state courts also recognize that the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of a federal constitutional provision does not—and cannot—fix the meaning of a comparable state constitutional provision, especially when the United States Supreme Court later “revises its interpretation of the federal counterpart.”

Today, we reaffirm the principles elucidated in Sitz and Tanner. This Court’s solemn duty is to faithfully interpret our state Constitution “consistently with our oath of office and our structure of constitutional federalism.” Tanner, 496 Mich at 223 n 16. In so doing, we may respectfully consider federal interpretations but need not treat such authorities as presumptively correct unless the history of the particular state provision—or the federal Supremacy Clause—demands as much. This Court must instead, from the outset, “independently analyze our state Constitution to ensure that our citizens are receiving the measure of the protections that they created, which protections may or may not extend beyond those set forth by the federal Constitution.”

Such lockstepping would also allow a faraway federal court—one consisting of judicial officers who have never sworn an oath to uphold the Michigan Constitution—to define or retract important rights otherwise guaranteed under our autonomous state Constitution.

Matthew Segal@segalmr· 21d

This post is a good example of how a factually accurate statement can, depending on context, also reflect discriminatory animus.

Matthew Segal@segalmr· 29d

MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT: Police can’t trick suspects into waiving their Miranda rights. www.aclu.org/cases/state-...

In this case, after defendant invoked his right to counsel, police tried to obtain an attorney for him. They returned empty-handed, over two and a half hours later, telling defendant that he did not
have an attorney and could not use the money taken from him during arrest to obtain one.
Thereafter, in response to defendant’s questions about what was going on, police resumed
the interrogation. We agree with the trial court that defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights
under Miranda were violated

Instead of providing counsel, defendant was told: “You don’t got one,” “You don’t have a lawyer,” and “We tried to call one. Ain’t nobody available and you ain’t got no money.” These statements after the invocation of counsel can reasonably be understood, as indicated by the trial court, as suggesting that defendant’s right to have an attorney present during questioning was dependent on his ability to retain counsel through his own funds. The statements are not consistent with Miranda’s assertions that suspects have a
right to counsel and that, if they cannot afford counsel, counsel will be provided.

Matthew Segal@segalmr· Jul 10

RI SUPREME COURT: The state and its officials are NOT immune from anti-discrimination suits under the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act (because they are “actions of tort”) www.courts.ri.gov/Opinions/Sup...

Matthew Segal@segalmr· Jun 18

These are... very bad arguments. Courts do not endorse these bad arguments in assessing animus against other groups. So courts should not be endorsing these arguments in assessing animus against Jews.

Matthew Segal@segalmr· Jun 10

c'mon First Circuit be serious www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeau...

Fonts used by US Courts of Appeals in Opinions

Matthew Segal@segalmr· Jun 9

when opposing lawyers let AI write their briefs and the judge uses AI to decide their punishment

Matthew Segal@segalmr· Jun 9

The Mass SJC persuasively answered this Q in 2014. It held that bc state officers are creatures of state law, when state law legalizes marijuana, it curtails the authority of state police to investigate legalized conduct — even if that conduct violates fed law. law.justia.com/cases/massac...

Matthew Segal@segalmr· Jun 4

Due to my distinguished career in civil rights, the press knows it can turn to me for comment on important events. www.bostonglobe.com/2026/06/02/m...

Matthew Segal@segalmr· Jun 2

The dissenting justices said the state legislature's actions: *make "a mockery of the electoral process"; *would allow it "to nullify the results of any election it disagrees with"; and *constitute an "unconstitutional political coup."

WEIMER, C.J., dissents and assigns reasons.
The action by the Legislature to abolish a public office before the person elected to that office can assume the duties of the office makes a mockery of the electoral process by completely obliterating the constitutional effectiveness of the people’s vote. While the Legislature undeniably has the right to abolish the position of Clerk of Orleans Criminal District Court by way of La. Const. art. V, § 32, this
must be done prospectively to avoid violating one of the most sacred and fundamental rights in our system of government—the people’s right to choose who will serve in an elective office.

GRIFFIN, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
The majority allows the legislature to nullify the results of any election it
disagrees with, splits from another State Supreme Court decision, and effectively invites review by the United States Supreme Court. I find it is incumbent on this Court to reaffirm the right of all voters – be they in Orleans, Union, East Baton Rouge, or St. Tammany Parishes – to have their votes meaningfully counted. Because the majority fails to safeguard this fundamental right, I respectfully dissent.

GUIDRY, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
The per curiam in this matter amounts to nothing less than condoning a brazen and unconstitutional political coup that subverted the will of the majority of the electorate of Orleans Parish by unceremoniously ousting Calvin Duncan from his duly elected position as Clerk of the Orleans Criminal District Court.

Matthew Segal@segalmr· Jun 2

So: *Exoneree Calvin Duncan won an election for clerk of criminal court in Orleans Parish. *The state legislature, AFTER seeing the election results, enacted a law eliminating the position. *The Louisiana Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, has now upheld that law. cases.justia.com/louisiana/su...

CONCLUSION

No provision of the Louisiana or United States Constitution prohibits Act 15 from being immediately effective. By the clear terms of the Act, there is no vacancy in any office. Accordingly, any relief granted by the trial court is vacated and this matter is dismissed.

