{
 "generated": "2026-11-12",
 "formula": "Priority score = likelihood of success (1-5) x stakes (low 1, medium 2, high 3) / litigation burden (1-5)",
 "count": 340,
 "laws": [
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Hawaii",
   "state_code": "HI",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Private-property default no-carry rule (Act 52 of 2023)",
   "citation": "Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-9.5(a)",
   "subject_area": "firearms_carry",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second and Fourteenth Amendments",
   "key_precedent": "Wolford v. Lopez, 609 U.S. 185 (2026)); N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Supreme Court held 6-3 that the default rule (no carry on private property open to the public without express owner consent) violates the Second Amendment.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 1,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Wolford v. Lopez",
     "court": "U.S. Supreme Court",
     "number": "24-1046",
     "date": "2026-06-25",
     "outcome": "Reversed 9th Cir. on the private-property default rule; remanded (6-3 per reports)",
     "why": "Hawaii default rule violates the Second Amendment (lead-verified)"
    },
    {
     "case": "Wolford v. Lopez (remand)",
     "court": "9th Cir. 23-16164 (D. Haw. 1:23-cv-00265-LEK-WRP)",
     "number": "23-16164",
     "date": "2026-08-10",
     "outcome": "Panel (Schroeder, Graber, Sung; Graber, J.) affirmed the PI as to HRS § 134-9.5; its prior analysis of other Act 52 provisions, 116 F.4th 959, is unaffected",
     "why": "Remand after Wolford"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/08/10/23-16164.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Remand opinion read (cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/08/10/23-16164.pdf). Statute text not read directly. Whether the district court has entered further relief not checked. Hawaii successor legislation not checked.",
   "_file": "states_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Other",
   "id": "hi-hawaii-private-property-default-no-carry-rule-act-52-of-2023",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 15.0,
   "rank": 1
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Michigan",
   "state_code": "MI",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Conversion-therapy ban for minors (2023 amendments to Mental Health Code and Public Health Code)",
   "citation": "Mich. Comp. Laws ch. 330 and 333 (2023 amendments); exact sections not confirmed",
   "subject_area": "conversion_therapy",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech, viewpoint)",
   "key_precedent": "Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. 627 (2026); Catholic Charities of Jackson v. Whitmer (6th Cir. Dec. 17, 2025)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Sixth Circuit panel found it a likely viewpoint-based speech restriction before Chiles; state reportedly agreed to an injunction.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 1,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Catholic Charities of Jackson, Lenawee and Hillsdale Counties v. Whitmer",
     "court": "W.D. Mich. / 6th Cir.",
     "number": "6th Cir. 25-1105 (not confirmed)",
     "date": "2026-07-31",
     "outcome": "Sixth Circuit (2-1) ordered a PI Dec. 2025. After Chiles, Judge Beckering entered a stipulated order July 31, 2026: Michigan will not enforce the ban against talk-only therapy, reportedly for the Catholic Charities counselors and others doing talk therapy; fee issue settled separately.",
     "why": "State conceded relief under Chiles"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.michiganpublic.org/politics-government/2026-07-31/mi-agrees-not-to-enforce-conversion-therapy-ban-to-comply-with-supreme-court-ruling",
    "https://www.christianpost.com/news/michigan-halts-enforcement-of-conversion-therapy-ban.html"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Reports (Michigan Public, Christian Post, Federalist, Catholic World Report) agree on the July 31, 2026 stipulated order and say its protection reaches talk-only therapy by other counselors, not just named plaintiffs, which corrects the earlier note. The order text was not read. Michigan bills HB 4616 and 4617 (2023) are the enacted law per MAP; Mich. Comp. Laws sections unconfirmed. The ban stays on the books for non-speech practices.",
   "_file": "states_midwest.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "mi-michigan-conversion-therapy-ban-for-minors-2023-amendments-to-mental-health-c",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 15.0,
   "rank": 2
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New Jersey",
   "state_code": "NJ",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Semiautomatic 'assault firearm' ban and >10-round magazine ban",
   "citation": "N.J.S.A. 2C:39-1(w), 2C:39-5(f), 2C:39-3(j), 2C:39-1(y)",
   "subject_area": "firearms_hardware",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Ass'n of N.J. Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General N.J., 183 F.4th 211 (3d Cir. 2026) (en banc); Bruen",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "En banc Third Circuit held 10-5 (July 17, 2026) that the rifle and magazine bans violate the Second Amendment; binding in NJ, PA, DE.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 1,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Ass'n of N.J. Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General N.J. (en banc), consolidated with Cheeseman v. Davenport (formerly Platkin)",
     "court": "3d Cir. (en banc), from D.N.J. 1:22-cv-04360",
     "number": "24-2415, 24-2450, 24-2506",
     "date": "2026-07-17",
     "outcome": "10-5 (Freeman, J.): AR-15 ban violates the Second Amendment, district order modified to cover all semi-automatic rifles in the definition; magazine ban also unconstitutional (reversing district court); takings claim not reached; challenge to other 'assault firearms' (handguns, shotguns) remanded. Mandate stayed Aug. 4, 2026 (motion July 31).",
     "why": "First circuit to strike an assault-weapon ban on the merits"
    },
    {
     "case": "Davenport v. Ass'n of N.J. Rifle & Pistol Clubs (cert petition)",
     "court": "U.S. Supreme Court",
     "number": "26-452",
     "date": "2026-10-01",
     "outcome": "Petition filed Oct. 1, docketed Oct. 5; brief in opposition filed Nov. 4, 2026; no conference date on docket; state reportedly asks that it be held for Viramontes/Grant",
     "why": "Pending"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-452.html",
    "https://www.firearmspolicy.org/cheeseman",
    "https://www.jurist.org/news/2026/07/third-circuit-strikes-down-new-jersey-bans-on-assault-firearms-and-large-capacity-magazines/",
    "https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/a-big-third-circuit-ruling-on-america-s-rifle/",
    "https://www.nraila.org/articles/20260804/new-jersey-third-circuit-grants-stay-in-awbmag-ban-case"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Docket numbers, decision date, stay and cert petition read on supremecourt.gov (26-452) and FPC's case page; vote 10-5 and holdings from Jurist, American Rifleman and NRA-ILA (partly advocacy), opinion text not read. N.J. citations not read on official site. Replaces the earlier note that 24-2415 was unverified: it is the lead Third Circuit number.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "nj-new-jersey-semiautomatic-assault-firearm-ban-and-10-round-magazine-ban",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 15.0,
   "rank": 3
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New Mexico",
   "state_code": "NM",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Seven-day waiting period for firearm purchases (2024 HB 129)",
   "citation": "N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-7-7.2 (from memory; verify)",
   "subject_area": "firearms_carry",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022); Ortega v. Grisham, 148 F.4th 1134 (10th Cir. 2025)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Tenth Circuit held it likely violates the Second Amendment; binding in NM.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 1,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Ortega v. Grisham",
     "court": "10th Cir.",
     "number": "reported 148 F.4th 1134",
     "date": "2025-08-19",
     "outcome": "Panel held the 7-day waiting period likely unconstitutional (PI); rehearing en banc denied about Dec. 22, 2025",
     "why": "Waiting period burdens acquisition"
    },
    {
     "case": "Ortega v. Grisham",
     "court": "D.N.M. (Browning, J.)",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2026-08-27",
     "outcome": "Judgment for plaintiffs; judge said he is bound by the 10th Cir. and law of the case",
     "why": "Relief limited to the two plaintiffs; State reportedly still enforces against others"
    },
    {
     "case": "NSSF v. Torrez",
     "court": "D.N.M.",
     "number": "1:26-cv-03514",
     "date": "2026-10",
     "outcome": "Pending; filed by NRA, SAF and NSSF seeking statewide compliance",
     "why": "State confirmed it will keep enforcing the waiting period against everyone but the two Ortega plaintiffs"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.dps.nm.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/AG-Guidance-on-Ortega-outcome_Jan-13-2026.pdf",
    "https://www.ammoland.com/2026/10/new-mexico-gun-waiting-period-lawsuit-nra-saf-nssf/",
    "https://www.guns.com/news/2026/08/31/court-strikes-down-new-mexicos-7-day-firearm-waiting-period"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Dates from NM AG guidance (Jan. 13, 2026) and gun-press reports (AmmoLand, Guns.com); the Ortega opinion, district judgment and NSSF complaint were not read. Citation N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-7-7.2 remains unverified. No cert petition found. Acquisition-side law.",
   "_file": "states_southcentral_mountain.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "nm-new-mexico-seven-day-waiting-period-for-firearm-purchases-2024-hb-129",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 15.0,
   "rank": 4
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New York",
   "state_code": "NY",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Human Rights Law source-of-income mandate applied to Section 8 vouchers",
   "citation": "N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(5); subdivision unverified",
   "subject_area": "searches_inspections",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fourth Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967); City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 576 U.S. 409 (2015)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "The Third Department held the mandate, combined with mandatory warrantless inspections and records access, violates the Fourth Amendment.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 1,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "People v. Commons West, LLC",
     "court": "N.Y. App. Div., 3d Dep't",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2026",
     "outcome": "Struck the voucher mandate as to landlords; landlords may choose whether to participate",
     "why": "Fourth Amendment: forced participation without ability to refuse warrantless inspections or record access. Earlier trial-court decision (2023) reported by Legal Insurrection; Court of Appeals review status not found."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://katten.com/new-york-appellate-ruling-reshapes-section-8-housing-obligations",
    "https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ny-supreme-court/118195159.html"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Exact decision date and index number not found (article dated Apr. 29, 2026). Included as the lead authority for the VA and CA suits, and because other NY landlords may sue for damages or declaratory relief. State may seek Court of Appeals review.",
   "_file": "categories_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "Fourth Amendment",
   "id": "ny-new-york-human-rights-law-source-of-income-mandate-applied-to-section-8-vouch",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 15.0,
   "rank": 5
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New York",
   "state_code": "NY",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "CCIA private-property default (carry on private property open to the public)",
   "citation": "N.Y. Penal Law § 265.01-d",
   "subject_area": "firearms_carry",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second and Fourteenth Amendments",
   "key_precedent": "Wolford v. Lopez, 609 U.S. 185 (2026)) (6-3); Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Wolford struck Hawaii's identical default rule; 2d Cir. already enjoined NY's version as applied to property open to the public.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 1,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Christian v. James",
     "court": "2d Cir.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2026-05-18",
     "outcome": "Affirmed permanent injunction against private-property provision as applied to property open to the public",
     "why": "State showed no historical analogue; panel expressly disagreed with 9th Cir. in Wolford"
    },
    {
     "case": "Antonyuk v. Hochul / James",
     "court": "2d Cir.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2023-12-08",
     "outcome": "Preliminary injunction of private-property default affirmed",
     "why": "Default rule not supported by historical tradition"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20260518051",
    "https://www.jurist.org/news/2026/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-hawaii-limit-on-carrying-guns-onto-private-property/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Already enjoined; remaining value is enforcement by non-parties and fee claims. Christian opinion appendix appears in SCOTUS application 26A142 (status not confirmed). Check scope of injunction (parties vs statewide) and the separate provision for private property NOT open to the public.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Other",
   "id": "ny-new-york-ccia-private-property-default-carry-on-private-property-open-to-the-",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 15.0,
   "rank": 6
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Florida",
   "state_code": "FL",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Individual freedom act ('Stop WOKE') — university instruction provisions",
   "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 1000.05(4); workplace provisions § 760.10(8)",
   "subject_area": "other_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (viewpoint discrimination in teaching)",
   "key_precedent": "Pernell v. Fla. Bd. of Governors (11th Cir. July 7, 2026) (2-1)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "11th Cir. affirmed PI against higher-ed provisions as viewpoint-based; workplace provisions already enjoined (Honeyfund, 11th Cir. 2024)",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 1,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Pernell v. Florida Board of Governors (consolidated with Pernell v. Lamb)",
     "court": "N.D. Fla. (Walker, J.); 11th Cir.",
     "number": "N.D. Fla. 4:22-cv-304 (per lead seed; Clearinghouse lists 4:22-cv-00324 for the companion Novoa v. Diaz); 11th Cir. number not confirmed (22-13994 appears on a stay order)",
     "date": "2026-07-07",
     "outcome": "Eleventh Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction against the higher-education provisions (2-1; Grant, J., joined by Wilson, J.; Lagoa, J., dissenting); cited as 2026 WL 1955783",
     "why": "Law bars professors from promoting or endorsing disfavored ideas in instruction; First Amendment; vagueness not reached"
    },
    {
     "case": "Honeyfund.com Inc. v. Governor, State of Florida",
     "court": "11th Cir.",
     "number": "22-13135 (from memory; not re-checked)",
     "date": "2024-03-04",
     "outcome": "Workplace provisions (§ 760.10(8)) enjoined; PI affirmed; 94 F.4th 1272 (from memory)",
     "why": "First Amendment; not re-read in this pass"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.wlrn.org/light/government-politics/2026-07-07/stop-woke-florida-race-gender-appeals-court",
    "https://www.steptoe.com/en/news-publications/eleventh-circuit-affirms-injunction-against-the-higher-education-provisions-of-floridas-stop-woke-act.html",
    "https://www.aclufl.org/press-releases/eleventh-circuit-affirms-decision-preliminarily-block-unlawful-stop-woke-censorship/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Dates and panel per ACLU of Florida and Steptoe summaries; opinion not read. Statute text (Fla. Stat. § 1000.05(4), § 760.10(8)) not read in this pass. K-12 provisions remain in force. En banc and cert risk.",
   "_file": "states_southeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "fl-florida-individual-freedom-act-stop-woke-university-instruction-provisions",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 10.0,
   "rank": 7
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Hawaii",
   "state_code": "HI",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Election 'materially deceptive media' (deepfake) law, Act 191 (2024)",
   "citation": "2024 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 191 (Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 11); section unverified",
   "subject_area": "election_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment; Fourteenth Amendment (vagueness)",
   "key_precedent": "Kohls v. Bonta, 752 F. Supp. 3d 1187 (E.D. Cal. 2024); Moody v. NetChoice, 603 U.S. 707 (2024)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Permanently enjoined as content-based, not narrowly tailored, and vague; disclaimer safe harbor also failed.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 1,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "The Babylon Bee, LLC v. Lopez",
     "court": "D. Haw.",
     "number": "1:25-cv-00234",
     "date": "2026-01-30",
     "outcome": "Summary judgment for plaintiffs; permanent injunction (Judge Shanlyn Park)",
     "why": "Content-based; fails strict scrutiny; 'reckless disregard of the risk of harming' standard vague. No appeal status found."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://reason.com/volokh/2026/01/31/hawaii-deceptive-election-related-deepfake-disclaimer-requirement-struck-down",
    "https://adfmedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/babylon-bee-lopez-opinion.pdf",
    "https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/hawaiis-deepfake-election-law-violates-free-speech-court-finds"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Included because the law may be re-enacted or enforced against nonparties; check scope of injunction and Ninth Circuit appeal status. Kohls v. Bonta reporter cite is from memory.",
   "_file": "categories_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "hi-hawaii-election-materially-deceptive-media-deepfake-law-act-191-2024",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 10.0,
   "rank": 8
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Indiana",
   "state_code": "IN",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Police buffer-zone law (HEA 1186, 2023; 25-foot buffer around officers after a dispersal order), plus 2025 re-enactment",
   "citation": "Ind. Code § 35-44.1-2-14 (HEA 1186 (2024)); section not confirmed",
   "subject_area": "other_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment; Fourteenth Amendment vagueness",
   "key_precedent": "Seventh Circuit decision affirming the PI (2025)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "District court enjoined it as unconstitutionally vague in Sept. 2024 and the Seventh Circuit upheld the injunction.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 1,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press v. Rokita (media coalition: RCFP, Scripps, Indiana Broadcasters Ass'n, SPJ chapter, Indianapolis Star, Nexstar, TEGNA)",
     "court": "S.D. Ind.; 7th Cir.",
     "number": "1:23-cv-1805 (S.D. Ind., per RCFP); 7th Cir. number not found",
     "date": "2025-08-05",
     "outcome": "PI granted Sept. 27, 2024; Seventh Circuit affirmed the PI on Aug. 5, 2025 (Pryor, J., with Easterbrook and Brennan) on vagueness and remanded to reconsider the scope of relief",
     "why": "Law gives officers unfettered discretion to issue do-not-approach orders; vagueness. Complaint filed Oct. 6, 2023"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://indianacapitalchronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/59880afd-f308-4a51-acc7-2253d1bb030b.pdf",
    "https://www.rcfp.org/litigation/rcfp-v-rokita/",
    "https://indianacapitalchronicle.com/2025/08/06/appeals-court-upholds-block-on-indianas-25-foot-police-buffer-law-citing-vagueness/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Case identified. HEA 1186 was signed April 2023 (RCFP page); the Indiana Code section was not confirmed (iga.in.gov would not render). Secondary reports say a second version was signed Mar. 5, 2025, effective July 1, 2025; its challenge status is unknown. Plaintiffs are media organizations. Opinion and docket not read, so remedy scope (plaintiff-only vs. broader) is unverified.",
   "_file": "states_midwest.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "in-indiana-police-buffer-zone-law-hea-1186-2024-25-foot-buffer-around-officers",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 10.0,
   "rank": 9
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Wisconsin",
   "state_code": "WI",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "University of Wisconsin race-restricted scholarships and grants (e.g., Lawton Undergraduate Minority Retention Grant; about 20 UW-Madison awards)",
   "citation": "University of Wisconsin System / UW-Madison scholarship criteria; Regents policy (no single statute)",
   "subject_area": "race_preferences",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection",
   "key_precedent": "SFFA v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023); Rabiebna v. Higher Educational Aids Board (Wis. June 18, 2026)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Wisconsin Supreme Court unanimously held the parallel state-funded minority retention grant violates Equal Protection under SFFA.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 1,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Rabiebna v. Higher Educational Aids Board",
     "court": "Wis. (Supreme Court)",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2026-06-18",
     "outcome": "Minority Undergraduate Retention Grant Program held unconstitutional; HEAB enjoined",
     "why": "SFFA; taxpayer standing found."
    },
    {
     "case": "WILL v. UW-Madison (caption unverified)",
     "court": "Wisconsin (court unverified)",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2026-07-30",
     "outcome": "Filed; UW rescinded Lawton policy July 6, so mootness argued as to that program",
     "why": "Challenges at least 20 other race-based awards."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2026/06/18/wisconsin-high-court-agrees-that-race-based-college-retention-grants-must-go/",
    "https://minnlawyer.com/2026/07/30/uw-madison-sued-wisconsin-race-based-scholarships/",
    "https://will-law.org/will-sues-uw-madison-over-race-based-scholarships/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "The struck program itself is omitted as permanently enjoined; this entry covers the successor/parallel UW programs. Mootness after Lawton rescission. Opinion and complaint not read.",
   "_file": "categories_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "Equal Protection",
   "id": "wi-wisconsin-university-of-wisconsin-race-restricted-scholarships-and-grants-e-g",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 10.0,
   "rank": 10
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "California",
   "state_code": "CA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "AB 2655 (Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act) and AB 2839 (election deepfakes)",
   "citation": "Cal. Elec. Code §§ 20510 (AB 2655), 20012 (AB 2839)",
   "subject_area": "election_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment; Section 230 preemption (AB 2655)",
   "key_precedent": "Kohls v. Bonta, 797 F. Supp. 3d 1177 (E.D. Cal. 2025); NetChoice-type content-based scrutiny",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "District court struck AB 2839 on First Amendment grounds and AB 2655 on Section 230 preemption; state appeal pending in Ninth Circuit.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 1,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Kohls v. Bonta (AB 2839)",
     "court": "E.D. Cal.",
     "number": "not captured",
     "date": "2024-10-02",
     "outcome": "PI granted; judgment for plaintiffs 2025 (Kohls v. Bonta, 797 F. Supp. 3d 1177 (E.D. Cal.)); some sources say Aug. 29, 2025",
     "why": "Content-, viewpoint- and speaker-based; not narrowly tailored; satire and parody swept in"
    },
    {
     "case": "Kohls v. Bonta (AB 2655)",
     "court": "E.D. Cal.",
     "number": "not captured",
     "date": "2025-08",
     "outcome": "Judgment for plaintiffs; Section 230 preempts platform duties (dates conflict, Aug. 5 vs Aug. 29, 2025)",
     "why": "AB 2655 regulates intermediaries; Section 230(c)(1)"
    },
    {
     "case": "Kohls v. Bonta (State appeal)",
     "court": "9th Cir.",
     "number": "25-6138",
     "date": "2025-09-19",
     "outcome": "State noticed appeal Sept. 19, 2025; answering brief March 11, 2026; amici March 18, 2026; no decision found",
     "why": "Pending"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://hlli.org/kohls-v-bonta/",
    "https://clearinghouse.net/case/46692/",
    "https://news.bloomberglaw.com/esg/musk-challenged-california-anti-deepfake-law-struck-by-judge"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Ninth Circuit docket number 25-6138 added from a brief caption in search results. No decision found. Dates still conflict across sources. Statute cites not re-read. Already enjoined; copycats elsewhere are better targets.",
   "_file": "states_west.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "ca-california-ab-2655-defending-democracy-from-deepfake-deception-act-and-ab-283",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 8.0,
   "rank": 11
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "California",
   "state_code": "CA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Ban on sexual-orientation and gender-identity change efforts for minors (SB 1172)",
   "citation": "Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 865-865.2 (SB 1172, 2012)",
   "subject_area": "conversion_therapy",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (viewpoint discrimination)",
   "key_precedent": "Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. 627 (2026) (8-1)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Chiles held talk-therapy ban viewpoint-based and subject to strict scrutiny; Ninth Circuit's Pickup v. Brown (2013) rationale (conduct, not speech) is abrogated.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Pickup v. Brown",
     "court": "9th Cir.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2013-08-29",
     "outcome": "Ban upheld, 740 F.3d 1208 (as amended)",
     "why": "Treated as regulation of professional conduct; abrogated by Chiles"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/supreme-court-backs-christian-counselor-on-lgbtq-therapy",
    "https://www.turnto23.com/news/in-your-neighborhood/bakersfield/conversion-therapy-ban-in-california-in-question-after-supreme-court-ruling",
    "https://www.dailysignal.com/2026/04/08/as-states-hint-resistance-to-scotus-ruling-on-gender-counseling-whats-next-for-free-speech"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "No post-Chiles complaint against California found in my searches (not conclusive). Statute text not read (leginfo blocked). Pickup v. Brown, 740 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 2014, as amended) is the prior ruling; the Pickup docket was not read. Chiles was an as-applied talk-therapy ruling; aversive practices not reached. MAP's citation list also references SB 934 (2025-26); contents not checked.",
   "_file": "states_west.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "ca-california-ban-on-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-change-efforts-for-m",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "calibrated": "conversion-therapy scale",
   "priority": 7.5,
   "rank": 12
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Colorado",
   "state_code": "CO",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Constitutional ban on public funds to religious schools (Blaine amendment)",
   "citation": "Colo. Const. art. IX, § 7",
   "subject_area": "religion",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (Free Exercise; Establishment); Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection",
   "key_precedent": "Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue, 591 U.S. 464 (2020); Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. 767 (2022); Trinity Lutheran, 582 U.S. 449 (2017)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "State agency told a contractor that funding a Christian public-school program would violate art. IX § 7; Espinoza and Carson forbid status-based exclusion.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Education Re-Envisioned BOCES v. Cordova",
     "court": "D. Colo.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2026-02-13",
     "outcome": "Filed; no ruling found",
     "why": "Challenges art. IX § 7 as applied to Riverstone Academy (Pueblo) funding."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://religionclause.blogspot.com/2026/02/suit-challenges-colorados-blaine.html",
    "https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/02/18/colorados-first-public-christian-school-sues-state-alleging-discrimination/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Caption shows defendant surname Cordova only; first name and capacity unverified. Related earlier history: Taxpayers for Public Education v. Douglas County (Colo. 2015), vacated after Trinity Lutheran.",
   "_file": "categories_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "Establishment / Free Exercise",
   "id": "co-colorado-constitutional-ban-on-public-funds-to-religious-schools-blaine-amend",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 7.5,
   "rank": 13
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Colorado",
   "state_code": "CO",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Minor conversion therapy ban (as applied to talk therapy)",
   "citation": "C.R.S. §§ 12-245-202(3.5), 12-245-224(1)(t)(V) (the prohibition and definition cited in Chiles and in the Koschnick complaint); amended by HB26-1322 (2026)",
   "subject_area": "conversion_therapy",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech, viewpoint discrimination)",
   "key_precedent": "Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. 627 (2026) (decided 3/31/2026, 8-1; strict scrutiny, viewpoint discrimination)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "SCOTUS held the law regulates Chiles's talk therapy in a viewpoint-discriminatory way and triggers strict scrutiny; Hartz dissent says it cannot satisfy that test.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Chiles v. Salazar",
     "court": "U.S. Supreme Court / 10th Cir. / D. Colo.",
     "number": "S. Ct. 24-539; 10th Cir. 22-1445, 23-1002; D. Colo. 1:22-cv-02287-CNS-STV",
     "date": "2026-05-27",
     "outcome": "SCOTUS reversed 3/31/2026; 10th Cir. remanded to D. Colo. by per curiam order 5/27/2026 (Hartz, J., dissenting, would have resolved on remand)",
     "why": "Viewpoint-based regulation of speech; Colorado must show narrow tailoring to a compelling interest. District court proceedings on remand pending."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111442685.pdf",
    "https://www.law.cornell.edu/gender-justice/resource/Chiles_v_Salazar_2026",
    "https://www.thepinknews.com/2026/05/11/colorado-conversion-therapy-ban-supreme-court-jared-polis/",
    "https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb26-1322"
   ],
   "notes": "Prior worker read the 10th Cir. remand order (Doc. 209, May 27, 2026). New: reports say the General Assembly passed HB26-1322 in May 2026 and Gov. Polis signed it. It rewrites the ban as viewpoint-neutral (bars steering a minor toward a predetermined outcome on orientation or gender identity) and removes the limitations period for civil suits. I did not read the bill text or the signing record (leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb26-1322 not fetched). The original provisions may be superseded, so the remand case may be mooted or amended and the new law is a fresh as-applied target. Statute text not independently read. Verification downgraded from primary for that reason.",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "states_southcentral_mountain.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "co-colorado-minor-conversion-therapy-ban-as-applied-to-talk-therapy",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "calibrated": "conversion-therapy scale",
   "priority": 7.5,
   "rank": 14
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Connecticut",
   "state_code": "CT",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Conversion-therapy ban for minors (Public Act 17-5)",
   "citation": "Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-907a (conversion therapy by health care provider prohibited); related §§ 19a-907, 19a-907b, 19a-907c (Public Act 17-5, eff. May 10, 2017)",
   "subject_area": "conversion_therapy",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech)",
   "key_precedent": "Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. 627 (2026)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Same talk-therapy speech restriction held viewpoint-based in Chiles; Connecticut press flagged exposure.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/2022/title-19a/chapter-368-i-ll-i/section-19a-907a/",
    "https://codes.findlaw.com/ct/title-19a-public-health-and-well-being/ct-gen-st-sect-19a-907a/",
    "https://dailycampus.com/2026/04/06/connecticuts-conversion-therapy-ban-in-question-after-supreme-court-decision/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Section number 19a-907a confirmed by search results for the Connecticut General Statutes (Justia 2022/2023, FindLaw). Subsection (b) subjects violators to licensing discipline; § 19a-907b adds an unfair-trade-practice hook; § 19a-907c bars public funds. Official cga.ct.gov text not read. No suit found.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "ct-connecticut-conversion-therapy-ban-for-minors-public-act-17-5",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "calibrated": "conversion-therapy scale",
   "priority": 7.5,
   "rank": 15
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Delaware",
   "state_code": "DE",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Assault-weapon ban and large-capacity magazine ban",
   "citation": "11 Del. C. §§ 1465-1467 (assault weapons: definitions, § 1466 prohibition, class E/F felony), 11 Del. C. §§ 1468-1469A (large-capacity magazines, more than 17 rounds)",
   "subject_area": "firearms_hardware",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "ANJRPC v. Attorney General N.J. (3d Cir. en banc 2026); Bruen",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "En banc Third Circuit struck NJ's materially similar ban; Delaware cases (stayed since 2023) should be revived.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Gray v. Jennings; Delaware State Sportsmen's Ass'n v. Delaware Dep't of Safety & Homeland Sec.",
     "court": "D. Del. 1:22-cv-01500; 3d Cir. 23-1633 (consol. with 23-1641, 23-1634)",
     "number": "23-1633",
     "date": "2024-07-15",
     "outcome": "PI denial affirmed on irreparable-harm grounds (no merits view); cert denied No. 24-309 Jan. 13, 2025; district case stayed/inactive per Feb. 19, 2025 order (not re-verified)",
     "why": "Failure was procedural; merits unresolved"
    },
    {
     "case": "Ass'n of N.J. Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General N.J. (en banc), Cheeseman v. Davenport",
     "court": "3d Cir. 24-2415, 24-2450, 24-2506",
     "number": "24-2415",
     "date": "2026-07-17",
     "outcome": "En banc, 10-5: N.J. rifle and magazine bans violate the Second Amendment; mandate stayed Aug. 4, 2026; cert petition No. 26-452 pending",
     "why": "Binding circuit law on the AR-15 and magazine question for Delaware plaintiffs, subject to the stay and Viramontes/Grant"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://delcode.delaware.gov/title11/c005/sc07/index.html",
    "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-452.html",
    "https://www.firearmspolicy.org/cheeseman",
    "https://www.firearmspolicy.org/gray",
    "https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2024/07/litigation-highlight-third-circuit-leaves-delaware-assault-weapons-ban-in-place-on-procedural-grounds"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Statute text read on delcode.delaware.gov: §§ 1465 (definitions), 1466 (manufacture, sale, transport, transfer, purchase, receipt, possession of assault weapons; class E or F felony), 1467 (voluntary certificate of possession), 1468 (LCM definitions: more than 17 rounds), 1469 (LCM prohibition), 1469A. Code page also shows text 'Effective until fulfillment of the contingency in 85 Del. Laws, c. 371, § 3', so an amendment may change the provisions; not examined. Effect of the Third Circuit en banc ruling: it concerns N.J. law only, but it is the controlling Second Amendment analysis in the Third Circuit and Delaware's ban (17-round threshold, different assault-weapon definition) is exposed to it. The court stayed its mandate Aug. 4, 2026 and New Jersey seeks cert (No. 26-452) while Viramontes/Grant (argued Dec. 2, 2026) are pending, so a renewed Delaware PI motion faces a timing and stability problem. I found no Delaware filing after July 17, 2026 (not conclusive). Gray docket not read.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "de-delaware-assault-weapon-ban-and-large-capacity-magazine-ban",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 7.5,
   "rank": 16
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Delaware",
   "state_code": "DE",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Conversion-therapy ban for minors by licensed providers",
   "citation": "Del. Code tit. 24, chs. 17, 30, 35, 39 (conversion-therapy provisions added by SB 65, 149th Gen. Assem.; signed July 23, 2018); definition reported at 24 Del. C. § 3001",
   "subject_area": "conversion_therapy",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech)",
   "key_precedent": "Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. 627 (2026)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Same talk-therapy speech restriction as Colorado law struck in Chiles.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://legis.delaware.gov/BillDetail/25678",
    "https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2018/07/23/Delaware-governor-signs-law-banning-conversion-therapy/9471532387820/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Enacted by Senate Bill 65 (legis.delaware.gov/BillDetail/25678), signed by Gov. Carney July 23, 2018. It makes conversion therapy with a minor unprofessional conduct for physicians, mental health and chemical dependency professionals, psychologists and clinical social workers, and also covers referral. Exact section numbers for the discipline provisions not confirmed; codified text not read. No suit found.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "de-delaware-conversion-therapy-ban-for-minors-by-licensed-providers",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "calibrated": "conversion-therapy scale",
   "priority": 7.5,
   "rank": 17
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "District of Columbia",
   "state_code": "DC",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Conversion therapy ban for minors",
   "citation": "D.C. Code § 7-1231.14a (Mental Health Consumers' Rights Protection Act of 2001, ch. 12A, as amended)",
   "subject_area": "conversion_therapy",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech)",
   "key_precedent": "Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. 627 (2026)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Same structure as the Colorado law invalidated in Chiles.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/7-1231.14a"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Read on code.dccouncil.gov. Section 7-1231.14a is titled 'Prohibition on sexual orientation change efforts for minors and consumers under a conservatorship or guardianship'. Subsection (a): a provider shall not engage in sexual orientation change efforts with a minor or a conserved/guardianship consumer. § 7-1231.01 is only the short title. Text of (b) was cut off in my read; whether the definitions reach gender identity not checked. No suit found.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "dc-district-of-columbia-conversion-therapy-ban-for-minors",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "calibrated": "conversion-therapy scale",
   "priority": 7.5,
   "rank": 18
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Illinois",
   "state_code": "IL",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Youth Mental Health Protection Act (conversion-therapy ban for minors)",
   "citation": "405 ILCS 48/1 et seq. (Youth Mental Health Protection Act, P.A. 99-0411, eff. 2016); ban at § 20",
   "subject_area": "conversion_therapy",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech, viewpoint)",
   "key_precedent": "Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. 627 (2026) (8-1)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Chiles held a materially similar ban regulates talk therapy by viewpoint and requires strict scrutiny.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Pastors Protecting Youth v. Madigan (2016 suit; name and number not confirmed)",
     "court": "N.D. Ill.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2017-03-01",
     "outcome": "Dismissed after state agreed the Act does not reach pastors/clergy",
     "why": "Dismissed on a narrowing concession, not on the merits; pre-Chiles."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=3669&ChapterID=34",
    "https://www.ilga.gov/Legislation/publicacts/view/099-0411"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Per ilga.gov search excerpts: § 20 bars a mental health provider from sexual orientation change efforts with a person under 18, violations are unprofessional conduct and an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud Act. HB 3315 (2025) would rename it the Conversion Therapy Prohibition Act and extend it to all ages; status not verified. Full official text and the Pastors Protecting Youth docket were not read. No post-Chiles suit found.",
   "_file": "states_midwest.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "il-illinois-youth-mental-health-protection-act-conversion-therapy-ban-for-minors",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "calibrated": "conversion-therapy scale",
   "priority": 7.5,
   "rank": 19
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Maine",
   "state_code": "ME",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Conversion therapy ban for minors (LD 1025, 2019)",
   "citation": "P.L. 2019 (LD 1025); Title 32 section unverified",
   "subject_area": "conversion_therapy",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech, viewpoint discrimination)",
   "key_precedent": "Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. 627 (2026)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Bars licensed providers from conversion therapy on minors, including talk therapy; Chiles applies strict scrutiny.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/03/supreme-court-sides-with-therapist-in-challenge-to-colorados-ban-on-conversion-therapy"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Maine ban is LD 1025 (2019). I found no Maine Revised Statutes section in my searches. Unverified. No suit found.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "me-maine-conversion-therapy-ban-for-minors-ld-1025-2019",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "calibrated": "conversion-therapy scale",
   "priority": 7.5,
   "rank": 20
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Maryland",
   "state_code": "MD",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Conversion therapy ban for minors (licensed professionals)",
   "citation": "Md. Code, Health Occ. § 1-212.1",
   "subject_area": "conversion_therapy",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech, viewpoint)",
   "key_precedent": "Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. 627 (2026) (8-1, talk therapy regulated by viewpoint)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Statute reaches talk therapy by licensees; Chiles held a materially identical Colorado ban subject to strict scrutiny as viewpoint-based.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Doyle v. Hogan",
     "court": "D. Md.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2019-09-23",
     "outcome": "Dismissed",
     "why": "Held statute regulates professional conduct and did not bar public/client expression; Chiles undercuts that reasoning"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/StatuteText?article=gho&section=1-212.1&enactments=false",
    "https://marylandmatters.org/2026/03/31/repub/u-s-supreme-court-rules-against-colorado-ban-on-conversion-therapy/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Statute text read on mgaleg.maryland.gov: § 1-212.1 defines conversion therapy by a mental health or child care practitioner; (b) bars it with a minor; (c) makes it unprofessional conduct subject to board discipline; (d) bars State funds. Doyle v. Hogan docket not read. No post-Chiles Maryland suit found; Maryland sources said the administration was reviewing. Not upgraded to primary because the case record was not read.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "md-maryland-conversion-therapy-ban-for-minors-licensed-professionals",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "calibrated": "conversion-therapy scale",
   "priority": 7.5,
   "rank": 21
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Massachusetts",
   "state_code": "MA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Conversion therapy ban for minors (licensed providers)",
   "citation": "Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 275 (Sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts)",
   "subject_area": "conversion_therapy",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech, viewpoint discrimination)",
   "key_precedent": "Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. 627 (2026) (8-1, Mar. 31, 2026; talk-therapy ban is viewpoint-based, strict scrutiny)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Bans talk therapy aimed at changing orientation/identity while permitting affirming talk therapy; same viewpoint structure as the Colorado law in Chiles.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVI/Chapter112/Section275"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Read on malegislature.gov. § 275(b): a health care provider shall not advertise for or engage in sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts with a patient under 18. (c) board discipline; (d) violation is also a G.L. c. 93A, § 2 violation. Excludes acceptance, support and identity-exploration counseling. No suit found.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "ma-massachusetts-conversion-therapy-ban-for-minors-licensed-providers",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "calibrated": "conversion-therapy scale",
   "priority": 7.5,
   "rank": 22
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Minnesota",
   "state_code": "MN",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Conversion-therapy ban (2023 law)",
   "citation": "Minn. Stat. § 214.078 (2023 Minn. Laws ch. 28); deceptive advertising at Minn. Stat. § 325F.69",
   "subject_area": "conversion_therapy",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech, viewpoint)",
   "key_precedent": "Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. 627 (2026)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Covers licensed talk therapy per commentators; Chiles applies, though reported scope (medical settings only) may limit standing.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.revisor.mn.gov/index/statute/topic/sexual_orientation?year=2025",
    "https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/214.078/pdf",
    "https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/94/2026/0/SF/5167/versions/latest/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Section confirmed as 214.078 through Revisor index results. Covers clients under 18 and vulnerable adults; violation is unprofessional conduct. SF 5167 (2026) would repeal it; fate unknown. Official text not read. No suit found.",
   "_file": "states_midwest.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "mn-minnesota-conversion-therapy-ban-2023-law",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "calibrated": "conversion-therapy scale",
   "priority": 7.5,
   "rank": 23
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Nevada",
   "state_code": "NV",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Minor conversion therapy prohibition for licensed providers",
   "citation": "NRS 629.600",
   "subject_area": "conversion_therapy",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech)",
   "key_precedent": "Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. 627 (2026)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Disciplinary ban on licensed psychotherapists regulating talk therapy by viewpoint, same structure as the Colorado law; Nevada joined amici supporting Colorado.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-629.html"
   ],
   "notes": "Read on leg.state.nv.us. NRS 629.600: a psychotherapist shall not provide conversion therapy to a person under 18 regardless of the willingness of the person or a parent or guardian; violation is grounds for discipline by the licensing board. Chapter notes show amendments in 2021, 2023 and 2025. No suit found.",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "states_southcentral_mountain.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "nv-nevada-minor-conversion-therapy-prohibition-for-licensed-providers",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "calibrated": "conversion-therapy scale",
   "priority": 7.5,
   "rank": 24
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New Hampshire",
   "state_code": "NH",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Conversion therapy ban for minors",
   "citation": "N.H. RSA 332-L:1 to 332-L:3 (HB 587, 2018; eff. Jan. 1, 2019)",
   "subject_area": "conversion_therapy",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech, viewpoint discrimination)",
   "key_precedent": "Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. 627 (2026)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Prohibits licensed providers from talk therapy to change orientation/identity of minors; viewpoint-based per Chiles.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-XXX-332-L.htm",
    "https://bills.nhliberty.org/bills/2018/HB587"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Chapter table of contents confirmed in search results: definitions, prohibition and enforcement, non-infringement. Text not read (gc.nh.gov page returned 404 to my fetch). No suit found.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "nh-new-hampshire-conversion-therapy-ban-for-minors",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "calibrated": "conversion-therapy scale",
   "priority": 7.5,
   "rank": 25
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New Jersey",
   "state_code": "NJ",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Carry law: sensitive-places list and private-property default rule",
   "citation": "N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4.6 (L. 2022, c. 131); N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4(c)",
   "subject_area": "firearms_carry",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Wolford v. Lopez, 609 U.S. 185 (2026); Bruen; Rahimi",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Private-property default is materially identical to the Hawaii rule struck in Wolford; district court and the 2025 panel enjoined it.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Koons v. Attorney General N.J. / Siegel v. Platkin",
     "court": "D.N.J. (Bumb, J.); 3d Cir. panel then en banc",
     "number": "3d Cir. 23-1900 (Koons), 23-2043 (Siegel) per search results; not read on a docket",
     "date": "2025-09-10",
     "outcome": "Panel upheld most sensitive places, affirmed injunction against private-property default, held insurance mandate likely unconstitutional; en banc rehearing granted Dec. 11, 2025; argued Feb. 11, 2026; no en banc decision found as of Nov. 12, 2026",
     "why": "Post-Bruen carry law (Chapter 131)"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://reason.com/volokh/2026/02/12/second-amendment-roundup-new-jerseys-sensitive-places-argued-in-3rd-circuit-en-banc/",
    "https://saf.org/cases/koons-v-platkin/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Correction: the earlier note that Koons is No. 24-2415 is wrong; 24-2415 is the ANJRPC assault-firearm appeal. No en banc opinion in Koons found in my searches (not conclusive). Wolford date June 25, 2026 now verified. The private-property default is exposed to Wolford; sensitive-places list likelier to survive (Kipke).",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "nj-new-jersey-carry-law-sensitive-places-list-and-private-property-default-rule",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 7.5,
   "rank": 26
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New Jersey",
   "state_code": "NJ",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Conversion-therapy ban for minors by licensed counselors",
   "citation": "N.J.S.A. 45:1-54 to -55 (L. 2013, c. 150, approved Aug. 19, 2013)",
   "subject_area": "conversion_therapy",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech; viewpoint discrimination)",
   "key_precedent": "Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. 627 (2026) (8-1); contra King v. Governor, 767 F.3d 216 (3d Cir. 2014)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Chiles held talk-therapy bans are viewpoint-based speech restrictions; King's contrary holding is abrogated.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "King v. Christie (Doe v. Christie)",
     "court": "D.N.J.; 3d Cir.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2014-08-01",
     "outcome": "Upheld, ban treated as professional conduct",
     "why": "Abrogated by Chiles"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/title-45/section-45-1-55",
    "https://pub.njleg.gov/Bills/2012/AL13/150_.HTM",
    "https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-jersey/njdce/3:2013cv05038/293406/57"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Section and enactment confirmed in search results (Justia, FindLW, NJ legislature chaptered text). King v. Christie is D.N.J. No. 3:13-cv-05038. Covers licensed professionals and trainees. A 2020 bill (A1488) to extend it to adults was only introduced. No post-Chiles suit found; official text and the King/Third Circuit opinions not read.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "nj-new-jersey-conversion-therapy-ban-for-minors-by-licensed-counselors",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "calibrated": "conversion-therapy scale",
   "priority": 7.5,
   "rank": 27
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New Mexico",