Matthew Segal@segalmr· Jun 2

sometimes in New England the sheer volume of Dunkin' locations leads to people being a tad overcaffeinated

Matthew Segal@segalmr· May 29

Great post (and underlying law review article) by @adamsopko.bsky.social about the supervisory powers of state supreme courts, including a discussion of a case that is, well, a personal favorite of mine. statecourtreport.org/our-work/ana...

courts have relied on the supervisory power to extend their remedial authority, providing relief that might otherwise be unavailable. For example, in overturning more than 20,000 criminal convictions in a single order, Massachusetts’s high court premised the availability of its sweeping form of relief not on a particular constitutional right but on its supervisory authority. Following revelations of a decades-long tampering scandal in a state drug lab, the court concluded the effects were so “widespread” that justice “require[d]” the “court exercise its superintendence authority and vacate and dismiss all criminal convictions tainted by governmental wrongdoing.”

Matthew Segal@segalmr· May 14

NEW: ACLU brief arguing that, as a matter of Texas constitutional law, Texas courts should prohibit or limit geofence warrants. www.aclu.org/cases/nguyen...

Matthew Segal@segalmr· May 5

Connecticut enacts state law allowing individuals to sue govt officials, including *federal* officials, for violating U.S. Constitution. www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabills...

Matthew Segal@segalmr· Apr 28

Vermont enacts state law allowing individuals to sue govt officials, including *federal* officials, for violating U.S. Constitution. www.bostonglobe.com/2026/04/28/m...

Matthew Segal@segalmr· Apr 26

MASSACHUSETTS SJC: Pretextual traffic stop conducted *24 hrs* after alleged traffic infraction violated the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. www.mass.gov/doc/commonwe...

$While surveilling the defendant as part of a drug investigation, a Boston police officer in an unmarked vehicle witnessed the defendant commit a civil traffic infraction. Twenty-four hours later, the officer, who again was surveilling the defendant from an unmarked vehicle, requested that other officers stop the defendant's vehicle. During the ensuing stop, police discovered cocaine on the defendant's person and in his vehicle. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the stop, a judge denied the motion in large part, and the defendant was convicted of one count of trafficking cocaine.$

Considering the totality of the circumstances here, where the Commonwealth has shown that some amount of delay in stopping the defendant for a civil traffic violation was reasonable but has not provided any reasonable justification for a delay lasting twenty-four hours, we conclude that the Commonwealth has not met its burden to show that the stop of the defendant was reasonable. The defendant's motion to suppress therefore should have been granted.

Matthew Segal@segalmr· Apr 20

These decisions confirm that **state courts** will likely need to drive improvements on policing doctrines. For example, today SCOTUS reiterated its view that running from the police is suspicious. Other judges have questioned this view, including because people might run to avoid profiling.

Matthew Segal@segalmr· Apr 20

Today SCOTUS summarily: (1) reversed a D.C. Court of Appeals decision that had held the police lacked reasonable suspicion for a stop; and (2) vacated a Ninth Circuit decision that had denied qualified immunity in a case where a man died following "bodyweight pressure."

Matthew Segal@segalmr· Apr 15

MONTANA SUPREME COURT: “Transgender discrimination is, by its very nature, sex discrimination,” and is subject to strict scrutiny under the Montana Constitution.

Transgender discrimination is, by its very nature, sex discrimination. Discrimination based on sex is expressly prohibited under Montana’s unique Nondiscrimination Clause––“[n]either the state nor any person, firm, corporation, or institution shall discriminate on account of . . . sex . . . .” Thus, Article II, Section 4 is
unequivocal in its intolerance for discrimination based on sex. Because sex discrimination involves a fundamental right under Article II, the appropriate level of judicial review is strict scrutiny. Snetsinger, ¶ 17.

¶28 Being transgender is also a suspect class under the Equal Protection Clause of
Article II, Section 4,––“[n]o person shall be denied equal protection of the law.”

Matthew Segal@segalmr· Apr 10

I disagree with those who think a good response to racism is more racism

Matthew Segal@segalmr· Apr 7

maybe... this is a greater threat to America's character than when people seeking a better life come to this country and give birth to babies

Trump: "A whole civilization will die tonight...."

Matthew Segal@segalmr· Apr 3

With Jon Michaels of UCLA Law, I wrote about Jews, political violence, and democracy. Gift link: share.inquirer.com/1ecTVF

If anti-Jewish hate goes unchecked, it will probably be deployed against other marginalized groups next

Surging antisemitic animus ripples across our entire democracy.

Those seeking to stoke anti-Jewish hatred don’t have these problems. These days, it seems like every podcaster, politician, and social media poster has found the same new way to gain popularity and clout — except it’s the oldest way.

Harassment and violence also work in tandem with broader movements to delegitimize Jewish participation in American democracy. These movements tell Jews that they will be safe only if they renounce Zionism and disavow their connection to their ancestral homeland.

When they don’t (and sometimes even when they do), Jews are falsely accused of harboring dual loyalties, controlling the U.S. government, or supporting genocide. Such libels depict Jews as blameworthy, as undeserving of equal rights and dignity, and, implicitly, as acceptable targets for those intent on hurting them.

Matthew Segal@segalmr· Mar 28

letter from me in the Boston Globe about collective blame