   "state_code": "NM",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Conversion therapy ban for minors (2017 HB 121)",
   "citation": "N.M. Stat. Ann. § 61-1-3.3 (2017 law; bill number SB 121 per one source, SB 1212 per MAP; unresolved)",
   "subject_area": "conversion_therapy",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech, viewpoint)",
   "key_precedent": "Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. 627 (2026) (8-1)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Chiles holds a minor-talk-therapy ban is viewpoint-based speech regulation; NM statute is the same type.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://law.counselstack.com/statute/nm/61/61-1-3.3",
    "https://mapresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/citations-conversion-therapy.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "An aggregator lists NMSA § 61-1-3.3 'Conversion therapy; grounds for disciplinary action'. I could not read it on the official site and could not resolve the 2017 bill number. Enactment date April 7, 2017 per two sources. No suit found.",
   "_file": "states_southcentral_mountain.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "nm-new-mexico-conversion-therapy-ban-for-minors-2017-hb-121",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "calibrated": "conversion-therapy scale",
   "priority": 7.5,
   "rank": 28
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New York",
   "state_code": "NY",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Conversion-therapy ban for minors",
   "citation": "N.Y. Educ. Law § 6509-e (professional misconduct; sexual orientation change efforts with a patient under 18)",
   "subject_area": "conversion_therapy",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech)",
   "key_precedent": "Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. 627 (2026)) (8-1)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Chiles held a talk-therapy ban is viewpoint-based and subject to strict scrutiny; NY's ban covers talk therapy by licensed professionals.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/EDN/6509-E"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Read on nysenate.gov. Education Law § 6509-e subd. 2 makes sexual orientation change efforts with a patient under 18 professional misconduct for a mental health professional; penalties via §§ 6510-6511. The prior citation to N.Y. Mental Hyg. Law § 31.16 is wrong: that section covers operating-certificate suspension and fines and does not mention conversion therapy. Remove it. No suit found.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "ny-new-york-conversion-therapy-ban-for-minors",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "calibrated": "conversion-therapy scale",
   "priority": 7.5,
   "rank": 29
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Rhode Island",
   "state_code": "RI",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Conversion therapy ban for minors (licensed providers)",
   "citation": "R.I. Gen. Laws § 23-94-3 (ch. 23-94, Prevention of Conversion Therapy for Children; P.L. 2017, chs. 186, 328)",
   "subject_area": "conversion_therapy",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech, viewpoint discrimination)",
   "key_precedent": "Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. 627 (2026)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Same one-viewpoint talk-therapy prohibition held subject to strict scrutiny in Chiles.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://law.justia.com/codes/rhode-island/title-23/chapter-23-94/section-23-94-3",
    "https://codes.findlaw.com/ri/title-23-health-and-safety/ri-gen-laws-sect-23-94-3/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Section and session law confirmed by search results (Justia, FindLaw); text not read (Justia 403). No suit found.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "ri-rhode-island-conversion-therapy-ban-for-minors-licensed-providers",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "calibrated": "conversion-therapy scale",
   "priority": 7.5,
   "rank": 30
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Utah",
   "state_code": "UT",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Minor conversion therapy prohibition",
   "citation": "Utah Code § 58-1-511 (codified by 2023 H.B. 228; earlier rule R156-60 and Jan. 21, 2020 executive order)",
   "subject_area": "conversion_therapy",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech)",
   "key_precedent": "Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. 627 (2026)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "2023 amendment protects verbal therapy and bans mainly aversive or physical practices; viewpoint-neutral on its face per sponsors.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title58/Chapter1/58-1-S511.html",
    "https://le.utah.gov/interim/2023/pdf/00000712.pdf"
   ],
   "notes": "A Utah legislative research document lists 58-1-511 as the minor conversion-therapy prohibition; page text not read (JS-rendered). Ban began by rule and executive order in 2020 and was codified in 2023. No suit found.",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "states_southcentral_mountain.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "ut-utah-minor-conversion-therapy-prohibition",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "calibrated": "conversion-therapy scale",
   "priority": 7.5,
   "rank": 31
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Vermont",
   "state_code": "VT",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Conversion therapy ban for minors",
   "citation": "18 V.S.A. § 8352 (ch. 196, subch. 2, Prohibition of Conversion Therapy; 2016 Act 138, S.132)",
   "subject_area": "conversion_therapy",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech, viewpoint discrimination)",
   "key_precedent": "Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. 627 (2026)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Same talk-therapy viewpoint restriction as Colorado law struck down for strict scrutiny in Chiles.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/18/196/08352"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Read on legislature.vermont.gov. § 8352 ('Treatment of minors'): a mental health care provider shall not use conversion therapy with a client younger than 18. No suit found.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "vt-vermont-conversion-therapy-ban-for-minors",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "calibrated": "conversion-therapy scale",
   "priority": 7.5,
   "rank": 32
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Washington",
   "state_code": "WA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Conversion therapy ban for minors (licensed providers)",
   "citation": "Wash. Rev. Code § 18.130.180(27); ch. 18.225 RCW (SB 5722, 2018)",
   "subject_area": "conversion_therapy",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (viewpoint discrimination)",
   "key_precedent": "Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. 627 (2026)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Ninth Circuit's Tingley v. Ferguson upheld the law as conduct regulation, a rationale Chiles rejected; case already partially reopened.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Tingley v. Ferguson",
     "court": "9th Cir.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2022-09",
     "outcome": "Ban upheld, 47 F.4th 1055; cert denied 2023; abrogated in part by Chiles (Chiles named Tingley)",
     "why": "Professional-conduct theory rejected by Chiles"
    },
    {
     "case": "Tingley v. Ferguson (also captioned Tingley v. Brown) (reopened)",
     "court": "W.D. Wash. (Judge Cartwright)",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2026-07-31",
     "outcome": "Rule 60(b)-type motion after Chiles granted in part; case partially reopened July 31, 2026. Per ADF, on Aug. 13, 2026 the State agreed not to enforce the law against Tingley while the case proceeds (stipulated PI motion; whether entered not confirmed). No schedule found.",
     "why": "Washington's response did not disavow enforcement against speech-only counseling"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://adfmedia.org/case/tingley-v-brown/",
    "https://adfmedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/tingleyreplyreopencase.pdf",
    "https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/washington-conversion-therapy-ban-challenge-partially-reopened"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Reopening confirmed by two sources (ADF page, Bloomberg Law, Washington's response PDF cited in search). W.D. Wash. docket number not found (CourtListener and ECF blocked). Statute text not read. Strongest live post-Chiles posture against a state ban other than Wisconsin.",
   "_file": "states_west.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "wa-washington-conversion-therapy-ban-for-minors-licensed-providers",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "calibrated": "conversion-therapy scale",
   "priority": 7.5,
   "rank": 33
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Wisconsin",
   "state_code": "WI",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Board rule: conversion therapy as unprofessional conduct (MPSW)",
   "citation": "Wis. Admin. Code MPSW 20.02(25)",
   "subject_area": "conversion_therapy",
   "constitutional_provision": "First and Fourteenth Amendments (speech, viewpoint)",
   "key_precedent": "Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. 627 (2026)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Complaint alleges the rule is materially identical to the Colorado law struck in Chiles.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Koschnick v. Evers",
     "court": "E.D. Wis.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2026-05-12",
     "outcome": "Pending. Verified complaint dated May 12, 2026 (plaintiffs Terri Koschnick and Joy Buchman; defendants Gov. Evers, DSPS officials and board members, official capacities). No ruling found through July 2026 reports.",
     "why": "WILL pleads that Rule MPSW 20.02(25) is materially identical to the Colorado law in Chiles; also a vagueness claim; talk therapy only"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://will-law.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/1.-Complaint-Verified-w-Signatures.pdf",
    "https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2026/05/15/law-firm-sues-after-governor-rejects-demand-to-scrap-conversion-therapy-ban/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "I read the verified complaint (will-law.org PDF); it cites Wis. Admin. Code § MPSW 20.02(25) and a May 5, 2026 letter in which the Governor declined to repeal. Case number not shown in text I extracted. Administrative rule, not statute; rule text itself not read. Check for a PI ruling after July 2026.",
   "_file": "states_midwest.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "wi-wisconsin-board-rule-conversion-therapy-as-unprofessional-conduct-mpsw",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "calibrated": "conversion-therapy scale",
   "priority": 7.5,
   "rank": 34
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Arkansas",
   "state_code": "AR",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Act 900 of 2025 (minors/social media: addictive practices, notifications, strict liability)",
   "citation": "Ark. Acts 2025, Act 900 (codified section not verified)",
   "subject_area": "online_minors",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment; due process (vagueness)",
   "key_precedent": "Moody v. NetChoice, 603 U.S. 707 (2024)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Enjoined as likely violating First Amendment and vague; remaining risk is Eighth Circuit reversal, not lack of merit.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "NetChoice v. Griffin (Acts 900 and 901)",
     "court": "W.D. Ark. (Brooks, C.J.)",
     "number": "5:25-cv-05140 (per State's Eighth Circuit brief caption)",
     "date": "2026-04-20",
     "outcome": "Preliminary injunction granted against Act 900 before its Apr. 21, 2026 effective date; State's Eighth Circuit appeal captioned No. 26-1962",
     "why": "Likely First Amendment violation; addiction ban vague; strict liability and nighttime notification limits overbroad"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.ualrpublicradio.org/local-regional-news/2026-04-20/federal-judge-blocks-reworked-arkansas-law-restricting-minors-social-media",
    "https://www.axios.com/local/nw-arkansas/2026/04/22/court-temporarily-blocks-arkansas-social-media-law",
    "https://netchoice.org/netchoice-v-griffin-arkansas-2025/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "District docket number per a search-result brief caption; 8th Cir. No. 26-1962 per brief caption, not confirmed on docket. No Eighth Circuit ruling found. Injunction covers NetChoice members. Statute text not read.",
   "_file": "states_southcentral_mountain.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "ar-arkansas-act-900-of-2025-minors-social-media-addictive-practices-notification",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 6.0,
   "rank": 35
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Arkansas",
   "state_code": "AR",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Act 901 of 2025 (platform design / addictive features; private action)",
   "citation": "Ark. Acts 2025, Act 901 (codified section not verified)",
   "subject_area": "online_minors",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Moody v. NetChoice, 603 U.S. 707 (2024)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Preliminarily enjoined as a likely First Amendment violation.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "NetChoice v. Griffin (Acts 900 and 901)",
     "court": "W.D. Ark. (Brooks, C.J.)",
     "number": "5:25-cv-05140 (per State's Eighth Circuit brief caption)",
     "date": "2025-12-15",
     "outcome": "Preliminary injunction granted, 812 F. Supp. 3d 905 (W.D. Ark. 2025); State appeal 8th Cir. No. 26-1096",
     "why": "Chief Judge Brooks found NetChoice likely to succeed on its First Amendment claim"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://netchoice.org/court-sides-with-free-speech-and-parents-by-stopping-arkansas-latest-censorship-effort/",
    "https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/netchoice-v-griffin/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Docket numbers from search-result captions; Eighth Circuit No. 26-1096 attached to the Act 901 appeal. No appellate ruling found. Statute text not read.",
   "_file": "states_southcentral_mountain.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "ar-arkansas-act-901-of-2025-platform-design-addictive-features-private-action",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 6.0,
   "rank": 36
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Baltimore, MD",
   "state_code": "MD",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Baltimore City tax sale: lien auction, foreclosure and surplus (equity) retention",
   "citation": "Md. Code, Tax-Prop. Title 14, Subtitle 8 (tax sale/foreclosure); Baltimore City tax-sale process (section-level cites not verified)",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment (Takings); Fourteenth Amendment (due process)",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Plemons v. Gale, 396 F.3d 569 (4th Cir. 2005) (lien purchasers as state actors)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Owners get only the lien-price surplus, not full equity; D. Md. held a Tyler takings claim plausible and TIA/comity no bar.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Edmondson Community Organization, Inc. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore (defs. incl. Tempest LLC, East Coast Tax Auction LLC, Finance Director Mocksten)",
     "court": "D. Md. (Hurson, J.)",
     "number": "1:24-cv-01921-BAH (confirmed on the opinion's caption)",
     "date": "2025-08-22",
     "outcome": "Motions to dismiss granted in part, denied in part (48-page memorandum opinion, ECF 53). Count I (§ 1983 takings) and Count III (declaratory) proceed; Count II dismissed without prejudice; Count IV (unjust enrichment) per prior notes. Case stayed Jan. 30, 2026 for two years (order signed by Judge Hurson per Baltimore Banner, Feb. 9, 2026) under an agreement tied to city changes in 2026-27",
     "why": "TIA and comity do not bar a surplus-equity claim; Rooker-Feldman and res judicata do not apply; lien purchasers plausibly state actors (Plemons; public function/joint participation). Reported settlement terms (Banner, secondary): payment plans for owners behind on property tax and water bills; bidding changes so owners of sold properties recover more; compensation to Ms. Anderson and ECO; a building for ECO's community center. Docket not read; stay date from press"
    },
    {
     "case": "Pung v. Isabella County (effect on this entry)",
     "court": "U.S. Supreme Court",
     "number": "No. 25-95",
     "date": "2026-06-23",
     "outcome": "Just compensation after a fairly conducted tax sale equals sale surplus, not FMV; vacated and remanded (lead-verified)",
     "why": "Limits FMV damages theory; fairness-of-sale and notice theories survive"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.guptawessler.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/53-opinion.pdf",
    "https://www.thebanner.com/community/housing/baltimore-tax-sale-lawsuit-changes-DGOCZYBMFFECZHU4D53CB42ZD4/",
    "https://www.nelsonmullins.com/insights/alerts/additional_nelson_mullins_alerts/all/reacting-to-tyler-v-hennepin-county-maryland-federal-court-applies-fair-v-continental-resources",
    "https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/StatuteText?article=gtp&section=14-833&enactments=false",
    "https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/StatuteText?article=gtp&section=14-847&enactments=false"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Lead kept this city entry separate from the statewide entry: Edmondson names the Mayor and City Council, and Baltimore City runs its own sale. Edmondson Community Org. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, No. 1:24-cv-01921-BAH (D. Md.): Aug. 22, 2025 opinion (ECF 53) denied the motions to dismiss in part (takings and declaratory counts proceed); two-year stay signed Jan. 30, 2026 tied to city reforms (Baltimore Banner, Feb. 9, 2026). The reported ~$6M unclaimed-surplus figure is NOT confirmed. Pung v. Isabella County (2026) limits takings damages to the sale surplus.",
   "_file": "cities_26_50.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "md-baltimore-md-baltimore-city-tax-sale-lien-auction-foreclosure-and-surplus-equ",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 6.0,
   "rank": 37
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "California",
   "state_code": "CA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "30-day vehicle impound for unlicensed drivers",
   "citation": "Cal. Veh. Code §§ 14602.6, 22651(p)",
   "subject_area": "forfeiture_fines",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fourth Amendment (seizure; community caretaking)",
   "key_precedent": "Sandoval v. County of Sonoma, 912 F.3d 509 (9th Cir. 2018)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Ninth Circuit held a 30-day hold unreasonable once the caretaking rationale ends; the statute authorizes holds that fail that test as applied.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Sandoval v. County of Sonoma",
     "court": "9th Cir.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2018",
     "outcome": "30-day impound held unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment as applied (from memory)",
     "why": "Caretaking rationale evaporates once a licensed driver can retrieve the car."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Entered from memory; I did not run a search or read the opinion or statute text. Section numbers and holding must be verified. Damages claims run against local agencies enforcing the state statute, so check Monell and qualified immunity. Existing list covers Chicago impound only.",
   "_file": "categories_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "ca-california-30-day-vehicle-impound-for-unlicensed-drivers",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 6.0,
   "rank": 38
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "California",
   "state_code": "CA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "AB 1955 (2024) restricting school parental-notification of student gender identity",
   "citation": "Cal. Educ. Code §§ 217, 220.3 (AB 1955); sections unverified",
   "subject_area": "religion",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (Free Exercise); Fourteenth Amendment (parental due process)",
   "key_precedent": "Mirabelli v. Bonta, No. 25A810 (U.S. Mar. 2, 2026); Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U.S. ___ (2025)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "SCOTUS emergency order found parents with religious objections likely to succeed on Free Exercise and due-process claims against California's notification policies.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Mirabelli v. Bonta",
     "court": "U.S. Supreme Court",
     "number": "25A810",
     "date": "2026-03-02",
     "outcome": "Vacated Ninth Circuit stay; district-court injunction reinstated for parent plaintiffs (6-3 per curiam, per secondary reports)",
     "why": "Parents likely to prevail on Free Exercise and due-process claims; order did not address AB 1955 itself."
    },
    {
     "case": "City of Huntington Beach v. Newsom",
     "court": "9th Cir.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2026",
     "outcome": "Reportedly held AB 1955 forbids the notification policies Mirabelli requires; PI for seven parents",
     "why": "Thomas More Society press release only; verify."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://blog.csba.org/mirabelli-march26/",
    "https://www.lcwlegal.com/news/u-s-supreme-court-holds-that-california-parental-notification-policies-likely-violate-parents-religious-rights-2/",
    "https://www.thomasmoresociety.org/news/9th-circuit-relies-on-thomas-more-society-supreme-court-victory-in-mirabelli-v-bonta-to-block-californias-gender-secrecy-law"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Relief so far is limited to named parents; a class or additional plaintiffs needed for broader effect. Order text not read; sources include low-quality sites.",
   "_file": "categories_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "Establishment / Free Exercise",
   "id": "ca-california-ab-1955-2024-restricting-school-parental-notification-of-student-g",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 6.0,
   "rank": 39
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "California",
   "state_code": "CA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "SB 2 sensitive places and private-property default rule",
   "citation": "Cal. Penal Code §§ 25250, 26230, 26235 et seq. (SB 2, 2023)",
   "subject_area": "firearms_carry",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Wolford v. Lopez, 609 U.S. 185 (2026)); Bruen",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Private-property default is materially identical to Hawaii's rule struck in Wolford; sensitive-places list is broad and partially enjoined.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "May v. Bonta (consolidated with Carralero, Reno)",
     "court": "9th Cir. / C.D. Cal.",
     "number": "23-4354",
     "date": "2024-09-06",
     "outcome": "Panel largely affirmed PI, reversed in part; en banc denied (8 dissents)",
     "why": "Default rule and many sensitive places enjoined; some places upheld"
    },
    {
     "case": "May v. Bonta",
     "court": "C.D. Cal.",
     "number": "(see 9th Cir. 23-4354)",
     "date": "2026",
     "outcome": "Case stayed in district court pending Wolford",
     "why": "Per CRPA; status post-Wolford not confirmed"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://crpa.org/news/blogs/breaking-may-v-bonta-strategy-update/",
    "https://crpa.org/news/alert/huge-win-in-wolford/",
    "https://www.firearmspolicy.org/wolford"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Post-Wolford status not found: no May v. Bonta (9th Cir. 23-4354) action after June 25, 2026 turned up. District case reported stayed pending Wolford. My sources conflict on what the 2024 panel held about SB 2's private-property default (Cal. Penal Code § 26230(a)(26) per one source); check the opinion. The Aug. 10, 2026 Ninth Circuit remand opinion in Wolford covers Hawaii only. Unverified; statute and opinion not read.",
   "_file": "states_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "ca-california-sb-2-sensitive-places-and-private-property-default-rule",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 6.0,
   "rank": 40
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Cook County, IL",
   "state_code": "IL",
   "level": "county",
   "law_name": "Cook County Assault Weapons Ban",
   "citation": "Cook County Code of Ordinances ch. 54, art. III, div. 1 (§§ 54-211 to 54-215)",
   "subject_area": "firearms_hardware",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment (via 14th)",
   "key_precedent": "Viramontes v. Cook County, No. 25-238 (U.S. cert. granted June 30, 2026), consolidated with Grant v. Higgins, No. 25-566; Bruen; Heller",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Cert granted on whether AR-15-pattern rifle bans violate the Second Amendment; Bruen text-and-history test; 7th Cir. upheld under Friedman v. Highland Park (2015) / Bevis-type reasoning.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Viramontes v. Cook County; Grant v. Higgins (consolidated)",
     "court": "U.S. Supreme Court (from 7th Cir. No. 24-1437, decided June 2, 2025; and 2d Cir.)",
     "number": "25-238 (25-566)",
     "date": "2026-06-30",
     "outcome": "Cert granted June 30, 2026; consolidated, one hour. Argument set for Dec. 2, 2026. SG granted divided argument Nov. 9, 2026. Pending: Viramontes's Rule 46.2 dismissal motion (Oct. 29), Cook County suggestion of mootness (Nov. 5), petitioners' response (Nov. 11); no ruling.",
     "why": "Whether states may ban AR-15-style rifles; county argues Viramontes's interest is in an AK-style rifle and seeks dismissal or DIG if he is let out"
    },
    {
     "case": "Wilson v. Cook County",
     "court": "7th Cir.",
     "number": "937 F.3d 1028",
     "date": "2019",
     "outcome": "Ban upheld / challenge failed",
     "why": "Earlier challenge to the same ordinance"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-238.html",
    "https://www.firearmspolicy.org/Viramontes",
    "https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-238/431997/20261105164932316_25-238%20Suggestion%20of%20Mootness.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Cert grant, consolidation and Dec. 2, 2026 argument date read on the Supreme Court docket (25-238). The mootness fight means the Cook County vehicle could drop out; Grant v. Higgins (Connecticut) would remain. Ordinance text not read. Enactment date reported inconsistently. Illinois PICA is a separate state law.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "il-cook-county-il-cook-county-assault-weapons-ban",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 6.0,
   "rank": 41
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Pennsylvania",
   "state_code": "PA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Ban on 18-20-year-olds carrying (incl. licensed carry age 21) ",
   "citation": "18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6106, 6107, 6109(b), 6108",
   "subject_area": "firearms_carry",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Lara v. Commissioner Pa. State Police, 125 F.4th 428 (3d Cir. 2025); Bruen",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Third Circuit held 18-20 are 'the people' and emergency-period carry ban unconstitutional; non-emergency license age 21 is the open follow-on.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Lara v. Commissioner Pa. State Police (Bivens v. Second Amendment Foundation)",
     "court": "3d Cir. 21-1832; U.S. Supreme Court 24-1329",
     "number": "21-1832; 24-1329",
     "date": "2025-01-13",
     "outcome": "Third Circuit, on remand after GVR (No. 24-93, Oct. 15, 2024), again held the statutes unconstitutional as applied to 18-20-year-olds during emergencies (earlier opinion 91 F.4th 122, Jan. 2024); rehearing denied Feb. 26, 2025; cert denied June 30, 2026 in No. 24-1329",
     "why": "Narrow as-applied injunction (emergency carry)"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-1329.html",
    "https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/211832p1.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Supreme Court docket 24-1329 read: Petition DENIED June 30, 2026. Cert denial leaves the Third Circuit judgment in place. Statutes not read. Pending related suits not verified.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "pa-pennsylvania-ban-on-18-20-year-olds-carrying-incl-licensed-carry-age-21",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 6.0,
   "rank": 42
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Wisconsin",
   "state_code": "WI",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Wisconsin Supplier Diversity Program (5% bid preference for certified minority-owned businesses)",
   "citation": "Wisconsin Department of Administration supplier diversity program; Wis. Stat. section unverified",
   "subject_area": "race_preferences",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection; Wis. Const.",
   "key_precedent": "SFFA v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023); Rabiebna v. HEAB (Wis. 2026)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Race-based bid preference with no stated disparity evidence, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court just struck a race-limited grant program unanimously.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Citizens Defending Liberty v. Evers (caption inferred)",
     "court": "Wisconsin state court (unverified)",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2026-07-09",
     "outcome": "Filed; no ruling found",
     "why": "WILL suit on behalf of taxpayer association over program spending more than $250 million."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://will-law.org/will-sues-gov-evers-over-250-million-discriminatory-program/",
    "https://www.wispolitics.com/2026/wisconsin-institute-for-law-liberty-will-sues-gov-evers-over-250-million-discriminatory-program/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Court, caption, and statute not confirmed on the WILL page. Taxpayer-standing posture means a bidder plaintiff may be needed for § 1983 damages.",
   "_file": "categories_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "Equal Protection",
   "id": "wi-wisconsin-wisconsin-supplier-diversity-program-5-bid-preference-for-certified",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 6.0,
   "rank": 43
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Columbus, OH",
   "state_code": "OH",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Columbus conversion therapy ban for minors",
   "citation": "Columbus City Code (ordinance adopted 2016) - verify section",
   "subject_area": "conversion_therapy",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech)",
   "key_precedent": "Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. 627 (2026)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Ordinance prohibits conversion therapy on minors, including talk therapy; Chiles forecloses the speech-versus-conduct defense.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [
    "https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/chiles-v-salazar/",
    "https://www.dailysignal.com/2026/03/31/what-scotus-ruled-about-conversion-therapy-in-chiles-v-salazar/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Ohio's attempt at preempting is not confirmed. Existence from memory (adopted ~2016); verify. Citation from memory; section number NOT confirmed against the municipal code. Search budget was exhausted, so no post-Chiles docket check was done; challenge_status 'none' means none found, not none exist. City remedial ordinances usually enforce by civil penalty or licensing, so Younger/abstention risk is low. Facial or as-applied pre-enforcement suit by a counselor (Chiles model) is the route.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "oh-columbus-oh-columbus-conversion-therapy-ban-for-minors",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "calibrated": "conversion-therapy scale",
   "priority": 5.0,
   "rank": 44
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Jackson County, MO",
   "state_code": "MO",
   "level": "county",
   "law_name": "Jackson County conversion therapy ban for minors",
   "citation": "Jackson Cnty., Mo., Code § 5575",
   "subject_area": "conversion_therapy",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech; vagueness)",
   "key_precedent": "Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. 627 (2026)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Same ordinance design as Kansas City; Chiles squarely applies.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Wyatt Bury, LLC et al. v. City of Kansas City; Jackson County (State of Missouri ex rel. Att'y Gen. intervened as plaintiff)",
     "court": "8th Cir. (from W.D. Mo.)",
     "number": "25-2566",
     "date": "2026-07-02",
     "outcome": "Per curiam, unpublished (Colloton, Shepherd, Kobes): reversed dismissal of Count 1 (free speech vs. counseling ordinances), partial dismissal of Count 2, and Count 5 vagueness; remanded to consider complaint and PI in light of Chiles. Free-exercise and overbreadth dismissals not before the court.",
     "why": "Counties and city pressed the speech-versus-conduct distinction Chiles rejected"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/07/252566U.pdf",
    "https://adfmedia.org/case/wyatt-bury-llc-v-city-kansas-city/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Opinion read (ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/07/252566U.pdf). Ordinance cites confirmed in it: Jackson Cnty., Mo., Code § 5575 (definition at § 5575.1(a)). Remand pending. ADF says Jackson County's ordinance remains in effect (advocacy source).",
   "_file": "cities_26_50.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "mo-jackson-county-mo-jackson-county-conversion-therapy-ban-for-minors",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "calibrated": "conversion-therapy scale",
   "priority": 5.0,
   "rank": 45
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Kansas City, MO",
   "state_code": "MO",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Kansas City conversion therapy ban for minors",
   "citation": "Kan. City, Mo., Code § 50-234",
   "subject_area": "conversion_therapy",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech; vagueness)",
   "key_precedent": "Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. 627 (2026)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Ordinance regulates talk therapy as speech; Chiles applied strict scrutiny and rejected the speech-vs-conduct theory the city pressed below.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Wyatt Bury, LLC et al. v. City of Kansas City; Jackson County (State of Missouri ex rel. Att'y Gen. intervened as plaintiff)",
     "court": "8th Cir. (from W.D. Mo.)",
     "number": "25-2566",
     "date": "2026-07-02",
     "outcome": "Per curiam, unpublished: reversed dismissal of free-speech (Count 1), part of Count 2, and vagueness (Count 5) claims; remanded to reconsider the PI in light of Chiles. District court had granted only a narrow PI against the public-accommodation ordinance as to pronouns.",
     "why": "Chiles undercuts the professional-conduct theory the district court relied on"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/07/252566U.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Opinion read. Cite confirmed: Kan. City, Mo., Code § 50-234 (definition at § 50-234(b)(1)). Kansas City amended its public-accommodation ordinance (§§ 38-101, 38-113) in Jan. 2025 (Ord. 241074). ADF says Kansas City repealed one of the challenged ordinances and left another; not verified.",
   "_file": "cities_26_50.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "mo-kansas-city-mo-kansas-city-conversion-therapy-ban-for-minors",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "calibrated": "conversion-therapy scale",
   "priority": 5.0,
   "rank": 46
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Louisville, KY",
   "state_code": "KY",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Louisville Metro conversion therapy ban for minors (2019)",
   "citation": "Louisville Metro Code of Ordinances (2019 ordinance; section not verified)",
   "subject_area": "conversion_therapy",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech)",
   "key_precedent": "Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. 627 (2026)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "From memory: Metro Council banned conversion therapy for minors in 2019; if it covers talk therapy, Chiles applies directly (6th Cir.).",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Existence and text from memory only; no search done (budget exhausted). Verify before use, including any Kentucky preemption or later amendment.",
   "_file": "cities_26_50.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "ky-louisville-ky-louisville-metro-conversion-therapy-ban-for-minors-2019",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "calibrated": "conversion-therapy scale",
   "priority": 5.0,
   "rank": 47
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Minneapolis, MN",
   "state_code": "MN",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Minneapolis conversion therapy ban for minors (2019 ordinance)",
   "citation": "Minneapolis Code of Ordinances (2019 council ordinance; section number not verified)",
   "subject_area": "conversion_therapy",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech)",
   "key_precedent": "Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. 627 (2026)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Ordinance prohibits conversion therapy with minors, enforced by administrative citations and fines; Chiles makes talk-therapy bans content/viewpoint-based speech regulation.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-council-approves-ban-on-conversion-therapy/565332462",
    "https://www.mnmed.org/news-and-publications/news/us-supreme-court-ruling-conversion-therapy-may-affect-minnesota"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "No lawsuit found targeting the city ordinance. Reports say the council drafted it to avoid provisions struck elsewhere; text not read, so carve-outs unchecked. State ban analysis is separate (Minnesota entries).",
   "_file": "cities_26_50.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "mn-minneapolis-mn-minneapolis-conversion-therapy-ban-for-minors-2019-ordinance",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "calibrated": "conversion-therapy scale",
   "priority": 5.0,
   "rank": 48
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Minnesota",
   "state_code": "MN",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Under-21 permit-to-carry ban",
   "citation": "Minn. Stat. § 624.714 (age 21 requirement)",
   "subject_area": "firearms_carry",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022); Worth v. Jacobson, 108 F.4th 677 (8th Cir. 2024)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Eighth Circuit already held the ban unconstitutional and cert was denied.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 1,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Worth v. Jacobson",
     "court": "8th Cir. (from D. Minn.)",
     "number": "S. Ct. 24-782",
     "date": "2025-04-21",
     "outcome": "Eighth Circuit struck the ban; cert denied April 21, 2025",
     "why": "No founding-era tradition of disarming 18-to-20-year-olds; state relied on militia and surety laws."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/jacobson-v-worth",
    "https://www.firearmspolicy.org/worth",
    "https://www.gun-tests.com/gun-tests-plus/young-adults-can-now-receive-carry-permits-in-minnesota/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Little remaining value as a target. Related under-21 purchase and possession limits were not separately researched (unverified). Reporting sources are partly advocacy.",
   "_file": "states_midwest.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "mn-minnesota-under-21-permit-to-carry-ban",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 5.0,
   "rank": 49
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New York, NY",
   "state_code": "NY",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "NYC conversion therapy ban (consumer protection)",
   "citation": "N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 20-825 et seq. (Local Law 22 of 2017) - verify section",
   "subject_area": "conversion_therapy",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech)",
   "key_precedent": "Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. 627 (2026)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Ban reaches talk therapy by licensed or unlicensed providers; Chiles holds such bans are viewpoint-based speech regulation.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [
    "https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/chiles-v-salazar/",
    "https://www.dailysignal.com/2026/03/31/what-scotus-ruled-about-conversion-therapy-in-chiles-v-salazar/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Citation from memory; section number NOT confirmed against the municipal code. Search budget was exhausted, so no post-Chiles docket check was done; challenge_status 'none' means none found, not none exist. City remedial ordinances usually enforce by civil penalty or licensing, so Younger/abstention risk is low. Facial or as-applied pre-enforcement suit by a counselor (Chiles model) is the route. State ban (Mental Hyg./Educ. law) is covered by state workers.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "ny-new-york-ny-nyc-conversion-therapy-ban-consumer-protection",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "calibrated": "conversion-therapy scale",
   "priority": 5.0,
   "rank": 50
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Oklahoma",
   "state_code": "OK",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Charter school law: 'nonsectarian' requirement",
   "citation": "Okla. Stat. tit. 70, § 3-136(A)(2) (from memory; verify)",
   "subject_area": "religion",
   "constitutional_provision": "Free Exercise Clause",
   "key_precedent": "Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. 767 (2022); Drummond v. Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Bd. (4-4, 2025)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Federal court enjoined the non-sectarian rule as a Free Exercise violation; Carson controls.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation, Inc. v. Drummond (some filings: v. Shellem)",
     "court": "W.D. Okla. (Russell, J.)",
     "number": "not found",
     "date": "2026-09-24",
     "outcome": "Preliminary injunction granted (Reuters report dated Sept. 24, 2026); the State charter board again rejected the school in Oct. 2026; Tenth Circuit appeal possible",
     "why": "Excluding a charter school solely for being religious violates Free Exercise (Carson/Espinoza line); neutral administration does not offend the Establishment Clause. Suit filed March 2026"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/federal-court-ruling-paves-way-for-jewish-charter-school-in-oklahoma/2026/09",
    "https://becketfund.org/media/jewish-charter-school-fights-for-equal-access-in-oklahoma/",
    "https://whtc.com/2026/09/24/oklahoma-must-allow-taxpayer-funded-religious-charter-school-judge-rules/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Case identified via press (Becket, Reuters, EdWeek). Docket number and order not read. Statute cite (tit. 70, § 3-136(A)(2)) still from memory and unverified. Relief appears limited to the plaintiff school; the St. Isidore 4-4 split leaves the question open nationally.",
   "_file": "states_southcentral_mountain.json",
   "provision_group": "Establishment / Free Exercise",
   "id": "ok-oklahoma-charter-school-law-nonsectarian-requirement",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 5.0,
   "rank": 51
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Philadelphia, PA",
   "state_code": "PA",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Philadelphia conversion therapy ban for minors",
   "citation": "Philadelphia Code § 9-1128? (ordinance enacted 2016) - verify",
   "subject_area": "conversion_therapy",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech)",
   "key_precedent": "Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. 627 (2026)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Ordinance bans sexual-orientation and gender-identity change efforts for minors; same speech theory as Chiles.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [
    "https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/chiles-v-salazar/",
    "https://www.dailysignal.com/2026/03/31/what-scotus-ruled-about-conversion-therapy-in-chiles-v-salazar/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Existence and section number from memory (I believe enacted 2016) - confirm before use. Citation from memory; section number NOT confirmed against the municipal code. Search budget was exhausted, so no post-Chiles docket check was done; challenge_status 'none' means none found, not none exist. City remedial ordinances usually enforce by civil penalty or licensing, so Younger/abstention risk is low. Facial or as-applied pre-enforcement suit by a counselor (Chiles model) is the route.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "pa-philadelphia-pa-philadelphia-conversion-therapy-ban-for-minors",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "calibrated": "conversion-therapy scale",
   "priority": 5.0,
   "rank": 52
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Pittsburgh, PA",
   "state_code": "PA",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Pittsburgh conversion therapy ban for minors (2016)",
   "citation": "Pittsburgh City Code (2016 ordinance; section not verified)",
   "subject_area": "conversion_therapy",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech)",
   "key_precedent": "Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. 627 (2026)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "From memory: Pittsburgh enacted a minors ban in 2016; Chiles governs talk-therapy bans (3d Cir.).",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "From memory only; verify enactment, text and any enforcement history.",
   "_file": "cities_26_50.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "pa-pittsburgh-pa-pittsburgh-conversion-therapy-ban-for-minors-2016",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "calibrated": "conversion-therapy scale",
   "priority": 5.0,
   "rank": 53
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Seattle, WA",
   "state_code": "WA",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Seattle conversion therapy ban for minors",
   "citation": "Seattle Municipal Code (ordinance adopted 2016) - verify; state law RCW 18.130.180(27)",
   "subject_area": "conversion_therapy",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech)",
   "key_precedent": "Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. 627 (2026); Tingley v. Ferguson, 47 F.4th 1055 (9th Cir. 2022) (now abrogated)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Ninth Circuit upheld the state ban as conduct regulation in Tingley; Chiles rejects that reasoning.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [
    "https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/chiles-v-salazar/",
    "https://www.dailysignal.com/2026/03/31/what-scotus-ruled-about-conversion-therapy-in-chiles-v-salazar/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Existence of the Seattle ordinance from memory; verify. State statute is a better target. Citation from memory; section number NOT confirmed against the municipal code. Search budget was exhausted, so no post-Chiles docket check was done; challenge_status 'none' means none found, not none exist. City remedial ordinances usually enforce by civil penalty or licensing, so Younger/abstention risk is low. Facial or as-applied pre-enforcement suit by a counselor (Chiles model) is the route.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "wa-seattle-wa-seattle-conversion-therapy-ban-for-minors",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "calibrated": "conversion-therapy scale",
   "priority": 5.0,
   "rank": 54
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Tennessee",
   "state_code": "TN",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Underage Abortion Trafficking Act — 'recruitment' provision",
   "citation": "Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-15-201(a) (Underage Abortion Trafficking Act, 'Recruitment Provision', eff. July 1, 2024)",
   "subject_area": "other_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (overbreadth; speech)",
   "key_precedent": "Welty v. Dunaway (6th Cir. Sept. 24, 2026)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Permanent injunction affirmed; recruitment provision facially overbroad",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 1,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Welty v. Dunaway",
     "court": "M.D. Tenn.; 6th Cir. (Stranch and Ritz, JJ.; Sutton, C.J., dissenting)",
     "number": "6th Cir. Nos. 25-5738/5739",
     "date": "2026-09-24",
     "outcome": "District court granted summary judgment (viewpoint discrimination as applied; facially overbroad) and enjoined enforcement of § 39-15-201(a)'s recruitment provision; Sixth Circuit AFFIRMED without reaching vagueness",
     "why": "Cross-appeals; majority rejected narrowing construction; dissent runs 28 pages. Plaintiffs Rachel Welty and Aftyn Behn, pre-enforcement suit against district attorneys"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://litigationtracker.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Welty_2026.09.24_OPINION.pdf",
    "https://www.mlex.com/healthcare-authority/policy-compliance/articles/2529907/split-6th-circ-keeps-block-on-tenn-abortion-trafficking-ban"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Read the Sixth Circuit opinion (filed Sept. 24, 2026). Statute section identified from the opinion; § 39-15-201(a) text quoted in the opinion rather than read on a code site. Recruitment provision only; concealment and other provisions not challenged. Rehearing/cert status unknown.",
   "_file": "states_southeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "tn-tennessee-underage-abortion-trafficking-act-recruitment-provision",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 5.0,
   "rank": 55
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Arkansas",
   "state_code": "AR",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Social Media Safety Act (Act 689 of 2023): age verification and parental consent",
   "citation": "Ark. Acts 2023, Act 689 (Ark. Code § 4-88-1101 et seq. -- section not verified)",
   "subject_area": "online_minors",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Moody v. NetChoice, 603 U.S. 707 (2024)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Permanently enjoined; shows the template for successors (Acts 900/901) and Eighth Circuit risk.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "NetChoice v. Griffin (Act 689)",
     "court": "W.D. Ark. (Brooks, C.J.)",
     "number": "5:23-cv-05105 (recalled; not confirmed in sources)",
     "date": "2025-03-31",
     "outcome": "Permanent injunction; State appeal 8th Cir. No. 25-1889 (confirmed in a search result listing the three stacked NetChoice v. Griffin appeals)",
     "why": "Facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/netchoice-v-griffin/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Appeal number 25-1889 supported by a second search result; no Eighth Circuit ruling found. Statute cite not read.",
   "_file": "states_southcentral_mountain.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "ar-arkansas-social-media-safety-act-act-689-of-2023-age-verification-and-parenta",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 4.0,
   "rank": 56
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Arkansas",
   "state_code": "AR",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Act 573 of 2025: Ten Commandments displays in public school classrooms",
   "citation": "Ark. Acts 2025, Act 573 (codified section not verified)",
   "subject_area": "religion",
   "constitutional_provision": "Establishment Clause; Free Exercise",
   "key_precedent": "Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980); Kennedy v. Bremerton, 597 U.S. 507 (2022) (history-and-tradition test)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Stone v. Graham is directly on point and has not been overruled; hostile-circuit risk (5th Cir. went the other way on ripeness, not merits).",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Stinson v. Fayetteville School District No. 1",
     "court": "W.D. Ark. (Brooks, C.J.)",
     "number": "not captured",
     "date": "2025-08-04",
     "outcome": "Preliminary injunction for four districts",
     "why": "Establishment Clause (Stone v. Graham); relief limited to defendant districts"
    },
    {
     "case": "Stinson v. Fayetteville School District No. 1 (summary judgment / permanent injunction)",
     "court": "W.D. Ark.",
     "number": "not captured",
     "date": "2026-03-16",
     "outcome": "Summary judgment for plaintiffs; permanent injunction against six districts (Bentonville, Conway, Fayetteville, Lakeside, Siloam Springs, Springdale); press reported it Mar. 18",
     "why": "Date per the order filename (3.16.26) hosted by FFRF; State appeals 8th Cir. Nos. 25-2713 (PI) and 26-1722 (final judgment) pending; an April 23, 2026 order and an intervenor mootness argument remain unresolved"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.au.org/arkansas-ten-commandments-lawsuit/",
    "https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/judge-blocks-arkansas-law-requiring-ten-commandments-displays-in-schools/2025/08",
    "https://wilm.iheart.com/content/2026-03-18-judge-strikes-down-law-requiring-schools-to-display-the-ten-commandments"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "No Eighth Circuit merits ruling found. Relief is district-specific. Statute cite still unverified. Fifth Circuit allowed Louisiana's Ten Commandments law to proceed in Roake v. Brumley, so a circuit split is possible.",
   "_file": "states_southcentral_mountain.json",
   "provision_group": "Establishment / Free Exercise",
   "id": "ar-arkansas-act-573-of-2025-ten-commandments-displays-in-public-school-classroom",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 4.0,
   "rank": 57
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "California",
   "state_code": "CA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Assault weapons ban",
   "citation": "Cal. Penal Code §§ 30510, 30515, 30600",
   "subject_area": "firearms_hardware",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Viramontes v. Cook County, No. 25-238 (cert. granted June 30, 2026) and Grant v. Higgins; Bruen",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "SCOTUS granted review of Illinois (Cook County) and Connecticut AR-15 bans for OT2026; California ban is the paradigm case and is stayed only pending Ninth Circuit.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Miller v. Bonta",
     "court": "S.D. Cal.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2023-10-19",
     "outcome": "Ban held unconstitutional (Benitez); permanently enjoined, stayed",
     "why": "Ninth Circuit stay keeps ban in force"
    },
    {
     "case": "Miller v. Bonta",
     "court": "9th Cir.",
     "number": "23-2979",
     "date": "2024-01",
     "outcome": "Argued; resubmitted after Duncan en banc; no decision found",
     "why": "Ninth Circuit awaiting/applying Duncan en banc"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._Bonta",
    "https://www.firearmspolicy.org/miller"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Miller v. Bonta, 9th Cir. No. 23-2979: no 2026 merits decision found; a Jan. 12, 2026 supplemental brief relies on Duncan. District injunction stayed; ban enforced. Practical path is Viramontes/Grant (argued Dec. 2, 2026) and the held Duncan petition. Statute text not read.",
   "_file": "states_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "ca-california-assault-weapons-ban",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 4.0,
   "rank": 58
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "California",
   "state_code": "CA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Large-capacity magazine possession ban",
   "citation": "Cal. Penal Code § 32310",
   "subject_area": "firearms_hardware",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Duncan v. Bonta, No. 25-198 (cert pending); Benson v. United States (D.C. 2026); N.J. en banc 3d Cir. (July 2026); Viramontes",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Circuit split now exists (D.C. Court of Appeals and en banc Third Circuit against bans; Ninth en banc for); cert petition held/relisted pending Viramontes.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Duncan v. Bonta",
     "court": "9th Cir. (en banc) 23-55805",
     "number": "23-55805",
     "date": "2025-03-20",
     "outcome": "Ban upheld (reported cite 133 F.4th 852)",
     "why": "Magazines treated as accessories / ban upheld under Bruen"
    },
    {
     "case": "Duncan v. Bonta",
     "court": "U.S. Supreme Court",
     "number": "25-198",
     "date": "2025-08-19",
     "outcome": "Cert petition pending, held; last entries Aug. 3, 2026 (petitioners' supplemental brief citing the 3d Cir. en banc split) and Aug. 11, 2026 (California letter arguing for a hold pending Viramontes/Grant)",
     "why": "Circuit split with 3d Cir. en banc (July 17, 2026) on magazine bans"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-198.html"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Docket read on supremecourt.gov: no grant, denial or other disposition; held. A new plaintiff adds little before Viramontes/Grant (argued Dec. 2, 2026). A report says the D.C. Court of Appeals held D.C.'s 10-round magazine limit unconstitutional on Mar. 5, 2026 (unverified; rehearing en banc was to be sought). Statute text not read.",
   "_file": "states_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "ca-california-large-capacity-magazine-possession-ban",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 4.0,
   "rank": 59
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Colorado",
   "state_code": "CO",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Universal Preschool Program nondiscrimination conditions excluding Catholic preschools",
   "citation": "Colo. Rev. Stat. § 26.5-4-201 et seq.; sections unverified",
   "subject_area": "religion",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (Free Exercise; expressive association)",
   "key_precedent": "Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. 767 (2022); Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 U.S. 522 (2021)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Cert granted Apr. 20, 2026 on free-exercise questions; lower courts upheld Colorado under Smith general applicability and distinguished Carson.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy",
     "court": "D. Colo.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2025",
     "outcome": "Judgment for State after trial",
     "why": "Smith; no free-exercise violation."
    },
    {
     "case": "St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy",
     "court": "10th Cir.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2025-09-30",
     "outcome": "Affirmed for State",
     "why": "Secular exemptions and discretion did not defeat general applicability; Carson inapplicable because exclusion not 'on the explicit basis' of religion."
    },
    {
     "case": "St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy",
     "court": "U.S. Supreme Court",
     "number": "25-581",
     "date": "2026-04-20",
     "outcome": "Cert granted (Questions 1 and 2); decision expected in OT2026",
     "why": "Pending."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/25-00581qp.pdf",
    "https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2025/09/30/a-model-example-10th-circuit-oks-colorados-non-discrimination-requirement-for-universal-pre-k/",
    "https://www.chalkbeat.org/colorado/2026/04/20/us-supreme-court-to-hear-catholic-preschool-case/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "District court judgment date is not stated in sources found (listed as 2025). Any win will turn on Smith/Fulton and may reach other states' nondiscrimination conditions on religious providers.",
   "_file": "categories_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "Establishment / Free Exercise",
   "id": "co-colorado-universal-preschool-program-nondiscrimination-conditions-excluding-c",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 4.0,
   "rank": 60
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Colorado",
   "state_code": "CO",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Three-day waiting period for firearm purchases",
   "citation": "C.R.S. 18-12-115",
   "subject_area": "firearms_carry",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022); Ortega v. Lujan Grisham (10th Cir. 2025) (NM 7-day wait likely unconstitutional)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Ortega holds a New Mexico waiting period likely violates the Second Amendment; Colorado's is shorter but state has no founding-era analogue and Ortega conflicts with RMGO v. Polis (2024).",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Rocky Mountain Gun Owners & Alicia Garcia v. Polis",
     "court": "D. Colo. (Sr. J. John L. Kane)",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2026-08-24",
     "outcome": "Cross-motions for decision without trial argued 8/24/2026; written ruling pending",
     "why": "State argues 3 days matches the federal background-check window and differs from NM's 7 days; Kane asked parties about conflict between 10th Cir. precedents. Ortega en banc status unconfirmed."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/08/24/federal-judge-hears-arguments-about-colorados-3-day-gun-purchase-waiting-period/",
    "https://www.dps.nm.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/AG-Guidance-on-Ortega-outcome_Jan-13-2026.pdf"
   ],
   "notes": "Cross-motions for decision without trial argued Aug. 24, 2026 in D. Colo. (Colorado Politics); ruling not found. Ortega (New Mexico) was a published 10th Cir. panel decision (reported cite 148 F.4th 1134, Aug. 19, 2025) and en banc rehearing was denied about Dec. 22, 2025 (secondary), while RMGO v. Colorado, 121 F.4th 96 (10th Cir. 2024) treats such laws as conditions on commercial sale; the district court must reconcile the two. Case number not found. Statute text not read.",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "states_southcentral_mountain.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "co-colorado-three-day-waiting-period-for-firearm-purchases",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 4.0,
   "rank": 61
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "District of Columbia",
   "state_code": "DC",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Metro/public transit and other sensitive-place carry bans",
   "citation": "D.C. Code § 7-2509.07(a)(6) and related",
   "subject_area": "firearms_carry",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Bruen; Wolford v. Lopez, 609 U.S. 185 (2026))",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Wolford and Bruen limit sensitive-place expansion; Metro ban not tied to an analogue.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Angelo v. District of Columbia",
     "court": "D.C. Cir. (from D.D.C. 1:22-cv-01878)",
     "number": "24-7127",
     "date": "2026-07-07",
     "outcome": "Reversed dismissal for lack of standing; remanded for further proceedings (Millett, J., with Srinivasan, C.J., and Edwards, S.J.); argued Oct. 3, 2025. No merits ruling.",
     "why": "Plaintiffs hold D.C. carry licenses and avoid Metro to avoid prosecution; claims under the Second and Fifth Amendments against D.C. and three individual defendants"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2026/07/24-7127-2182049.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Opinion read (media.cadc.uscourts.gov, 24-7127). It quotes D.C. Code § 7-2509.07(a)(6) ('Metro Ban'). No merits decision yet; the sensitive-places merits will be decided on remand. Rehearing or further review not checked. D.C. permit regime not researched.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "dc-district-of-columbia-metro-public-transit-and-other-sensitive-place-carry-ban",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 4.0,
   "rank": 62
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "District of Columbia",
   "state_code": "DC",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Real property tax sale of liens; foreclosure of right of redemption; vacant/blighted property tax rates driving debt growth",
   "citation": "D.C. Code § 47-1301 et seq., esp. §§ 47-1370 (foreclosure of right of redemption), 47-1382 (purchaser's deed)",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause; Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines; due process",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Coleman v. District of Columbia, 306 F.R.D. 68 (D.D.C. 2015); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026)) (fairly conducted sale: compensation is sale surplus, not FMV; fairness challenges preserved); Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "House Oversight letter (June 16, 2026) says DC is in 'unconstitutional territory' on Tyler; Powell family contests foreclosure by a lien purchaser on a $41,000 debt for a home worth over $713,000.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Clear Sky Holdings, LLC v. Estate of Gaston Powell, Sr. (counterclaims by Powell family via Pacific Legal Foundation)",
     "court": "D.C. Superior Court",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2025-05-22",
     "outcome": "pending",
     "why": "Answer and counterclaims (Takings and Excessive Fines) filed May 22-23, 2025; case number and ruling not found; foreclosure by lien purchaser filed 2024."
    },
    {
     "case": "Coleman v. District of Columbia",
     "court": "D.D.C.",
     "number": "1:13-cv-01456",
     "date": "2015-04",
     "outcome": "MTD denied (Oct. 2014); class certified April 2015; final outcome not verified",
     "why": "Challenge to pre-2014 tax sale statute for surplus equity; D.C. amended in 2014-15 (D.C. Law 20-155 added subsections to § 47-1370). District argued no property interest in surplus."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://pacificlegal.org/case/powell-dc-home-equity-theft/",
    "https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Letter-to-Phil-Mendelson-Tyler-v.-Hennepin-County.pdf",
    "https://news.bgov.com/daily-tax-report/dc-council-to-address-tax-sale-laws-after-house-oversight-probe",
    "https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2013cv01456/162154/38"
   ],
   "notes": "Verified: D.C. Code § 47-1370 (official DC Council code site) is the purchaser's foreclosure-complaint section (6-month waiting period; court may bar redemption, vest fee simple in purchaser, or set aside sale; redemption continues until foreclosure judgment is final). It contains no surplus or sale-proceeds text; § 47-1382 and the surplus provisions were not read, so current DC surplus treatment remains unverified. Clear Sky Holdings v. Estate of Gaston Powell, Sr. (D.C. Super. Ct.): PLF answer and counterclaims (Takings, Excessive Fines) filed May 22, 2025, per PLF case page; no case number, no ruling, status active. Searched for a ruling and found none. Note this is state court with counterclaims, not an affirmative § 1983 suit. Powell figures per PLF: debt about $41,000 at July 2023 sale, over $231,000 now; value over $713,000. Coleman v. District of Columbia (D.D.C. 1:13-cv-01456) not re-checked. DC Council bill and House Oversight letter not re-read. Plemons is Fourth Circuit law; no DC Circuit equivalent verified.",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "_file": "taxsale_east.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "dc-district-of-columbia-real-property-tax-sale-of-liens-foreclosure-of-right-of-",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 4.0,
   "rank": 63
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Florida",
   "state_code": "FL",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Social media deplatforming / candidate-deplatforming law (SB 7072)",
   "citation": "Fla. Stat. §§ 106.072, 501.2041 (S.B. 7072, ch. 2021-32; amended ch. 2022-267; § 501.2041 further amended 2026, chs. 2026-52 and 2026-153)",
   "subject_area": "other_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (compelled speech; editorial discretion)",
   "key_precedent": "Moody v. NetChoice, 603 U.S. 707 (2024)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Moody required a platform-by-platform facial analysis; N.D. Fla. enjoined since 2021 and set for trial",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "NetChoice, LLC v. Uthmeier (formerly v. Moody)",
     "court": "N.D. Fla. (Hinkle, J.)",
     "number": "4:21-cv-00220-RH-MAF",
     "date": "2026-06-18",
     "outcome": "Order denying summary judgment (ECF 335): plaintiffs' and defendants' motions (ECF Nos. 233, 281, 287, 291) all denied; case goes to trial; 2021 preliminary injunction remains in place by compliance",
     "why": "Court held platforms' curation is protected by the First Amendment per Moody v. NetChoice, 603 U.S. 707 (2024) but plaintiffs' facial-challenge burden requires trial on the full range of applications; Eleventh Circuit remanded after Moody (ECF 149)"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://netchoice.org/netchoice-ccia-v-moody/",
    "https://netchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/335.-2026-06-18-Order-Denying-Summary-dckt-335_0.pdf",
    "https://ccianet.org/litigation/netchoice-ccia-v-moody/",
    "http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0100-0199/0106/Sections/0106.072.html",
    "http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0500-0599/0501/Sections/0501.2041.html"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Read the June 18, 2026 order itself (16 pp.) and both statutes on the Florida Legislature site. § 106.072 bars deplatforming a candidate (fines $250,000/day statewide candidate, $25,000/day other), history ch. 2021-32, ch. 2022-267. § 501.2041 covers platforms over $100M revenue or 100M monthly participants; notice and consistency duties; private action for statutory damages up to $100,000 per claim (consistency and notice violations only); history line shows 2026 amendments (chs. 2026-52, 2026-153), whose content was not read. Plaintiffs are trade associations; a user or candidate plaintiff would be a new action.",
   "_file": "states_southeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "fl-florida-social-media-deplatforming-candidate-deplatforming-law-sb-7072",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 4.0,
   "rank": 64
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Illinois",
   "state_code": "IL",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Business Enterprise for Minorities, Women, and Persons with Disabilities Act (BEP) race- and sex-based contract goals",
   "citation": "30 ILCS 575/1 et seq.",
   "subject_area": "race_preferences",
   "constitutional_provision": "Equal Protection (Fourteenth Amendment); 42 U.S.C. § 1981",
   "key_precedent": "SFFA v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023); Adarand v. Pena; Croson",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Race-conscious state contracting goals need a strong evidentiary record under strict scrutiny; DOJ and USDOT stopped defending race-based DBE preferences.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [
    "https://will-law.org/will-warns-gov-pritzker-not-to-jeopardize-billions-in-federal-highway-funding/",
    "https://lrb.ilga.gov/reports/ReportsSubmitted/6569RSGAEmail14589RSGAAttachFinal%202026%20Proposed%20Legislative%20Changes%20to%20Increase%20Inclusion%20and%20Diversity%20in%20State%20Government%20Report.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "No challenge to the state BEP statute found in a targeted search (Illinois BEP Act, 30 ILCS 575). Related litigation is about other programs: Midwest Fence Corp. v. USDOT (7th Cir. 2016) upheld the federal DBE program as administered in Illinois; Dunnet Bay Constr. Co. v. Borggren (7th Cir. 2015) concerned IDOT's DBE goals; Builders Association of Greater Chicago v. City of Chicago targets the city MBE/WBE program. USDOT interim final rule of Oct. 3, 2025 removed race and sex presumptions from the federal DBE program, and WILL has warned Illinois it is ready to challenge DBE goals. ILGA and Justia blocked automated fetches, so the BEP statute text was not read. Seventh Circuit venue; any race-and-sex-based goal faces strict/intermediate scrutiny and requires a strong evidentiary basis (Croson).",
   "_file": "states_midwest.json",
   "provision_group": "Equal Protection",
   "id": "il-illinois-business-enterprise-for-minorities-women-and-persons-with-disabiliti",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 4.0,
   "rank": 65
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Kansas City, MO",
   "state_code": "MO",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Kansas City public accommodation ordinance (sexual orientation/gender identity; communications clause)",
   "citation": "Kan. City, Mo., Code §§ 38-101, 38-113(a) (amended Jan. 2025, Ord. 241074)",
   "subject_area": "other_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (compelled speech; overbreadth of 'unwelcome' clause)",
   "key_precedent": "303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570 (2023); Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. 627 (2026)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "As applied to counselors' pronoun use and speech about clients; district court already enjoined the pronoun part.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Wyatt Bury, LLC et al. v. City of Kansas City",
     "court": "8th Cir. / W.D. Mo.",
     "number": "25-2566",
     "date": "2026-07-02",
     "outcome": "Narrow PI against pronoun enforcement left in place; partial dismissal of Count 2 reversed and remanded",
     "why": "Remanded for reconsideration after Chiles."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/07/252566U.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Counts and holding from the 8th Cir. opinion. Claim is as-applied to licensed counselors; general public-accommodation rules less vulnerable. Re-check 2026-11-12: Kansas City ordinance text and the Eighth Circuit opinion were not re-read in this pass; status carried forward.",
   "_file": "cities_26_50.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "mo-kansas-city-mo-kansas-city-public-accommodation-ordinance-sexual-orientation-",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 4.0,
   "rank": 66
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Maryland",
   "state_code": "MD",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Sensitive places carry restrictions and private-property default",
   "citation": "Md. Code, Pub. Safety § 6-411",
   "subject_area": "firearms_carry",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022); Wolford v. Lopez, 609 U.S. 185 (2026))",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Fourth Circuit struck only the private-property default; Wolford (June 2026) invalidated Hawaii's similar default and may prompt GVR on remaining locations.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Kipke v. Moore (consolidated with Novotny v. Moore)",
     "court": "4th Cir.",
     "number": "24-1799, 24-1827, 24-1834, 24-1836",
     "date": "2026-01-20",
     "outcome": "Split panel (Gregory, J.): most sensitive-place restrictions upheld; private-property default struck",
     "why": "Maryland post-Bruen carry law"
    },
    {
     "case": "Moore v. Kipke (State's cert petition)",
     "court": "U.S.",
     "number": "25-1206",
     "date": "2026-08-13",
     "outcome": "Dismissed under Rule 46 on Aug. 13, 2026 (joint stipulation filed Aug. 10)",
     "why": "Maryland abandoned its petition"
    },
    {
     "case": "Novotny v. Moore (plaintiffs' cert petition)",
     "court": "U.S.",
     "number": "25-1324",
     "date": "2026-04-15",
     "outcome": "Pending. Petition filed Apr. 15, 2026; BIO Aug. 17; reply Sept. 2; conference repeatedly rescheduled; distributed for Nov. 13, 2026 conference.",
     "why": "Plaintiffs seek review of the sensitive-places holdings"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-1206.html",
    "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-1324.html"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Both Supreme Court dockets read. Key change: Maryland's own petition (25-1206) was dismissed, so the private-property ruling stands unchallenged. Only the plaintiffs' petition (25-1324) remains, set for the Nov. 13, 2026 conference. Statute text not read.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "md-maryland-sensitive-places-carry-restrictions-and-private-property-default",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 4.0,
   "rank": 67
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Maryland",
   "state_code": "MD",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Maryland Kids Code (Age-Appropriate Design Code Act)",
   "citation": "Md. Code, Com. Law §§ 14-4801 to 14-4813 (H.B. 603, 2024; Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, 'Kids Code')",
   "subject_area": "online_minors",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment; vagueness; COPPA/§ 230 preemption",
   "key_precedent": "Moody v. NetChoice, 603 U.S. 707 (2024); NetChoice v. Bonta (9th Cir.)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Court already held First Amendment, COPPA, and § 230 claims plausible; California analog enjoined.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "NetChoice, LLC v. Brown",
     "court": "D. Md. (Bennett, S.J.)",
     "number": "1:25-cv-00322 (RDB) (caption: Civil Action No. RDB-25-0322)",
     "date": "2025-11-24",
     "outcome": "Motion to dismiss amended complaint (ECF 35) denied in full; original motion denied as moot; answer due Dec. 8, 2025; the Kids Code 'remains in effect'",
     "why": "Court held NetChoice plausibly pleaded eight counts (First Amendment facial and as-applied, vagueness, express and implied COPPA preemption, Section 230 preemption of §§ 14-4804 and 14-4806, and others) via Ex parte Young; no merits ruling; 12(b)(1) standing challenge rejected"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www2.mdd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Opinions/Memorandum%20Opinion_NetChoice%20v.%20Brown%20(RDB-25-0322).pdf",
    "https://thedailyrecord.com/2025/12/01/maryland-kids-code-lawsuit-netchoice-first-amendment/",
    "https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/StatuteText?article=gcl&section=14-4801&enactments=false"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Read the full memorandum opinion and order (dated Nov. 24, 2025, not Nov. 28) and § 14-4801 on the General Assembly site (definitions: 'child' is a consumer under 18; 'best interests of children'; data protection impact assessment). No PI motion was ruled on; the court says merits await discovery. No 2026 decision located in this pass (not searched). Plaintiff is a trade group suing under Ex parte Young; an individual user plaintiff could add a § 1983 vehicle. Law remains in force.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "md-maryland-maryland-kids-code-age-appropriate-design-code-act",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 4.0,
   "rank": 68
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Maryland",
   "state_code": "MD",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Tax sale of liens; foreclosure of the right of redemption by lien purchaser; owner receives only bid-over-tax surplus",
   "citation": "Md. Code, Tax-Prop. §§ 14-801 et seq., esp. §§ 14-808, 14-813, 14-817, 14-818(a)(3)-(4), 14-820, 14-828, 14-833, 14-835, 14-847(d)",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause (via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and directly via Fourteenth); due process (notice)",
   "key_precedent": "Edmondson Cmty. Org. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore (D. Md. Aug. 22, 2025); Plemons v. Gale, 396 F.3d 569 (4th Cir. 2005); Fair v. Continental Resources, Inc. / Nieveen v. TAX 106 (Neb. 2024); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026)) (fairly conducted sale: compensation is sale surplus, not FMV; fairness challenges preserved); Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Owner's recovery is limited to the winning lien-sale bid over the tax debt, while the lien purchaser forecloses and takes title to property worth far more; D. Md. denied nearly all dismissal grounds including TIA/comity and state action of lien purchasers.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Edmondson Community Organization, Inc. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore (defs. incl. Tempest LLC, East Coast Tax Auction LLC, Finance Director Mocksten)",
     "court": "D. Md. (Hurson, J.)",
     "number": "1:24-cv-01921-BAH (confirmed on the opinion's caption)",
     "date": "2025-08-22",
     "outcome": "Motions to dismiss granted in part, denied in part (48-page memorandum opinion, ECF 53). Count I (§ 1983 takings) and Count III (declaratory) proceed; Count II dismissed without prejudice; Count IV (unjust enrichment) per prior notes. Case stayed Jan. 30, 2026 for two years (order signed by Judge Hurson per Baltimore Banner, Feb. 9, 2026) under an agreement tied to city changes in 2026-27",
     "why": "TIA and comity do not bar a surplus-equity claim; Rooker-Feldman and res judicata do not apply; lien purchasers plausibly state actors (Plemons; public function/joint participation). Reported settlement terms (Banner, secondary): payment plans for owners behind on property tax and water bills; bidding changes so owners of sold properties recover more; compensation to Ms. Anderson and ECO; a building for ECO's community center. Docket not read; stay date from press"
    },
    {
     "case": "Pung v. Isabella County (effect on this entry)",
     "court": "U.S. Supreme Court",
     "number": "No. 25-95",
     "date": "2026-06-23",
     "outcome": "Just compensation after a fairly conducted tax sale equals sale surplus, not FMV; vacated and remanded (lead-verified)",
     "why": "Limits FMV damages theory; fairness-of-sale and notice theories survive"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.guptawessler.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/53-opinion.pdf",
    "https://www.thebanner.com/community/housing/baltimore-tax-sale-lawsuit-changes-DGOCZYBMFFECZHU4D53CB42ZD4/",
    "https://www.nelsonmullins.com/insights/alerts/additional_nelson_mullins_alerts/all/reacting-to-tyler-v-hennepin-county-maryland-federal-court-applies-fair-v-continental-resources",
    "https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/StatuteText?article=gtp&section=14-833&enactments=false",
    "https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/StatuteText?article=gtp&section=14-847&enactments=false"
   ],
   "notes": "Merged with the Baltimore City entry (dropped as duplicate). Read the Aug. 22, 2025 opinion itself (docket confirmed 1:24-cv-01921-BAH, Civil No. 24-1921-BAH). Facts: ECO owed $2,543; lien sold for $5,115 (surplus $2,572); investor later sold the building at auction for $139,500; Anderson's roughly $5,400 lien sold for $69,500 in 2020. Statute: § 14-833 (foreclosure timing; 6/9 months; two pre-filing notices; certificate void if no foreclosure filed within 2 years; Baltimore payoff requests) and § 14-847(d) (90/105-day motions to strike judgment for nonpayment) exist on the official site, but neither addresses surplus; the bid-over-tax surplus sections (e.g., 14-817, 14-820) were not read. A reported ~$6 million unclaimed-surplus figure was NOT found in the opinion, the Banner story, or two searches; treat as unverified. Stayed, not ended; plaintiff pool still includes owners sold before the 2026-27 reforms.",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "_file": "taxsale_east.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "md-maryland-tax-sale-of-liens-foreclosure-of-the-right-of-redemption-by-lien-pur",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 4.0,
   "rank": 69
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Maryland",
   "state_code": "MD",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "County tax sales under the same Tax-Property subtitle",
   "citation": "Md. Code, Tax-Prop. §§ 14-801 et seq.",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause; due process (notice)",
   "key_precedent": "Edmondson (D. Md. 2025); Plemons v. Gale, 396 F.3d 569 (4th Cir. 2005); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026)) (fairly conducted sale: compensation is sale surplus, not FMV; fairness challenges preserved); Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Same state statute as Baltimore; Edmondson's reasoning applies to every tax sale county and private lien purchaser in the Fourth Circuit.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.guptawessler.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/53-opinion.pdf"
   ],
   "notes": "No county-level challenge outside Baltimore found; absence not verified on dockets. D. Md. is a single-judge ruling, not binding on other judges. Edmondson stay and settlement may reduce pressure for statewide reform. Statute of limitations for 1983 in Maryland is 3 years.",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "_file": "taxsale_east.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "md-maryland-counties-other-than-baltimore-city-county-tax-sales-under-the-same-t",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 4.0,
   "rank": 70
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Massachusetts",
   "state_code": "MA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Private-property default no-carry rule and sensitive-place carry bans",
   "citation": "G.L. c. 140, § 131 (incl. subsections on location bans) as amended by St. 2024, c. 135",
   "subject_area": "firearms_carry",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Wolford v. Lopez, 609 U.S. 185 (2026)) (6-3 invalidating Hawaii private-property default rule); Bruen",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "If the Massachusetts statute contains a Hawaii-style default rule for private property open to the public, Wolford controls; sensitive-places list is less clear.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Mukhtar v. Healey",
     "court": "Mass. SJC (state court)",
     "number": "DAR-30595 (from mass.gov filename)",
     "date": "2025-09-03",
     "outcome": "Appeal docketed Oct. 2, 2025 after dismissal on standing and 12(b)(6) in trial court; current status not verified",
     "why": "Trial court dismissed for lack of standing; one claim on 12(b)(6)."
    },
    {
     "case": "Marquis v. Massachusetts (licensing suitability)",
     "court": "U.S. Supreme Court cert. petition",
     "number": "25-5280",
     "date": null,
     "outcome": "Petition requested hold for Wolford/Hemani; outcome not verified",
     "why": "State says no circuit split."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.dailysignal.com/2026/06/25/supreme-court-hawaii-second-amendment/",
    "https://www.mass.gov/doc/amgad-mukhtar-et-al-v-maura-healy-et-al-dar-30595/download",
    "https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-5280/387488/20251215172013929_Marquis%20Cert%20Reply%20TO%20FILE.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "I did not read the Massachusetts statute text; the precise subsection and whether the default rule exists as I believe is unverified. Mukhtar is state-court; whether it raises federal claims unconfirmed. Capen-type First Circuit hostility to MA gun laws: use state-law private property rule as the cleanest Wolford claim.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "ma-massachusetts-private-property-default-no-carry-rule-and-sensitive-place-carr",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 4.0,
   "rank": 71
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Massachusetts",
   "state_code": "MA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Supplier Diversity Office MBE/WBE certification and state construction affirmative-marketing set-asides",
   "citation": "G.L. c. 7, §§ 58-63 (SDO); G.L. c. 149, § 44D / c. 30, § 39M related; exact provisions unverified",
   "subject_area": "race_preferences",
   "constitutional_provision": "Equal Protection (14th Am.); Title VI",
   "key_precedent": "SFFA v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023); Croson, 488 U.S. 469 (1989); Adarand",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Race-based certification and goals require strict scrutiny and a strong disparity-study basis; post-SFFA, courts have enjoined similar federal and state programs.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.hinckleyallen.com/?p=4011"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "No equal-protection suit found in one search. Statutory cites are best recollection and unverified; confirm SDO enabling statute and whether disparity study is current. Massachusetts AG joined suit against federal anti-DEI contract terms, so state is unlikely to abandon the program voluntarily.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Equal Protection",
   "id": "ma-massachusetts-supplier-diversity-office-mbe-wbe-certification-and-state-const",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 4.0,
   "rank": 72
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Michigan",
   "state_code": "MI",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Distribution of materially deceptive media (election deepfakes), disclaimer safe harbor",
   "citation": "Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.932f",
   "subject_area": "election_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment; vagueness",
   "key_precedent": "Kohls v. Bonta (E.D. Cal. 2025); Babylon Bee v. Lopez (D. Haw. 2026)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Same structure as the enjoined California and Hawaii laws; disclaimer safe harbor was held insufficient in Hawaii.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://zeus-milenia.legislature.mi.gov/documents/mcl/pdf/MCL-168-932F.pdf",
    "https://techpolicy.press/regulating-election-deepfakes-a-comparison-of-state-laws"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Statute exists (search confirmed title and effective date Feb. 13, 2024); I did not read the text, and penalty details are from a secondary summary. No challenge found; no prosecutions reported.",
   "_file": "categories_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "mi-michigan-distribution-of-materially-deceptive-media-election-deepfakes-discla",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 4.0,
   "rank": 73
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Minnesota",
   "state_code": "MN",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Targeted Group Business program (state procurement preferences)",
   "citation": "Minn. Stat. § 16C.16, subd. 6a (not confirmed)",
   "subject_area": "race_preferences",
   "constitutional_provision": "Equal Protection (Fourteenth Amendment)",
   "key_precedent": "SFFA v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023); Croson",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Race- and sex-based procurement preference needs strict-scrutiny record.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Search found no challenge and no statute text. Citation is from memory. Eighth Circuit venue. Low confidence.",
   "_file": "states_midwest.json",
   "provision_group": "Equal Protection",
   "id": "mn-minnesota-targeted-group-business-program-state-procurement-preferences",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 4.0,
   "rank": 74
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Montana",
   "state_code": "MT",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Deepfake campaign-ad law (60 days before voting; knew or should have known)",
   "citation": "S.B. 25 (2025), Mont. Code Ann. §§ 13-35-801 to -804",
   "subject_area": "election_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (viewpoint discrimination)",
   "key_precedent": "Kohls v. Bonta (E.D. Cal. 2025); Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. ___ (2025) (limits universal relief)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Judge found likely First Amendment violation because identical deepfakes are treated differently by viewpoint; 'should have known' fault standard also weak.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Accountability in State Government v. Knudsen (Bartel)",
     "court": "D. Mont. (Helena)",
     "number": "6:26-cv-00038-SPW",
     "date": "2026-09-16",
     "outcome": "Preliminary injunction limited to named plaintiffs (Judge Watters)",
     "why": "Law viewpoint-based and presumptively unconstitutional; relief confined by CASA."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://dailymontanan.com/2026/09/18/federal-judge-says-ai-deepfake-election-law-violates-first-amendment/",
    "https://hlli.org/accountability-in-state-government-and-dan-bartel-v-austin-knudsen/",
    "https://www.recordinglaw.com/news/montana-deepfake-law-preliminary-injunction/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Docket number comes from a plaintiffs' brief caption per a search summary; confirm on PACER. Statute remains enforceable against everyone else, so other speakers need their own suits or a class.",
   "_file": "categories_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "mt-montana-deepfake-campaign-ad-law-60-days-before-voting-knew-or-should-have-kn",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 4.0,
   "rank": 75
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Nashville-Davidson County, TN",
   "state_code": "TN",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Metro stormwater capacity fee on new development (2023)",
   "citation": "Metropolitan Code stormwater capacity fee ordinance (2023; section not verified)",
   "subject_area": "takings",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment (unlawful exaction; excessive permit condition)",
   "key_precedent": "Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, 601 U.S. 267 (2024); Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 570 U.S. 595 (2013)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Fee set on total rather than net impervious area as a condition of a permit invites a Sheetz challenge; litigation produced a settlement.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Pratt v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County",
     "court": "M.D. Tenn.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2025-10-30",
     "outcome": "Final approval of $1.4 million class settlement for 361 homeowners",
     "why": "Class settlement approved; fee singled out permit applicants and used total impervious area"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.beacontn.org/pratt-v-metro/"
   ],
   "notes": "Succeeded by settlement, not a merits ruling. Whether Metro amended or still collects the fee in the challenged form was not verified. A new plaintiff needs a current fee payer. Filing date and case number not found.",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "cities_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "Other",
   "id": "tn-nashville-davidson-county-tn-metro-stormwater-capacity-fee-on-new-development",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 4.0,
   "rank": 76
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Nebraska",
   "state_code": "NE",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Parental Rights in Social Media Act (LB 383): age verification and parental consent",
   "citation": "L.B. 383, §§ 26-30, 109th Leg., 1st Sess. (Neb. 2025) (Parental Rights in Social Media Act), eff. July 1, 2026; Neb. Rev. Stat. codification not found",
   "subject_area": "online_minors",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Moody v. NetChoice, 603 U.S. 707 (2024)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "District court found the age-verification and consent duties likely fail strict scrutiny; monitoring-log duty survived.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "NetChoice, LLC v. Hilgers",
     "court": "D. Neb. (Gerrard, J.)",
     "number": "4:26-cv-03149-JMG-JMD",
     "date": "2026-06-27",
     "outcome": "PI granted in part and denied in part (ECF 33, 27 pp.): age-verification and parental-consent duty in LB 383 § 28(1)(a) enjoined; remaining provisions, including parental monitoring, may be enforced; State to appeal; NetChoice appealed denial as to monitoring",
     "why": "Strict scrutiny likely fails for consent and age-check duties; severability clause lets the AG enforce the rest"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://netchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/NE_Granting-PI-in-Part-and-Denying-in-Part.pdf",
    "https://news.bloomberglaw.com/states-of-play/nebraska-social-media-age-verification-law-partially-blocked",
    "https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/416419/nebraska-will-ask-appeals-court-to-lift-block-on-p.html"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Read the order itself. Docket and date confirmed. Sections 26-30 of the slip law per the order. Sixth Circuit's Yost decision cuts against; Eighth Circuit view unknown.",
   "_file": "states_midwest.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "ne-nebraska-parental-rights-in-social-media-act-lb-383-age-verification-and-pare",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 4.0,
   "rank": 77
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New Mexico",
   "state_code": "NM",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "AI-generated political ad disclaimer requirement (satire not exempt)",
   "citation": "N.M. Campaign Reporting Act amendment (2024 HB 182), N.M. Stat. Ann. § 1-19-26 et seq.; section unverified",
   "subject_area": "election_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Kohls v. Bonta (E.D. Cal. 2025); Babylon Bee v. Lopez (D. Haw. 2026)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Two federal courts have enjoined or struck near-identical disclaimer mandates; satire plaintiffs have clear standing.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "The Babylon Bee v. members of the New Mexico State Ethics Commission (caption unverified)",
     "court": "D.N.M.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2026-08-11",
     "outcome": "Complaint filed; no ruling found",
     "why": "Pre-enforcement challenge; State says commission has never enforced the requirement."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/babylon-bee-sues-to-stop-new-mexicos-ai-political-satire-law"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Filing date inferred ('Tuesday' in an Aug. 11, 2026 article). Statute citation is from memory and unconfirmed. State's non-enforcement argument raises standing/ripeness risk.",
   "_file": "categories_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "nm-new-mexico-ai-generated-political-ad-disclaimer-requirement-satire-not-exempt",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 4.0,
   "rank": 78
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New York",
   "state_code": "NY",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "SAFE for Kids Act (addictive feeds, age assurance, parental consent)",
   "citation": "N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1500 et seq.",
   "subject_area": "online_minors",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Moody v. NetChoice (2024); NetChoice v. Bonta (9th Cir.)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Age-assurance and algorithmic-feed limits have been enjoined in CA, AR, OH, GA, LA, CO per NetChoice; final rules published July 29, 2026.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://netchoice.org/new-yorks-final-safe-for-kids-rules-cement-an-unconstitutional-censorship-regime/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Effective date reported as Jan. 25, 2027; no suit found yet, so a pre-enforcement challenge is likely; verify docket. Section citation unverified. Note FSC v. Paxton (2025) may be argued by the State for age assurance. Sixth Circuit reversed NetChoice in a separate monitoring-law case.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "ny-new-york-safe-for-kids-act-addictive-feeds-age-assurance-parental-consent",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 4.0,
   "rank": 79
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New York, NY",
   "state_code": "NY",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "NYC M/WBE program for city contracts",
   "citation": "N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 6-129; Local Law 1 of 2013 as amended (Local Law 174 of 2019)",
   "subject_area": "race_preferences",
   "constitutional_provision": "Equal Protection",
   "key_precedent": "SFFA v. Harvard (2023); Concrete Works v. Denver, 321 F.3d 950 (10th Cir. 2003); Builders Ass'n of Greater Chicago v. County of Cook",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Race- and sex-conscious subcontracting goals depend on a disparity study; post-SFFA demands for narrow tailoring and a defined past-discrimination finding.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "No post-SFFA suit located (search budget exhausted). NYC defended the program in a 2018-19 study; Second Circuit precedent (Mid-State Constr.? uncertain). Standing needs a non-minority bidder. Verify citation and goals.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "Equal Protection",
   "id": "ny-new-york-ny-nyc-m-wbe-program-for-city-contracts",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 4.0,
   "rank": 80
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New York, NY",
   "state_code": "NY",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "NYC in rem tax foreclosure and third-party transfer program",
   "citation": "N.Y.C. Admin. Code ch. 4, tit. 11 (§§ 11-401 et seq., incl. § 11-412.1 third-party transfer)",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Takings; Due Process (surplus/equity)",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County (2023); Tax Injunction Act 28 U.S.C. § 1341",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "In rem foreclosure transfers title and equity to city or designee without a surplus-return mechanism in at least some paths; Tyler directly implicates retained equity.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "NYC in rem foreclosure program class action (name and docket not retrieved)",
     "court": "unknown (reported as a court approving a settlement process)",
     "number": null,
     "date": null,
     "outcome": "Law360 headline reported in search results: 'Judge Advances $60M Deal Over NYC Foreclosure Program'; not read",
     "why": "Appears to be a Tyler-based suit over New York City's in rem foreclosure program. Unconfirmed; do not rely on the amount or posture without reading the source."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://phillipslytle.com/a-review-of-new-yorks-response-to-tyler-v-hennepin-county/clientalert-realestate-nys-tax-ruling-2025-02-12-mobile/",
    "https://www.law360.com/articles/2541557",
    "https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2025/2025_25269.htm"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "State law only was confirmed, and only through a secondary source (Phillips Lytle alert): L. 2024, ch. 55, pt. BB amended RPTL art. 11 retroactive to May 25, 2023 (Tyler decision date): s. 1135 direct surplus-claim procedure (file before the court confirms the report of sale); s. 1196 surplus determined within 45 days after sale; s. 1197(2)(a) bars claims that the sale price did not reflect fair value; s. 1197(4) for residential property the proceeding stays open at least 3 years after confirmation if no claim; s. 1197(5) unclaimed surplus is deemed abandoned and paid to the tax district, not the Comptroller. The Admin Code ch. 4, tit. 11 in rem process for New York City (11-401 et seq., 11-412.1 third-party transfer) was NOT read; the state amendments address art. 11 counties and may not govern NYC. NYC rows kept at vulnerability 4 pending a read of the Admin Code and the NYC class action. Other NY Tyler litigation seen in results: Sikorsky v. City of Newburgh (2d Cir.), Cavaluzzi v. County of Sullivan (S.D.N.Y. 2025), Matter of County of Schoharie (Sup. Ct. 2025) and a Dutchess County ruling (July 29, 2024) that pending in rem proceedings did not need to be recommenced; none read.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "ny-new-york-ny-nyc-in-rem-tax-foreclosure-and-third-party-transfer-program",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 4.0,
   "rank": 81
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Philadelphia, PA",
   "state_code": "PA",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Philadelphia Sheriff's sale excess proceeds and tax delinquency foreclosure (Municipal Claims and Tax Liens Act)",
   "citation": "53 P.S. §§ 7101-7455 (MCTLA); Pa. R.C.P. 3129 et seq.; city Revenue Department / Sheriff",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Takings; Due Process",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin (2023); Mullane; Jones v. Flowers",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Tax-lien sheriff sales allow bidder to take property for city's claim, with surplus distribution processes and notice by posting; Tyler and notice cases apply.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Butterline v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co., et al. (class action over sheriff's sale excess proceeds)",
     "court": "E.D. Pa. (Sanchez, J.)",
     "number": "2:15-cv-01429",
     "date": "2017-03-20 (memorandum on leave to file second amended complaint)",
     "outcome": "Ruling on leave to amend not confirmed; final disposition unknown",
     "why": "Mortgage-foreclosure sheriff's sale where the mortgagee bought and the owners sought excess proceeds from the bank, the City, and the Sheriff; pre-Tyler and not a tax-sale case. Related: Thornton/Veney v. City of Philadelphia, E.D. Pa. 2:16-cv-05554 (challenge to the Sheriff's distribution schedule); earlier state-court class certification denied in the In re Sheriff's Excess Proceeds litigation. A 2022 settlement notice about Philadelphia excess funds was seen but not tied to a docket."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2015cv01429/502425/41",
    "https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2016cv05554/523395/31",
    "https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2015cv01429/502425/42/0.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Case name for 2:15-cv-01429 taken from search-result excerpts (Justia fetches blocked); outcome not read. It concerns mortgage-foreclosure sheriff's-sale excess proceeds, not a Tyler tax-surplus claim. MCTLL (53 P.S. 7101 et seq.) text and the Sheriff's current disbursement rules were not read. No post-Tyler Philadelphia tax-surplus challenge found. TIA risk unchanged.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "pa-philadelphia-pa-philadelphia-sheriff-s-sale-excess-proceeds-and-tax-delinquen",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 4.0,
   "rank": 82
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Phoenix, AZ",
   "state_code": "AZ",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Medical Treatment and Food Distribution in Parks ordinance (permit requirement, criminal penalty)",
   "citation": "Phoenix ordinance passed May 6, 2026 (code section not verified)",
   "subject_area": "religion",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (free exercise; speech); vagueness",
   "key_precedent": "Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 U.S. 522 (2021); Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Permit scheme that burdens a ministry's weekly meals; the court found likely success on the free exercise claim at the TRO stage.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "St. Herman's Table v. City of Phoenix",
     "court": "D. Ariz.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2026-06-02",
     "outcome": "TRO June 10, 2026 (as to plaintiff only), extended June 16; permanent-injunction briefing closed Sept. 29, 2026; no ruling found",
     "why": "Court found plaintiff likely to succeed on free exercise claim"
    },
    {
     "case": "Circle the City v. City of Phoenix (second suit; Valle del Sol also reported)",
     "court": "federal (not verified)",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2026-06",
     "outcome": "Conflicting press reports on injunction; unresolved",
     "why": "First Amendment speech claim"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://christianlegalsociety.org/case/st-hermans-table-v-city-of-phoenix/",
    "https://www.kjzz.org/politics/2026-06-19/2nd-lawsuit-filed-against-phoenixs-new-ordinance-on-homeless-services-in-parks"
   ],
   "notes": "Case numbers not found. Reports conflict on whether Circle the City won or lost an injunction. A ruling on the permanent injunction is pending. Adds a distinct entry from the existing Phoenix camping entry.",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "cities_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "Establishment / Free Exercise",
   "id": "az-phoenix-az-medical-treatment-and-food-distribution-in-parks-ordinance-permit-",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 4.0,
   "rank": 83
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Rhode Island",
   "state_code": "RI",
   "law_name": "Tax sale: petition to foreclose right of redemption, title absolute",
   "citation": "R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 44-9-24, 44-9-25, 44-9-30",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment (Takings); Fourteenth Amendment (due process)",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "After foreclosure of redemption the holder of tax-sale title (town or private purchaser) takes title absolute; the foreclosure statute text read has no surplus or equity provision.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://webserver.rilegislature.gov/Statutes/TITLE44/44-9/44-9-25.htm",
    "https://webserver.rilegislature.gov/Statutes/TITLE44/44-9/INDEX.HTM"
   ],
   "notes": "§ 44-9-25 read: 'whoever then holds the acquired title' (including private purchasers or assignees) may petition the Superior Court more than one year after sale; last amendments seen P.L. 2003 c.262, P.L. 2006 c.534 and c.537. I could not confirm whether RI enacted a post-Tyler amendment (search budget exhausted); §§ 44-9-24 and 44-9-30 texts not read. Private purchasers support a Plemons v. Gale (4th Cir. 2005) state-action argument. Also §§ 44-9-10, 44-9-11, 44-9-27 govern notice to owner and interested parties (Jones v. Flowers) but were not read. TIA/comity: § 1983 damages claims for takings of surplus equity were litigated in federal court in Tyler itself; injunctive/declaratory attacks on the tax-collection scheme face 28 U.S.C. § 1341 and Fair Assessment v. McNary comity, though surplus-after-sale claims are generally not 'assessment/collection' of tax. Search budget was exhausted mid-task, so post-2024 litigation was not exhaustively checked.",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "level": "state",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "taxsale_east.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "ri-rhode-island-tax-sale-petition-to-foreclose-right-of-redemption-title-absolut",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 4.0,
   "rank": 84
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "San Jose, CA",
   "state_code": "CA",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "San Jose Ordinance requiring firearm owners to carry liability insurance and pay fee (Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance)",
   "citation": "San Jose Municipal Code ch. 10.32 (§§ 10.32.200-.290)",
   "subject_area": "firearms_carry",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment; First Amendment (association, compelled payment); Takings",
   "key_precedent": "Bruen (2022); Heller; NAGR v. City of San Jose, 618 F. Supp. 3d 916 (N.D. Cal. 2022)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Insurance mandate and annual fee for exercising a constitutional right; Ninth Circuit on appeal after district court dismissal.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Nat'l Ass'n for Gun Rights v. City of San Jose",
     "court": "N.D. Cal.",
     "number": "5:22-cv-00501",
     "date": "2022-12",
     "outcome": "Motion to dismiss on ripeness/merits; case dismissed, appeal pending in Ninth Circuit (details from memory)",
     "why": "District court found challenge unripe or deferential; Ninth Circuit status unconfirmed"
    },
    {
     "case": "Cal. Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. City of San Jose",
     "court": "N.D. Cal.",
     "number": "null",
     "date": "null",
     "outcome": "See NAGR; related case",
     "why": "Not independently confirmed"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Ordinance effective Jan 2023. Circuit track after Bruen (9th Cir. approach) is hostile; check current status of appeal. Citation from memory.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "ca-san-jose-ca-san-jose-ordinance-requiring-firearm-owners-to-carry-liability-in",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 4.0,
   "rank": 85
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Texas",
   "state_code": "TX",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Texas Education Freedom Accounts (ESA) implementation excluding Islamic schools",
   "citation": "S.B. 2 (89th Leg., 2025), Tex. Educ. Code ch. 29; subchapter unverified",
   "subject_area": "religion",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (Free Exercise; Establishment, denominational discrimination)",
   "key_precedent": "Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. 767 (2022); Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (1982)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "A federal judge ordered the comptroller to accept applications from Islamic schools; denominational exclusion invites strict scrutiny.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Consolidated suits by Muslim parents and three Islamic schools (captions not found)",
     "court": "S.D. Tex. (Judge Alfred Bennett)",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2026-03-17",
     "outcome": "Order extending application deadline to Mar. 31 and requiring acceptance of Islamic schools' applications; reported as a TRO; at least four Islamic schools approved afterward",
     "why": "Exclusion based on CAIR event ties and accreditor; permanent-injunction hearing set Apr. 24, 2026 (result not found)."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://religionnews.com/2026/03/18/judge-orders-texas-to-extend-school-voucher-deadline-in-response-to-lawsuit-from-islamic-schools",
    "https://www.k12dive.com/news/judge-orders-texas-to-open-school-choice-program-to-islamic-schools/815143/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "This challenges administration of the program, not the statute's text. Possible mootness after approval. Statute section not confirmed.",
   "_file": "categories_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "Establishment / Free Exercise",
   "id": "tx-texas-texas-education-freedom-accounts-esa-implementation-excluding-islamic-s",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 4.0,
   "rank": 86
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Utah",
   "state_code": "UT",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Minor Protection in Social Media Act (age assurance, parental consent, curfew, design limits)",
   "citation": "Utah Code Title 13, ch. 71 (SB 194 (2024); amended by SB 73 (2026) per secondary; verify)",
   "subject_area": "online_minors",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (content-based speech restriction; vagueness)",
   "key_precedent": "Moody v. NetChoice, 603 U.S. 707 (2024); Brown v. Entertainment Merchants (2011); Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (2025) (cuts against)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "District court enjoined it as content-based and failing strict scrutiny; appeal pending.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "NetChoice v. Reyes / Brown",
     "court": "D. Utah (Judge Shelby); appeal 10th Cir.",
     "number": "10th Cir. 24-4100; D. Utah number not found",
     "date": "2024-09-10",
     "outcome": "Preliminary injunction granted; State appealed; district case stayed; argued around Nov. 2025 per one tracker; 10th Cir. decision not found",
     "why": "Content-based restrictions on social-media speech subject to strict scrutiny and not narrowly tailored."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2024/09/court-enjoins-the-utah-minor-protection-in-social-media-act-netchoice-v-reyes.htm",
    "https://courthousenews.com/utah-urges-10th-circuit-to-reinstate-social-media-law-for-minors/"
   ],
   "notes": "Status 'succeeded' reflects the PI only; plaintiff is the trade association NetChoice, and the enjoined statute is not fully 'in force' as to members. A separate Feb. 2026 challenge and SB 73's May 6, 2026 enforcement amendment come from a single tracker. Docket not read. Re-check 2026-11-12: searched for a Tenth Circuit decision in No. 24-4100; none found (briefing; Utah AG letter Dec. 30, 2025; district case stayed). Not read: opinion, SB 73 (2026) text.",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "states_southcentral_mountain.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "ut-utah-minor-protection-in-social-media-act-age-assurance-parental-consent-curf",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 4.0,
   "rank": 87
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Vermont",
   "state_code": "VT",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (2025)",
   "citation": "S.69 (2025), enacted June 12, 2025; 9 V.S.A. section unverified",
   "subject_area": "online_minors",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech; compelled speech and vagueness)",
   "key_precedent": "Moody v. NetChoice, 603 U.S. 707 (2024); NetChoice v. Bonta (9th Cir.); NetChoice v. Brown (Md. AADC challenge)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Design-code duties and data-use limits have drawn injunctions in California and Maryland challenges; but effective date is Jan. 1, 2027, so pre-enforcement ripeness is available now.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://iapp.org/news/a/nebraska-vermont-s-age-appropriate-design-codes-look-to-bolster-children-s-online-safety",
    "https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2026/Workgroups/Senate%20Institutions/Bills/S.69/Witness%20Documents/S.69~Amy%20Bos~Testimony%20from%20NetChoice~2-21-2025.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Sources conflict on effective date (Jan. 2027 vs Jan. 2026). No NetChoice suit found. Maryland case name/number not verified. Plaintiff would be a platform; individual users have weaker standing. Under § 1983 the defendant is the VT Attorney General.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "vt-vermont-age-appropriate-design-code-act-2025",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 4.0,
   "rank": 88
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Wisconsin",
   "state_code": "WI",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Tax foreclosure (in rem) surplus for tax deeds acquired before 2022 Act 216 / 2023 Act 207 cure",
   "citation": "Wis. Stat. §§ 75.521, 75.35, 75.36, 75.69; 2021 Wis. Act 216; 2023 Wis. Act 207",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause (via 14th Amendment); Excessive Fines (8th Am.)",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026) (decided 2026-06-23; sale-price baseline for just compensation after a fairly conducted tax sale; FMV theory and Excessive Fines theory rejected; procedural-unfairness claims left open on remand)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Pre-cure county tax deeds let counties keep all equity; Act 216 (from April 1, 2022) and Act 207 are not retroactive to earlier deeds, so older foreclosures remain exposed.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Elliott v. Trempealeau County et al. (class action vs. all Wisconsin counties, State, City of Milwaukee)",
     "court": "E.D. Wis. (removed from Waukesha Cnty. Cir. Ct.)",
     "number": "2:25-cv-00421-SCD",
     "date": null,
     "outcome": "Remand to state court granted; Rule 12(b)(6) motion granted in part and denied in part (per opinion snippet)",
     "why": "Complaint relies on non-retroactive 2021 Act 216; exact ruling date and which claims survived not verified; plaintiffs filed remand motion 2025-05-09"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://impactforequity.org/report/liening-on-the-wrong-side-of-the-law-a-multi-state-comparative-analysis-of-property-tax-sale-reform-in-response-to-tyler-v-hennepin/",
    "https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elliott-v-trempealeau-county-wied-2025",
    "https://milberg.com/news/class-action-filed-to-recover-wisconsin-tax-foreclosure-takings/",
    "https://www.wicounties.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/2026.08.26-ITB-Prop-Tax-Foreclosure.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Act 207 (signed March 2024) reaches deeds acquired on/after April 1, 2022; 180/240-day sale-advertising duty; owner-occupied repurchase right by county ordinance; Wis. Stat. 75.35(7) bars county liability absent fraud. Plaintiffs chose state court and won remand, so federal 1983 route is currently running through state forum; comity risk is real for the damages claims. TIA/comity: 28 U.S.C. 1341 and Fair Assessment v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100 (1981) may be raised against federal suits over county tax enforcement; former-owner surplus takings claims are usually framed as challenging post-collection retention, not tax assessment/collection, but this is not uniformly settled; check circuit law. After Pung, FMV-based damages theories are weak; viable claims target no-sale transfers to government/purchaser, forfeiture of unclaimed surplus, unfair procedure, and pre-cure deeds.",
   "_file": "taxsale_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "wi-wisconsin-tax-foreclosure-in-rem-surplus-for-tax-deeds-acquired-before-2022-a",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 4.0,
   "rank": 89
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Wyoming",
   "state_code": "WY",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Tax lien certificate sale and deed to certificate holder",
   "citation": "Wyo. Stat. Ann. 39-13-108(e) (tax sales, certificate of purchase, tax deed), 39-13-109(e) (redemption)",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause (via 14th Amendment); Wyo. Const. art. 1, § 33",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026) (decided 2026-06-23; sale-price baseline for just compensation after a fairly conducted tax sale; FMV theory and Excessive Fines theory rejected; procedural-unfairness claims left open on remand)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Certificate holder can obtain tax deed after redemption without a sale and keep equity; amendment status unverified.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://wyoleg.gov/statutes/compress/title39.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Read Wyoming Title 39 compilation (wyoleg.gov PDF, generated Oct. 14, 2026). Real property is sold for delinquent taxes; the form of deed recites that the purchaser offered 'the least quantity bid for' (taxes, interest, costs), i.e., bidding is for the tax amount, not equity. Owner may redeem before a valid tax deed application is accepted by paying the sale price plus 3% plus 15% annual interest and later taxes (39-13-109(e)(iv)). Treasurer issues deed to the certificate holder 4 to 6 years after the sale (39-13-108(e)(v)(A)) after notice (3 months before application, mail to record owner and mortgagees). The deed is prima facie evidence of title; no action to recover land after 6 years from the sale date (e)(vii)(D). The only 'surplus' language in 108(e) is for personal property distraint (e)(i)(A)(V); the real property sections contain no surplus-return or excess-equity provision, and no post-Tyler amendment appears in the current text. This confirms the original concern. Pung caveat: because the sale price equals the tax debt, a fair sale produces little or no 'sale surplus', so damages theories would have to rest on an unfair or non-market sale or on the post-deed forfeiture itself; no Wyoming challenge found. Plemons v. Gale (4th Cir.) state-action note retained from the earlier pass was not rechecked.",
   "_file": "taxsale_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "wy-wyoming-tax-lien-certificate-sale-and-deed-to-certificate-holder",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 4.0,
   "rank": 90
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Virginia",
   "state_code": "VA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Conversion therapy ban for minors (talk-therapy portion)",
   "citation": "Va. Code § 54.1-2409.5; 18VAC115-20-130.14",
   "subject_area": "conversion_therapy",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech; free exercise under Va. Const.)",
   "key_precedent": "Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. 627 (2026) (8-1)",
   "vulnerability": 5,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Chiles holds talk-therapy bans are speech regulation subject to strict scrutiny; the statute is a licensing-discipline ban on the same conduct",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Raymond v. Commonwealth (Founding Freedoms Law Center)",
     "court": "Henrico County Cir. Ct. (Va.)",
     "number": "unverified",
     "date": "2025-07",
     "outcome": "Consent order; DHP stopped enforcing the talk-therapy part",
     "why": "State-constitution claims; AG agreed not to enforce talk therapy; aversive methods remain illegal"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/virginia-agrees-not-fully-enforce-state-law-banning-conversion-therapy-rcna216567",
    "https://virginiamercury.com/2025/07/02/court-rules-talk-based-conversion-therapy-is-legal-in-virginia/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Both cites appear in press coverage of the case (secondary). Consent decree in Raymond v. Commonwealth, Henrico Cir. Ct., mid-2025 (Va. Const. and RFRA theory); coverage conflicts on whether it was a contested ruling or agreed order, and the Founding Freedoms Law Center says it covers all counselors doing talk therapy (advocacy). Decree text and docket not read. Non-enforcement by agreement still poses a standing problem for a federal plaintiff.",
   "_file": "states_southeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Establishment / Free Exercise",
   "id": "va-virginia-conversion-therapy-ban-for-minors-talk-therapy-portion",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 3.33,
   "rank": 91
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Illinois",
   "state_code": "IL",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Protect Illinois Communities Act: assault-weapon and large-capacity-magazine ban",
   "citation": "720 ILCS 5/24-1.9; 720 ILCS 5/24-1.10 (Pub. Act 102-1116)",
   "subject_area": "firearms_hardware",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022); cert granted in Viramontes v. Cook County, No. 25-238, and Grant v. Higgins, No. 25-566 (June 30, 2026)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "SCOTUS granted cert on the AR-15 question on June 30, 2026; the Court's answer will control, but the Seventh Circuit just upheld the Act.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Barnett v. Raoul",
     "court": "S.D. Ill. / 7th Cir.",
     "number": "7th Cir. Nos. 24-3060 to 24-3063; S.D. Ill. number not confirmed",
     "date": "2026-07-09",
     "outcome": "District court (Judge McGlynn) struck the Act in 2024; Seventh Circuit reversed 2-1 (St. Eve, J.), 180 F.4th 1035",
     "why": "Panel held the restrictions fit the historical tradition of regulating especially dangerous weapons. A SCOTUS filing (No. 26A404) appears to follow; not confirmed."
    },
    {
     "case": "Viramontes v. Cook County (county ordinance, not this statute)",
     "court": "U.S. Supreme Court",
     "number": "25-238",
     "date": "2026-06-30",
     "outcome": "Cert granted, consolidated with Grant v. Higgins (Conn.)",
     "why": "Same AR-15 question; argument expected fall 2026 or later, decision by about June 2027."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20260709088",
    "https://www.jurist.org/news/2026/07/us-supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-challenges-to-assault-weapons-bans/",
    "https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2026/06/cert-alert-scotus-grants-certiorari-in-ar-15-ban-cases"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Did not read statute text. Best path is to hold for Viramontes/Grant and then move for relief. The Seventh Circuit is hostile now, so a new filing before the SCOTUS decision likely loses at the circuit level. Sources disagree on whether the Barnett decision was followed by a stay application; check the S. Ct. docket.",
   "_file": "states_midwest.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "il-illinois-protect-illinois-communities-act-assault-weapon-and-large-capacity-m",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 3.0,
   "rank": 92
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Louisiana",
   "state_code": "LA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "HB 71 (2024): Ten Commandments displays in public school classrooms",
   "citation": "La. R.S. 17:2124 (from memory; verify)",
   "subject_area": "religion",
   "constitutional_provision": "Establishment Clause; Free Exercise",
   "key_precedent": "Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Stone is on point, but the Fifth Circuit en banc found the pre-enforcement suit unripe, so success needs displays actually posted.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Roake v. Brumley",
     "court": "M.D. La.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2024-11-12",
     "outcome": "Preliminary injunction (deGravelles, J.) as to five school boards",
     "why": "Establishment Clause; coercive in compulsory schooling."
    },
    {
     "case": "Roake v. Brumley",
     "court": "5th Cir. (en banc)",
     "number": "24-30706",
     "date": "2026-02-20",
     "outcome": "Injunction vacated; claims dismissed as unripe",
     "why": "No school had yet implemented the law; court did not reach merits. Sources date it Feb. 20 (one says Feb. 28); lead's note said April 2026, which I could not confirm."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/fifth-circuit-too-soon-to-rule-on-constitutionality-of-louisiana-law-requiring-public-schools-to-display-ten-commandments",
    "https://reason.com/volokh/2026/03/06/the-fifth-circuit-and-the-louisiana-10-commandments-law",
    "https://becketfund.org/case/roake-v-brumley/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Next step is an as-applied suit once a displayed poster exists, in the 5th Cir. (hostile). Vote reported as 12-6 by one source only. Statutory cite unverified.",
   "_file": "states_southcentral_mountain.json",
   "provision_group": "Establishment / Free Exercise",
   "id": "la-louisiana-hb-71-2024-ten-commandments-displays-in-public-school-classrooms",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 3.0,
   "rank": 93
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "California",
   "state_code": "CA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Inclusive-curriculum mandates and CDE position limiting LGBTQ-only opt-outs",
   "citation": "Cal. Educ. Code §§ 51204.5, 51500-51501, 60040-60044 (FAIR Education Act); Cal. Educ. Code § 51933/51938 (sex-ed opt-outs); sections unverified",
   "subject_area": "religion",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (Free Exercise; parental rights)",
   "key_precedent": "Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U.S. ___ (2025)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Mahmoud requires opt-outs where mandatory LGBTQ-inclusive storybooks burden religious exercise; CDE guidance warns LGBTQ-only opt-outs may violate state anti-discrimination law, creating a direct conflict.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Taylor v. Sunnyvale School District",
     "court": "N.D. Cal.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2026-06-22",
     "outcome": "Filed; no ruling found",
     "why": "District refused opt-outs from LGBTQ-inclusive storybooks; suit is district-level but turns on state-law conflict."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://becketfund.org/case/taylor-v-sunnyvale-school-district/",
    "https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/lr/mt",
    "https://deseret.com/education/2026/06/24/christian-family-sues-california-school-district"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Statute section numbers unconfirmed; the CDE guidance (Aug. 2025) is non-binding. Also see Alan L. v. Lexington (Mass.). A suit directly against the State/CDE guidance would be the cleanest § 1983 target.",
   "_file": "categories_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "Establishment / Free Exercise",
   "id": "ca-california-inclusive-curriculum-mandates-and-cde-position-limiting-lgbtq-only",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 3.0,
   "rank": 94
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "California",
   "state_code": "CA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Fair Employment and Housing Act source-of-income provision requiring landlords to accept Section 8 vouchers",
   "citation": "Cal. Gov. Code § 12955(o) (2019 amendment); section unverified",
   "subject_area": "searches_inspections",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fourth Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967); People v. Commons West, LLC (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2026)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Same theory as the New York ruling (mandatory participation plus warrantless inspection access), but a California defense is that Section 8 inspections can satisfy administrative-search rules.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Manning v. Kish",
     "court": "E.D. Cal.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2026-07-17",
     "outcome": "Filed; no ruling found",
     "why": "PLF suit against California Civil Rights Department on behalf of a Sacramento-area landlord."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://pacificlegal.org/case/manning-warrantless-searches-section-8/",
    "https://calawyers.org/real-property-law/fair-housing-or-forced-entrysection-8-searches-and-a-new-york-case-california-should-watch/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "PLF page does not give a case number or the code section. Ninth Circuit authority on rental inspections (Griffith v. City of Santa Cruz) may help or hurt.",
   "_file": "categories_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "Fourth Amendment",
   "id": "ca-california-fair-employment-and-housing-act-source-of-income-provision-requiri",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 3.0,
   "rank": 95
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "California",
   "state_code": "CA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Ammunition purchase background check and point-of-sale rules",
   "citation": "Cal. Penal Code §§ 30312, 30370 (Prop 63)",
   "subject_area": "firearms_hardware",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Rhode v. Bonta (9th Cir. en banc pending); Bruen; Wolford v. Lopez (28(j) letters)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Panel struck it July 2025 but en banc vacated; argued March 2026; en banc court generally state-friendly, though DOJ and 26 states back plaintiffs.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Rhode v. Bonta",
     "court": "S.D. Cal.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2024-01",
     "outcome": "Permanent injunction (Benitez)",
     "why": "Background-check regime burdens right and lacks analogues"
    },
    {
     "case": "Rhode v. Bonta",
     "court": "9th Cir. panel",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2025-07-24",
     "outcome": "Affirmed injunction 2-1 (Bybee dissent)",
     "why": "Burden on ordinary citizens, no historical analogue"
    },
    {
     "case": "Rhode v. Bonta",
     "court": "9th Cir. (en banc)",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2025-12-01",
     "outcome": "Rehearing en banc granted, panel opinion vacated; argued about March 25, 2026",
     "why": "Decision not found"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.nraila.org/articles/20251202/ninth-circuit-grants-rehearing-en-banc-in-nra-supported-challenge-to-california-s-ammunition-background-check-requirement",
    "https://crpa.org/news/crpa-tv/new-from-crpa-tv-rhode-v-bonta-oral-arguments/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "District and Fee rose to $5 Jan. 1, 2026. Existing case is the vehicle.",
   "_file": "states_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "ca-california-ammunition-purchase-background-check-and-point-of-sale-rules",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 3.0,
   "rank": 96
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "California",
   "state_code": "CA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Tax-defaulted property sale; excess-proceeds claim deadline",
   "citation": "Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code §§ 3691-3731, 4671-4676",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause (via 14th Amendment); Cal. Const. art. I, § 19",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026) (decided 2026-06-23; sale-price baseline for just compensation after a fairly conducted tax sale; FMV theory and Excessive Fines theory rejected; procedural-unfairness claims left open on remand)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Excess proceeds claimable only within one year of recording the deed (§ 4675), after which they go to county general fund; short window and forfeiture.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/revenue-and-taxation-code/rtc-sect-4675/",
    "https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/revenue-and-taxation-code/rtc-sect-4674/",
    "https://california.public.law/codes/ca_rev_and_tax_code_section_4675"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Verified 2026-11-12 on findlaw and california.public.law (current as of Jan. 1, 2026). Rev. & Tax. Code 4675(a): a party of interest may claim excess proceeds up to one year after the tax collector's deed is recorded (postmark rule); (e): distribution on board order, lienholders of record first, then record title holders; (g): 90 days to seek review of a claim decision. 4674: after the 4675(e) period, unclaimed excess may be transferred to the county general fund after the county deducts file-maintenance and claim costs. 4676(d): notice and address-search costs are deducted from excess proceeds. AB 418 (Wilson) was signed Oct. 1, 2025 (tracker report; Senate floor analysis read); it concerns only Chapter 8 negotiated sales (board hearing and a price at or above tax-sale value) and does not change the one-year claim window or 4674 transfer. AB 445 (2023) and SB 964 (2024, held in committee) would have amended 4675-4676; I found no enacted change to 4674-4676. No Tyler suit found. The one-year forfeiture to the county is the main exposure. TIA/comity (28 U.S.C. 1341; Fair Assessment v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100 (1981)) may be raised against federal suits; surplus claims are usually framed as post-collection retention, not assessment or collection, but circuit law should be checked. After Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026), damages are limited to the sale surplus.",
   "_file": "taxsale_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "ca-california-tax-defaulted-property-sale-excess-proceeds-claim-deadline",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 3.0,
   "rank": 97
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Chicago, IL",
   "state_code": "IL",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Chicago MBE/WBE contracting and construction goals",
   "citation": "Chicago Municipal Code ch. 2-92, §§ 2-92-420 to 2-92-570",
   "subject_area": "race_preferences",
   "constitutional_provision": "Equal Protection (14th); 42 U.S.C. § 1981",
   "key_precedent": "SFFA v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023); Midwest Fence Corp. v. U.S. DOT, 840 F.3d 932 (7th Cir. 2016) (upheld pre-SFFA)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Race-based contract goals rest on disparity studies assessed under strict scrutiny; SFFA and the narrow-tailoring demands raise the bar, though Seventh Circuit precedent upheld Chicago's program.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Section numbers from memory. No post-SFFA challenge to Chicago's program located (search budget exhausted). Ordinance includes both race and sex goals with differing scrutiny. Section 1983 vs. § 1981 (damages against municipalities via § 1983 per Jett). Standing needs a bidder ready and able to bid.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "Equal Protection",
   "id": "il-chicago-il-chicago-mbe-wbe-contracting-and-construction-goals",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 3.0,
   "rank": 98
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "District of Columbia",
   "state_code": "DC",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Large-capacity magazine ban",
   "citation": "D.C. Code § 7-2506.01(b)",
   "subject_area": "firearms_hardware",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Hanson v. District of Columbia, 120 F.4th 223 (D.C. Cir. 2024); Benson v. United States (D.C. 2026)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "D.C. Court of Appeals struck the ban facially in Benson (Mar. 2026), splitting from federal D.C. Circuit; Hanson remains with one plaintiff.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Hanson v. District of Columbia",
     "court": "D.C. Cir. / D.D.C.",
     "number": "24-936 (cert.); 1:22-cv-02256 (D.D.C.)",
     "date": "2025-06-02",
     "outcome": "PI denied, affirmed 2024; cert denied June 2025; remand continues",
     "why": "Court of appeals found ban likely consistent with Bowie-knife-era regulation; district court later kept one plaintiff"
    },
    {
     "case": "Benson v. United States",
     "court": "D.C. Court of Appeals",
     "number": "23-CF-0514",
     "date": "2026-03-05",
     "outcome": "Ban held facially unconstitutional (panel)",
     "why": "Criminal appeal; contrary to D.C. Cir. Hanson"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanson-v-district-of-columbia-dcd-2026",
    "https://www.ammoland.com/2026/03/judge-keeps-one-plaintiff-hanson-v-district-of-columbia-magazine-ban"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "District court docket number and Hanson reporter cite from memory; unverified. Benson cite from search summary (2026 WL 628772). Check whether en banc review of Benson sought. D.C. Circuit Hanson precedent binds federal courts here.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "dc-district-of-columbia-large-capacity-magazine-ban",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 3.0,
   "rank": 99
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Hawaii",
   "state_code": "HI",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Sensitive-places carry ban (bars/restaurants serving alcohol, parks, beaches, banks, etc.)",
   "citation": "Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-9.1 and § 134-9.5 (Act 52 of 2023)",
   "subject_area": "firearms_carry",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second and Fourteenth Amendments",
   "key_precedent": "Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022); Wolford v. Lopez, 609 U.S. 185 (2026)) (warns against designating vast swaths of public life as gun-free)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Ninth Circuit (2024) upheld most categories; Wolford's reasoning gives new ammunition on parks, beaches, banks and alcohol venues, but cert was limited to the private-property rule.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Wolford v. Lopez",
     "court": "9th Cir. / D. Haw.",
     "number": "23-16164",
     "date": "2024-09-06",
     "outcome": "Panel upheld most sensitive-place categories; struck private-property default and a few others",
     "why": "Historical analogues found for most categories (period laws on fairs, polling places, etc.); Wolford SCOTUS ruling reached only the default rule"
    },
    {
     "case": "Wolford v. Lopez (remand)",
     "court": "9th Cir.",
     "number": "23-16164",
     "date": "2026-08-10",
     "outcome": "Injunction affirmed as to § 134-9.5; other aspects of 2024 analysis unaffected",
     "why": "Per Ninth Circuit summary; I could not confirm treatment of parks/beaches/banks"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/08/10/23-16164.pdf",
    "https://www.ammoland.com/2026/08/ninth-circuit-blocks-hawaii-vampire-rule/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Exact statutory section for the sensitive-place list not confirmed (§ 134-9.1 vs § 134-9.5). A fresh challenge limited to parks, beaches, banks, bars is plausible. Ninth Circuit hostile on text-and-history; en banc hostile too.",
   "_file": "states_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Other",
   "id": "hi-hawaii-sensitive-places-carry-ban-bars-restaurants-serving-alcohol-parks-beac",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 3.0,
   "rank": 100
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Idaho",
   "state_code": "ID",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "HB 752 (2026) criminalizing restroom/facility use by transgender people",
   "citation": "Idaho HB 752 (2026), eff. July 1, 2026 (codification not confirmed)",
   "subject_area": "other",
   "constitutional_provision": "Equal Protection; Due Process; privacy",
   "key_precedent": "Skrmetti line (U.S. v. Skrmetti 2025) cuts against; Ninth Circuit Roe v. Critchfield",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Preliminarily enjoined with a provisionally certified class, but Skrmetti and the Idaho-friendly SCOTUS posture raise reversal risk.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "ACLU/Lambda Legal class challenge to HB 752 (six transgender Idaho plaintiffs; caption not found)",
     "court": "D. Idaho (Brailsford, J.)",
     "number": "not found",
     "date": "2026-06-16",
     "outcome": "PI granted in a 30-page decision; provisional class certified; vagueness ('reasonably available' restroom); equal protection and informational privacy claims reserved",
     "why": "Reports differ on scope: some say statewide, others limited to single-user facilities or where no single-user restroom was available; suit filed April 2026"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/judge-blocks-idaho-law-criminalizing-transgender-peoples-bathroom-access",
    "https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/idaho-judge-blocks-enforcement-of-states-trans-restroom-ban",
    "https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/idaho-judge-blocks-enforcement-of-states-trans-restroom-ban",
    "https://www.courthousenews.com/federal-judge-blocks-transgender-bathroom-ban-in-idaho/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Decision date June 16, 2026 per Advocate and Bloomberg Law summaries; opinion not read; caption and docket still not found. Outside Ari's core categories.",
   "_file": "states_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Equal Protection",
   "id": "id-idaho-hb-752-2026-criminalizing-restroom-facility-use-by-transgender-people",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 3.0,
   "rank": 101
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Illinois",
   "state_code": "IL",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Inclusive Curriculum Law (LGBTQ history in public-school instruction) without statutory religious opt-out",
   "citation": "105 ILCS 5/27-22.05",
   "subject_area": "religion",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (Free Exercise)",
   "key_precedent": "Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U.S. ___ (2025)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Mandatory instruction with no statutory opt-out mirrors the Montgomery County burden, though it is history instruction rather than storybooks.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [
    "https://dailycitizen.focusonthefamily.com/illinois-school-districts-investigated-gender-ideology/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Statute citation from memory; no state-level suit found. DOJ inquiry into Illinois districts reported only by an advocacy outlet (not confirmed). Unverified.",
   "_file": "categories_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "Establishment / Free Exercise",
   "id": "il-illinois-inclusive-curriculum-law-lgbtq-history-in-public-school-instruction-",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 3.0,
   "rank": 102
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Illinois",
   "state_code": "IL",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Property Tax Code tax sale, redemption and tax deed",
   "citation": "35 ILCS 200/21-1 et seq.; 200/22-40 (tax deed); 200/21-260 (surplus from sale)",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Takings Clause; Due Process (notice, Jones v. Flowers)",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026)) (as reported by sibling workers, unverified here)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Tax buyer who takes a deed after the redemption period obtains title without compensating the owner for equity; no general surplus-return mechanism for tax-deed transfers.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Sharritt v. Henry (proposed class action vs. five county treasurers incl. St. Clair)",
     "court": "S.D. Ill. (Rosenstengel, J.)",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2025-09-30",
     "outcome": "Motions to dismiss denied; takings claim for tax-deed issuance without just compensation for surplus equity proceeds; treasurers not shielded by sovereign immunity because the decision was discretionary",
     "why": "Per Capitol Fax excerpt of the opinion; case name per secondary reporting (filed Nov. 2023, Hughes & Suhr); docket number not found"
    },
    {
     "case": "Cook County class action (name and docket not found)",
     "court": "N.D. Ill. (docket 1:22-cv-07061 per a Reason link; unverified)",
     "number": "1:22-cv-07061 (unverified)",
     "date": "2026-05",
     "outcome": "Federal judge held Cook County liable to a class of more than 2,500 former owners for lost equity; Treasurer Pappas has appealed (per Injustice Watch)",
     "why": "Reported by Injustice Watch and Reason; no opinion read"
    },
    {
     "case": "Multi-county class action (DuPage, Kane, Lake and others)",
     "court": "federal court (name not found)",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2026-03",
     "outcome": "Court rejected counties' argument that tax buyers should return equity; amended pleading filed June 2026",
     "why": "Per Injustice Watch; no caption or docket found"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://capitolfax.com/2025/10/02/illinois-counties-lose-bid-to-dismiss-class-action-lawsuit-over-property-tax-sales",
    "https://www.injusticewatch.org/project/taken-by-taxes/2026/illinois-tax-foreclosure-reform-passes/",
    "https://reason.com/2026/07/16/illinois-will-finally-stop-stripping-people-of-their-home-equity-3-years-after-the-supreme-court-outlawed-it/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Original entry (no challenge, no sources) was wrong. Secondary sources show active Tyler litigation and a 2026 legislative fix. H.B. 4537 (P.A. 104-0553 per ISACo and LegiScan, secondary) passed May 30, 2026 and was signed July 10, 2026, reportedly effective immediately: public judicial tax-deed auction with surplus to the former owner; redemption extended to 36 months; a fee-funded county Surplus Equity Fund for owners who lost equity in the past two years or are in process under old rules; counties pay successful claims within 12 months of judgment if the fund runs dry; Cook County sales to private investors end in 2030. The statute text (ILGA blocked automated fetch) and the sections amended (21-260, 22-40, new 21-296 to 21-302 per secondary) were not read, so the citation is unchanged. Vulnerability lowered from 4 to 3: forward-looking exposure is reduced, but pre-reform deeds and the 'two-year' fund limit leave damages claims, and existing classes already occupy the main plaintiffs' lane. Pung (June 2026) limits damages to sale proceeds for a fair sale.",
   "_file": "taxsale_east.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "il-illinois-property-tax-code-tax-sale-redemption-and-tax-deed",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 3.0,
   "rank": 103
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Indiana",
   "state_code": "IN",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Civil forfeiture of currency (including cash in transit through FedEx hub) without charged crime",
   "citation": "Ind. Code § 34-24-1-1 et seq.",
   "subject_area": "forfeiture_fines",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fourth Amendment; Due Process; Eighth Amendment (Excessive Fines)",
   "key_precedent": "Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. 146 (2019); Culley v. Marshall, 601 U.S. 377 (2024)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Class counterclaim certified in Marion Superior Court; Oct. 2026 ruling (per IJ) required the State to identify the underlying crime but upheld forfeiting non-Indiana packages with no Indiana crime link.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "State v. Cheng class counterclaim (Henry and Minh Cheng; certified class)",
     "court": "Marion Super. Ct. (Ind.)",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2025-07-22",
     "outcome": "Class certified; individual funds returned; class claims ongoing",
     "why": "Challenges FedEx-hub seizures lacking tie to any Indiana crime."
    },
    {
     "case": "Same",
     "court": "Marion Super. Ct. (Ind.)",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2026-10-20",
     "outcome": "Mixed ruling per IJ press release (State must plead the crime; interstate-transit forfeiture not itself unlawful)",
     "why": "Advocacy source only; opinion not read."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://ij.org/press-release/court-approves-class-action-lawsuit-against-county-seizures-of-money-at-indianapolis-fedex-hub/",
    "https://ij.org/press-release/court-says-marion-county-must-clearly-state-what-crime-was-committed-before-taking-money-seized-at-fedex-hub/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "State-court counterclaims, not § 1983; a federal suit would face Younger/Rooker-Feldman issues while the forfeiture suits are pending. Statute section assumed from standard Indiana citation; statute text not read.",
   "_file": "categories_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "Fourth Amendment",
   "id": "in-indiana-civil-forfeiture-of-currency-including-cash-in-transit-through-fedex-",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 3.0,
   "rank": 104
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Iowa",
   "state_code": "IA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Tax sale certificate and treasurer's deed (holder takes deed after redemption, no surplus to owner)",
   "citation": "Iowa Code ch. 446 (sale), 447.9 (notice of expiration of redemption), 447.12, 448.1 (treasurer's deed)",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause (via 14th Amendment)",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026) (decided 2026-06-23; sale-price baseline for just compensation after a fairly conducted tax sale; FMV theory and Excessive Fines theory rejected; procedural-unfairness claims left open on remand); Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Certificate holder takes the treasurer's deed after redemption period; whether 2024-25 amendments added a surplus remedy is unverified.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Woods v. Equity Trust Co. (Iowa Legal Aid client; as reported)",
     "court": "Iowa Dist. Ct., Fayette County",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2026-06",
     "outcome": "Dismissed; purchaser complied with Iowa tax-sale procedure and holds a valid tax deed; any constitutional challenge belongs against the statutory framework, not the private purchaser (secondary report)",
     "why": "Challenges Iowa's rule that a certificate holder takes full title above the tax debt; Axios reports possible appeal; caption, docket number, and order not read"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/447.9.pdf",
    "https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/448.1.pdf",
    "https://www.axios.com/2026/06/17/iowa-tax-sale-lawsuit-constitution-ruling-supreme"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Statute text read (Iowa Code 2026): 447.9 lets the certificate holder serve notice that redemption will expire 90 days after completed service (regular and certified mail); only persons served or with later interests may redeem; 448.1 requires the treasurer to issue the deed upon expiry and the holder's return of the certificate and fees. Neither section, nor 447.7 or 447.13, gives the former owner any share of value above the redeemable amount; the purchaser takes the parcel. No post-Tyler amendment found in the 2026 Code text or in a search of session news. A 2026 state-court challenge (Woods) was dismissed against the private purchaser; the court suggested the claim lies against the statutory framework, so the state-actor/defendant problem for a section 1983 suit against private purchasers persists, and the county treasurer is the likelier defendant. Vulnerability unchanged at 3. Pung limits damages to sale surplus, which weakens FMV theories; Iowa's scheme has no surplus mechanism, so the viable claim is a failure to pay any surplus.",
   "_file": "taxsale_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "ia-iowa-tax-sale-certificate-and-treasurer-s-deed-holder-takes-deed-after-redemp",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 3.0,
   "rank": 105
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Kentucky",
   "state_code": "KY",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Certificates of delinquency; third-party purchaser foreclosure and master commissioner sale",
   "citation": "KRS 134.490, 134.504, 134.546 (3-party purchaser enforcement), 134.128 (sale of certificates)",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fourteenth Amendment due process (notice to heirs/stale PVA addresses); Fifth Amendment Takings (low-price judicial sales)",
   "key_precedent": "Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006); Tyler v. Hennepin County (2023); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026); Plemons v. Gale (4th Cir. 2005)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Private purchasers foreclose in state court on notices sent to outdated PVA addresses with warning-order-attorney publication, and parcels sell at very low prices; Pung makes fair-sale surplus enough, so the notice path is the stronger claim.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://kslovinsky.substack.com/p/kentuckys-privatized-market-for-property",
    "https://hallapproved.com/ky/cases/supreme/2025/10709562/",
    "https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/acts/26RS/documents/0048.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Statute text for 134.546 not read (blocked). Substack (LiKEN) reports 400 heirs' property tax foreclosures in 22 eastern KY counties 2014-2024; PVA records often list deceased owners; surplus after debt goes to owner or county unclaimed funds (KRS ch. 393; unverified). Smith v. Apex Fund Services, No. 2023-SC-0336-DG (Ky. Oct. 23, 2025): tax liens (state, county, city, third-party) rank equally and share short proceeds pro rata; not a constitutional challenge and does not discuss surplus or Tyler. No Kentucky Tyler suit found. Third-party purchaser as state actor: Plemons is 4th Cir. and adverse on bare purchase; foreclosure filing is stronger. Pung v. Isabella County (U.S. June 23, 2026) per Holland & Knight alert (docket/U.S. cite not retrieved): when the sale is fairly conducted, compensation is the sale surplus, not FMV; fairness of the auction remains open. TIA/comity: 28 U.S.C. 1341 and Fair Assessment in Real Estate Ass'n v. McNary bar federal damages/injunction suits that attack state tax administration where a plain, speedy, efficient state remedy exists; courts split on whether a Tyler surplus claim (a takings claim for proceeds after the tax is paid) escapes the bar, so plan on a state-court or Williamson-free forum analysis. Plemons v. Gale, 396 F.3d 569 (4th Cir. 2005): private tax-lien purchaser not a state actor for mere purchase; foreclosure-stage conduct invoking state process is the stronger hook. ",
   "_file": "taxsale_east.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "ky-kentucky-certificates-of-delinquency-third-party-purchaser-foreclosure-and-ma",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 3.0,
   "rank": 106
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Los Angeles County, CA",
   "state_code": "CA",
   "level": "county",
   "law_name": "LA County tax-defaulted property sale (Treasurer and Tax Collector)",
   "citation": "Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code §§ 3691-3731, 4671-4676 (excess proceeds), administered by LA County TTC",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Takings; Due Process",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County (2023); Jones v. Flowers",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "California excess-proceeds claims have claim deadlines and distribution rules; compliance with Tyler's just-compensation baseline depends on how forfeited surplus is treated.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/revenue-and-taxation-code/rtc-sect-4675/",
    "https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/revenue-and-taxation-code/rtc-sect-4674/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "State law applies statewide; see the California state entry for verified text (one-year claim window, transfer of unclaimed excess to the county general fund, AB 418 of 2025 limited to Chapter 8 sales). Correction: the prior citation to 4677-4682 was unverified and is dropped. No LA County-specific surplus policy or Tyler suit located. Monell attaches only to county policy.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "ca-los-angeles-county-ca-la-county-tax-defaulted-property-sale-treasurer-and-tax",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 3.0,
   "rank": 107
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Louisiana",
   "state_code": "LA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Secure Online Child Interaction and Age Limitation Act (SB 162 / Act 456 of 2023): social media age verification and parental consent",
   "citation": "Act 456 of 2023 (La. R.S. 51:1751 et seq. -- from memory; verify)",
   "subject_area": "online_minors",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Moody v. NetChoice, 603 U.S. 707 (2024)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Struck on summary judgment, but state argues the 5th Cir.'s Texas app-store stay supports enforcement; circuit risk is real.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "NetChoice v. Murrill",
     "court": "M.D. La. (deGravelles, J.); 5th Cir.",
     "number": "5th Cir. No. 26-30016; M.D. La. number not captured (CourtListener lamd.66180)",
     "date": "2025-12-15",
     "outcome": "Summary judgment for NetChoice; Act 456 permanently enjoined; State appeal pending (State brief Mar. 25, 2026; NetChoice brief May 26, 2026); no Fifth Circuit ruling found",
     "why": "Social-media definition unclear; age verification burdens lawful speech"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://netchoice.org/netchoice-v-murrill-louisiana/",
    "https://www.biometricupdate.com/202602/netchoice-wins-permanent-injunction-to-louisiana-social-media-age-check-law",
    "https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/415873/louisiana-ag-presses-appeals-court-to-lift-block-o.html"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Fifth Circuit docket number from search result. Relief covers NetChoice members. Statute cite (La. R.S. 51:1751 et seq.) from memory, still unverified.",
   "_file": "states_southcentral_mountain.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "la-louisiana-secure-online-child-interaction-and-age-limitation-act-sb-162-act-4",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 3.0,
   "rank": 108
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Mississippi",
   "state_code": "MS",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Tax sale, two-year redemption, tax deed to purchaser",
   "citation": "Miss. Code Ann. § 27-41-59 et seq. (sale); § 27-43-3 (notice); § 27-45-3 et seq. (redemption and deed); § 27-45-27 (purchaser lien)",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings (surplus equity); Fourteenth Amendment due process (notice)",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County (2023); Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006); Mullane v. Central Hanover, 339 U.S. 306 (1950)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Regime is a tax-deed sale with a purchaser lien and no verified mechanism returning value above the bid; I could not confirm whether any surplus is held for the owner or whether the Legislature amended after Tyler.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Rebuild America, Inc. v. Norris",
     "court": "Miss. Supreme Court (cert. review of Court of Appeals)",
     "number": "2009-CT-01191-SCT",
     "date": "2009-07-20",
     "outcome": "Tax sale set aside; owner won",
     "why": "Sheriff did not personally serve owner as § 27-43-3 requires although his correct address was known; decided on statutory notice grounds, not constitutional (no Jones v. Flowers discussion). Date field on source page ambiguous (also shows 06/16/2011), so treat date as unverified."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://hallapproved.com/ms/cases/supreme/2009/865931/",
    "https://codes.findlaw.com/ms/title-27-taxation-and-finance/ms-code-sect-27-45-27/",
    "https://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2025/html/HB/0600-0699/HB0625IN.htm"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Read only a FindLaw summary of § 27-45-27 (purchaser lien at 1.5%/month, purchaser barred from challenging validity, officer immunity) and a case summary page. Statute text for §§ 27-41-59 and 27-45-3 not retrieved; redemption period and surplus handling not confirmed. One secondary source claims the Mississippi high court struck a surplus law under the state constitution; unconfirmed, no case name, do not rely. NCLC lists MS among states where owners may lose equity. Notice is three-part (personal, mail, publication) with a safe harbor for clerk and sheriff compliance (§ 27-43-3), a possible Jones v. Flowers lever when mail fails. Follow-up needed: Legislature 2024-26 session bills and MS post-Tyler suits. Pung v. Isabella County (U.S. June 23, 2026) per Holland & Knight alert (docket/U.S. cite not retrieved): when the sale is fairly conducted, compensation is the sale surplus, not FMV; fairness of the auction remains open. TIA/comity: 28 U.S.C. 1341 and Fair Assessment in Real Estate Ass'n v. McNary bar federal damages/injunction suits that attack state tax administration where a plain, speedy, efficient state remedy exists; courts split on whether a Tyler surplus claim (a takings claim for proceeds after the tax is paid) escapes the bar, so plan on a state-court or Williamson-free forum analysis. Plemons v. Gale, 396 F.3d 569 (4th Cir. 2005): private tax-lien purchaser not a state actor for mere purchase; foreclosure-stage conduct invoking state process is the stronger hook. Re-check 2026-11-12: Miss. Code 27-41-77 (excess bid) as quoted in the introduced text of HB 625 (2025): excess over taxes and costs is paid into the county treasury and then county general funds; if the land is redeemed or the purchaser's title is defeated the excess stays with the county; after the redemption period expires unredeemed, the excess is paid to the owner on request; if the owner does not request it within 2 years after the redemption period ends, the county retains it. HB 625 would have deleted the 2-year window; passage not confirmed (the official session law was not checked). Section 27-41-77 was read only through a bill's quotation of existing law, so verification stays secondary. The 2-year-then-forfeit rule is the Tyler-type exposure, but Mississippi sells for premium bids so a surplus exists only if bids exceed taxes. Two-year redemption is cited to 27-45-3 by secondary sources.",
   "_file": "taxsale_east.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "ms-mississippi-tax-sale-two-year-redemption-tax-deed-to-purchaser",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 3.0,
   "rank": 109
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Montana",
   "state_code": "MT",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Tax lien sale and county tax deed",
   "citation": "Mont. Code Ann. 15-17-101 et seq. (tax lien sale/assignment); 15-18-111 (3-year redemption); 15-18-211 (tax deed); 15-18-219 to -221 (owner-occupied residential/ag/forest deed auction and surplus)",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause (via 14th Amendment); Mont. Const. art. II, § 29",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026) (decided 2026-06-23; sale-price baseline for just compensation after a fairly conducted tax sale; FMV theory and Excessive Fines theory rejected; procedural-unfairness claims left open on remand)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "County/purchaser takes tax deed after redemption; surplus retention rules unverified.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://archive.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0150/chapter_0180/part_0020/sections_index.html",
    "https://archive.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0150/chapter_0180/part_0010/section_0110/0150-0180-0010-0110.html"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Read MCA 2025 text (archive.legmt.gov). Redemption: first working day of August, 3 years after lien attaches (15-18-111). Two deed tracks. (1) Owner-occupied residential, agricultural dwelling, and forest property: assignee must apply (15-18-219), county holds a public auction with opening bid = redemption amount + fees + half of assessed (or appraised) value (15-18-220), and the treasurer pays surplus to the legal titleholder of record within 30 days (15-18-221; amended 2021, pre-Tyler). (2) All other property (commercial, vacant, non-owner-occupied): treasurer 'shall grant the assignee a tax deed' if not redeemed (15-18-211, amended 2019), with no surplus mechanism in the text read, so the full equity above the lien goes to the assignee or county. Post-Tyler amendments: none found in the section histories (latest 2021). Vulnerability lowered from 4 to 3 because the owner-occupied track already returns surplus; the non-occupied deed track remains exposed (and Plemons-type state action for a private assignee). No cases found or claimed; no Tyler suit confirmed. 15-17 (lien sale) sections not read. TIA/comity and Pung limits (damages = sale surplus; a deed to an assignee with no sale gives no market-price surplus) still apply.",
   "_file": "taxsale_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "mt-montana-tax-lien-sale-and-county-tax-deed",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 3.0,
   "rank": 110
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Nebraska",
   "state_code": "NE",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Tax deed without foreclosure for low-value parcels; surplus from assessed value",
   "citation": "Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 77-1824, 77-1837, 77-1838, 77-1903; L.B. 727 (2023)",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause (via 14th Amendment); Neb. Const. art. I, § 21",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Fair v. Continental Resources, 317 Neb. 391, 10 N.W.3d 510 (2024)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "After L.B. 727 foreclosure sale is the default, but low-value parcels (reported ~110% of owed / $25,000 threshold) can be deeded without foreclosure with surplus measured by assessed value.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Fair v. Continental Resources, Inc.",
     "court": "Neb. Sup. Ct.",
     "number": "S-21-0363 (number not verified)",
     "date": "2024-08",
     "outcome": "Owners have protected equity interest; takings claim cognizable against private tax-certificate purchaser; remanded",
     "why": "On GVR after Tyler; exact day not verified; 317 Neb. 391"
    },
    {
     "case": "Nieveen v. TAX 106",
     "court": "Neb. Sup. Ct.",
     "number": "S-21-0364",
     "date": "2024-08",
     "outcome": "Reversed in part and remanded for takings claim vs. Vintage Management, LLC",
     "why": "U.S. Supreme Court GVR'd June 5, 2023; 317 Neb. 425 (2024); exact day not verified"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://impactforequity.org/report/liening-on-the-wrong-side-of-the-law-a-multi-state-comparative-analysis-of-property-tax-sale-reform-in-response-to-tyler-v-hennepin/",
    "https://law.justia.com/cases/nebraska/supreme-court/2024/s-21-364.html",
    "https://www.nelsonmullins.com/insights/alerts/additional_nelson_mullins_alerts/all/reacting-to-tyler-v-hennepin-county-nebraska-supreme-court-imposes-liability-on-investors"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Nebraska state-court takings holding supports 1983 but plaintiffs there sued in state court. Pre-L.B. 727 deeds remain exposed. Private purchaser state action: Plemons v. Gale, 396 F.3d 569 (4th Cir. 2005) supports state action for private tax-lien purchasers; Nebraska Supreme Court (Fair/Nieveen, 2024) treated private purchaser as liable for taking under state privilege. TIA/comity: 28 U.S.C. 1341 and Fair Assessment v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100 (1981) may be raised against federal suits over county tax enforcement; former-owner surplus takings claims are usually framed as challenging post-collection retention, not tax assessment/collection, but this is not uniformly settled; check circuit law. After Pung, FMV-based damages theories are weak; viable claims target no-sale transfers to government/purchaser, forfeiture of unclaimed surplus, unfair procedure, and pre-cure deeds. Re-check 2026-11-12: Justia returned 403, so the Nebraska opinions and L.B. 727 were not re-read; entry unchanged.",
   "_file": "taxsale_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "ne-nebraska-tax-deed-without-foreclosure-for-low-value-parcels-surplus-from-asse",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 3.0,
   "rank": 111
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New York",
   "state_code": "NY",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "CCIA sensitive places (parks, transit, Times Square, bars, etc.)",
   "citation": "N.Y. Penal Law § 265.01-e",
   "subject_area": "firearms_carry",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Bruen; Wolford v. Lopez, 609 U.S. 185 (2026); United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Antonyuk upheld most listed places on facial review but Wolford and Christian sharpen analogue analysis; Times Square, parks, and transit are most exposed.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Antonyuk v. James",
     "court": "2d Cir.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2024-10-24",
     "outcome": "Most sensitive-place provisions upheld facially; some enjoined (e.g., private-property default, parts of licensing)",
     "why": "Historical analogues for schools, transit, parks, and similar places; cert denied 2025 (number not verified)"
    },
    {
     "case": "Christian v. James",
     "court": "2d Cir.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2026-05-18",
     "outcome": "Urban public-park carry ban upheld on facial review",
     "why": "Facial challenge; analogues for crowded urban parks"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://casemine.com/commentary/us/second-circuit-rejects-new-york%E2%80%99s-opt-in-default-gun-ban-on-public-access-private-property-while-upholding-an-urban-public-park-carry-ban-on-facial-review/view"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "As-applied challenges and post-Wolford reconsideration are the opening. Circuit law is hostile on facial claims.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "ny-new-york-ccia-sensitive-places-parks-transit-times-square-bars-etc",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 3.0,
   "rank": 112
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Oregon",
   "state_code": "OR",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Measure 114: permit-to-purchase and large-capacity magazine ban",
   "citation": "Or. Ballot Measure 114 (2022), as amended by HB 3075 (2023), HB 4145 (2026); effective date Jan. 1, 2028",
   "subject_area": "firearms_hardware",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment (federal); Or. Const. art. I, § 27",
   "key_precedent": "Bruen; Duncan; Viramontes (2026)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Federal court upheld; Oregon Supreme Court decision pending (argued Nov. 6, 2025); effective date pushed to 2028; magazine ban faces the post-Viramontes tide.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Oregon Firearms Federation v. Kotek",
     "court": "D. Or.",
     "number": null,
     "date": null,
     "outcome": "Measure 114 held constitutional (Immergut)",
     "why": "Magazines not protected arms / consistent with tradition; permit regime ok"
    },
    {
     "case": "Oregon Firearms Federation v. Kotek",
     "court": "9th Cir.",
     "number": null,
     "date": null,
     "outcome": "Appeal stayed pending Duncan",
     "why": "Awaiting California magazine case"
    },
    {
     "case": "Arnold v. Kotek",
     "court": "Or. Supreme Court",
     "number": "S071885",
     "date": "2025-11-06",
     "outcome": "Argued; no opinion found",
     "why": "Pending"
    },
    {
     "case": "Arnold v. Kotek",
     "court": "Or. Ct. App.",
     "number": "A183242",
     "date": "2025-03-12",
     "outcome": "Facially valid under Art. I, § 27 (338 Or. App. 556)",
     "why": "Reversed Harney County trial court"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/court-of-appeals/2025/a183242.html",
    "https://seattlered.com/legal/oregon-measure-114-supreme-court-hb-4145-permit-magazine-ban-2028",
    "https://www.firearmspolicy.org/arnoldvkotek"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Federal docket number not captured; federal decision date (July 2023) not verified. Statute not yet in force, so a pre-enforcement federal challenge faces ripeness issues. Ninth Circuit stay is the bottleneck.",
   "_file": "states_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "or-oregon-measure-114-permit-to-purchase-and-large-capacity-magazine-ban",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 3.0,
   "rank": 113
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Pennsylvania",
   "state_code": "PA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Civil asset forfeiture (Pennsylvania Forfeiture Act)",
   "citation": "42 Pa.C.S. §§ 5801-5808",
   "subject_area": "forfeiture_fines",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fourteenth Amendment (due process); Excessive Fines (Eighth)",
   "key_precedent": "Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. 146 (2019); Culley v. Marshall (2024)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Culley rejects a mandatory prompt-hearing rule; but Timbs excessive-fines and fee/probable-cause theories remain; 2017 reforms raised protections.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [
    "https://ij.org/pfp-state-pages/pfp-pennsylvania/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "No 2026 federal challenge found. Philadelphia program litigated earlier (Sourovelis) and ended by consent decree (not verified). Excessive-fines state cases exist (e.g., Commonwealth v. 1997 Chevrolet, Pa. 2017). Impact in numbers; IJ grades PA D-.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Eighth Amendment",
   "id": "pa-pennsylvania-civil-asset-forfeiture-pennsylvania-forfeiture-act",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 3.0,
   "rank": 114
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Vermont",
   "state_code": "VT",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "72-hour waiting period for firearm purchases (Act 45 of 2023)",
   "citation": "13 V.S.A. § 4025",
   "subject_area": "firearms_carry",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment (acquisition of arms)",
   "key_precedent": "Bruen; Ortega v. Grisham (10th Cir.); contrast Beckwith v. Frey (1st Cir. 2026)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Second Circuit panel signaled at Apr. 28, 2026 argument it may rule for challengers, but no decision located.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs v. Birmingham",
     "court": "D. Vt.; appeal 2d Cir.",
     "number": "D. Vt. 2:23-cv-00710; 2d Cir. 24-2026 (inferred from amicus filename; verify)",
     "date": "2024-07-23",
     "outcome": "PI denied; appeal argued Apr. 28, 2026; no decision found",
     "why": "District court found plaintiffs unlikely to succeed."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/second-circuit-signals-vermonts-gun-wait-period-burdens-buyers",
    "https://vtdigger.org/2024/07/24/federal-judge-rules-against-gun-rights-groups-seeking-to-block-enforcement-of-2-state-firearms-laws/",
    "https://assets.nationbuilder.com/csbvtfsc/pages/1/attachments/original/1787858926/Lawsuit_Status_8_25_2026.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Decision date for the PI denial approximated from VTDigger (July 24, 2024 report). Check Second Circuit for any ruling since Aug. 2026. Best live waiting-period target in the region.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "vt-vermont-72-hour-waiting-period-for-firearm-purchases-act-45-of-2023",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 3.0,
   "rank": 115
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Washington",
   "state_code": "WA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Assault weapons ban (HB 1240)",
   "citation": "Wash. Rev. Code § 9.41.390",
   "subject_area": "firearms_hardware",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Viramontes v. Cook County (cert. granted June 30, 2026)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "SCOTUS review of AR-15 bans makes the law a likely casualty after OT2026; present lower-court posture unfavorable.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Hartford v. Ferguson",
     "court": "W.D. Wash.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2023-06-06",
     "outcome": "PI/TRO denied",
     "why": "No irreparable-harm showing and Ninth Circuit precedent; case later paused"
    },
    {
     "case": "Banta v. Ferguson",
     "court": "E.D. Wash.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2024-10-02",
     "outcome": "PI denied",
     "why": "Ninth Circuit Bianchi/Duncan trend"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://washingtonstatestandard.com/2023/06/06/judge-declines-to-block-enforcement-of-washingtons-semiautomatic-gun-ban/",
    "https://www.nraila.org/articles/20241002/washington-district-court-denies-preliminary-injunction-of-assault-weapon-ban-in-nra-ila-supported-case"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Ninth Circuit status of either case not confirmed.",
   "_file": "states_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "wa-washington-assault-weapons-ban-hb-1240",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 3.0,
   "rank": 116
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Boston, MA",
   "state_code": "MA",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Boston Residents Jobs Policy (resident, minority and women hiring goals on city-funded projects)",
   "citation": "City of Boston ordinance known as the Residents Jobs Policy (1983); verify Revised Ordinances citation",
   "subject_area": "race_preferences",
   "constitutional_provision": "Equal Protection; Privileges and Immunities",
   "key_precedent": "SFFA v. Harvard (2023); United Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Camden, 465 U.S. 208 (1984)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Race-based workforce goals (25% people of color) face strict scrutiny; resident preference raises Privileges and Immunities issues under Camden.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "From memory; I could not confirm the code section or any prior challenge. Policy was enforced by Mayor's order and city ordinance; check which. Highest-uncertainty entry; treat as lead.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "Equal Protection",
   "id": "ma-boston-ma-boston-residents-jobs-policy-resident-minority-and-women-hiring-goa",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.67,
   "rank": 117
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Kansas",
   "state_code": "KS",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Tax foreclosure sale and surplus",
   "citation": "K.S.A. 79-2801 et seq.; 79-2803 (judgment, redemption, excess to owner); 79-2804 (sale, county bid); 79-2804b (12-month limit to set aside); 79-2805 (apportionment, county resale)",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause (via 14th Amendment)",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026) (decided 2026-06-23; sale-price baseline for just compensation after a fairly conducted tax sale; FMV theory and Excessive Fines theory rejected; procedural-unfairness claims left open on remand)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Judicial foreclosure with sale; surplus handling and unclaimed-funds window not verified post-Tyler.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch79/079_028_0003.html",
    "https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch79/079_028_0004.html",
    "https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch79/079_028_0005.html",
    "https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch79/079_028_0004b.html"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Statute text read (Kansas Revisor; no amendments after 1999 in the history lines for these sections). 79-2803: if a parcel sells for more than the lien plus its share of costs, the court orders the excess paid to the owner or party entitled on due proof (no stated claim deadline or forfeiture). 79-2804: the county may bid at the sale but no county bid may exceed the lien plus costs, so a county purchase takes the parcel for the debt; the sheriff's deed vests fee simple. 79-2805: when the county later resells a bid-in parcel, proceeds are applied to advertising and sale costs, then prorated to the taxing funds; nothing in 79-2805 returns any excess over the lien to the former owner. 79-2804b bars actions to open or set aside the judgment or sale after 12 months from confirmation. Verified text shows the Tyler-type gap for county-acquired parcels (county buys for the debt, resells, keeps the excess), so vulnerability raised 3 to 4. Counter: Pung ties damages to sale surplus after a fair sale; the county's below-market bid-in is not an arm's-length sale, and the later resale price is the likely measure. No litigation found. No Kansas post-Tyler amendment found in these sections.",
   "_file": "taxsale_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "ks-kansas-tax-foreclosure-sale-and-surplus",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 2.67,
   "rank": 118
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Michigan",
   "state_code": "MI",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act 2023 amendments (pregnancy-termination discrimination applied to pro-life employers)",
   "citation": "Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2101 et seq. (as amended 2023)",
   "subject_area": "religion",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (expressive association; free exercise)",
   "key_precedent": "Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000); Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 U.S. 522 (2021)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Judge found plaintiffs likely to succeed on First Amendment claim and barred enforcement against two employers pending state-court certification.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Right to Life of Michigan v. Nessel",
     "court": "W.D. Mich. (Jonker, J.)",
     "number": "1:26-cv-390 (opinion and order is ECF No. 61)",
     "date": "2026-07-10",
     "outcome": "Preliminary injunction for the plaintiffs only; questions on amended ELCRA provisions certified to the Michigan Supreme Court (not required to answer); no answer found",
     "why": "Likely success on First Amendment claim; Pullman-type certification of statutory scope"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://adfmedia.org/case/right-to-life-of-michigan-v-nessel/",
    "https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/anti-abortion-groups-win-halt-to-michigans-worker-anti-bias-law"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Case number per search results (Gongwer hosts the ruling PDF); opinion not read. Michigan Supreme Court docket for the certified questions not found. A separate earlier RLM case is W.D. Mich. 1:23-cv-01189.",
   "_file": "states_midwest.json",
   "provision_group": "Establishment / Free Exercise",
   "id": "mi-michigan-elliott-larsen-civil-rights-act-2023-amendments-pregnancy-terminatio",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.67,
   "rank": 119
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Minnesota",
   "state_code": "MN",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Election deepfake law",
   "citation": "Minn. Stat. § 609.771",
   "subject_area": "election_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech; overbreadth; no parody exemption)",
   "key_precedent": "Kohls v. Bonta (E.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2025) (PI granted vs. California analogue); Kohls v. Ellison, 166 F.4th 728 (8th Cir. 2026)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Content-based criminal ban on political speech; California analogue was enjoined; Minnesota challenge lost only on standing and delay.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Kohls v. Ellison",
     "court": "D. Minn. / 8th Cir.",
     "number": "D. Minn. 0:24-cv-03754 (not confirmed)",
     "date": "2026-02-09",
     "outcome": "PI denied; Eighth Circuit affirmed (Colloton, Loken, Benton); rehearing en banc denied",
     "why": "Standing and unreasonable delay, not the merits; case continues in district court."
    },
    {
     "case": "X Corp. v. Ellison",
     "court": "D. Minn.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2025-04-23",
     "outcome": "Pending; reportedly coordinated with Kohls",
     "why": "Platform challenge filed 2025; date and status not confirmed."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://reason.com/volokh/2026/02/09/no-preliminary-injunction-in-challenge-to-minnesota-election-deepfake-law-but-challenge-goes-on",
    "https://hlli.org/kohls-v-ellison/",
    "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca8.111041/gov.uscourts.ca8.111041.00805242759.0.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Standing is the obstacle; a plaintiff who is a creator of parody and acted promptly would be better. I did not open the Eighth Circuit opinion; the F.4th cite and docket number come from search results.",
   "_file": "states_midwest.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "mn-minnesota-election-deepfake-law",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.67,
   "rank": 120
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Nevada",
   "state_code": "NV",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "County treasurer tax foreclosure and deed",
   "citation": "NRS 361.570-361.610 (surplus: NRS 361.610)",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause (via 14th Amendment)",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026) (decided 2026-06-23; sale-price baseline for just compensation after a fairly conducted tax sale; FMV theory and Excessive Fines theory rejected; procedural-unfairness claims left open on remand)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "County takes tax deed; surplus handling and claim window unverified.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://nevada.public.law/statutes/nrs_361.610",
    "https://archive.leg.state.nv.us/Session/83rd2025/Bills/AB/AB133.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Verified 2026-11-12 on nevada.public.law and the Legislature's AB 133 (2025) digest, which restates current law. NRS 361.610(3): out of the excess proceeds the treasurer pays to the county general fund the first $300 and 10 percent of the next $10,000 before any claim; (4): the remainder is held in a separate account and, if unclaimed within 1 year after the treasurer's deed is recorded, goes to the county general fund and is never refunded to the former owner. Nev. Sup. Ct. Artmor Investments v. Nye County (No. 82742, 2022; pre-Tyler; located by search, opinion not read) enforces the one-year deadline. AB 133 (2025, prefiled) would add a 5 percent retention and change the $300 tier; I could not confirm enactment, so the retention described is current law only if AB 133 failed or was not passed in this form. Vulnerability raised from 3 to 4 because the pre-claim fixed retention takes part of the surplus outright, which Tyler does not permit, and the one-year forfeiture compounds it. No Tyler suit found. TIA/comity (28 U.S.C. 1341; Fair Assessment v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100 (1981)) may be raised against federal suits; surplus claims are usually framed as post-collection retention, not assessment or collection, but circuit law should be checked. After Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026), damages are limited to the sale surplus.",
   "_file": "taxsale_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "nv-nevada-county-treasurer-tax-foreclosure-and-deed",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 2.67,
   "rank": 121
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New Jersey",
   "state_code": "NJ",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Carry permit liability-insurance mandate and permit conditions",
   "citation": "N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4(c), 2C:58-4.4 (insurance)",
   "subject_area": "firearms_carry",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Bruen; Koons panel (2025)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Panel held the insurance requirement likely unconstitutional; fees/four-reference requirement upheld by panel.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Koons v. Attorney General N.J.",
     "court": "3d Cir. (en banc)",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2025-09-10",
     "outcome": "Panel enjoined insurance mandate; en banc pending",
     "why": "Same en banc proceeding as sensitive places"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.ammoland.com/2025/09/third-circuit-takes-flexible-bruen-stance-upholds-most-of-new-jerseys-concealed-carry-law"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Citation to insurance provision not verified against statute text. Fee and ammo-permit challenges: none found. Hollow-point and suppressor bans: no live challenge found; weak.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "nj-new-jersey-carry-permit-liability-insurance-mandate-and-permit-conditions",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.67,
   "rank": 122
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New Jersey",
   "state_code": "NJ",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Turnpike Authority/state construction minority hiring goals and PLA mandate",
   "citation": "N.J.A.C. (NJTA 'good faith efforts' targeted employment goals; exact cite not verified)",
   "subject_area": "race_preferences",
   "constitutional_provision": "Equal Protection; First Amendment (compelled union speech)",
   "key_precedent": "SFFA; Croson",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Race-targeted employment goals invite strict scrutiny; pending suit filed April 2026.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Earle Asphalt Co. v. New Jersey Turnpike Authority",
     "court": "D.N.J.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2026-04-01",
     "outcome": "Pending",
     "why": "Complaint filed April 2026 (PLF and WILL counsel); day of month unverified"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://pacificlegal.org/case/earle-asphalt-new-jersey-race-based-contracting/",
    "https://will-law.org/earle-asphalt-company-inc-v-new-jersey-turnpike-authority/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Docket number and exact date null. Covers hiring goals and PLAs, not business set-asides.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "nj-new-jersey-turnpike-authority-state-construction-minority-hiring-goals-and-pl",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.67,
   "rank": 123
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New Jersey",
   "state_code": "NJ",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Tax Sale Law, version in effect before July 10, 2024 (strict foreclosure of tax sale certificates; surplus equity forfeited to certificate holder)",
   "citation": "N.J.S.A. 54:5-1 et seq., esp. 54:5-86 et seq. (pre-L. 2024, c. 39)",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause (via Fourteenth); N.J. Const. art. I, para. 20 (not reached)",
   "key_precedent": "257-261 20th Ave. Realty, LLC v. Roberto, No. A-29-23 (N.J. Jan. 9, 2025); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026)) (fairly conducted sale: compensation is sale surplus, not FMV; fairness challenges preserved); Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "NJ Supreme Court held the old TSL unconstitutional insofar as it forfeits surplus equity and that private lienholders may be state actors; the 2024 cure does not reach final judgments entered before July 10, 2024.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "257-261 20th Ave. Realty, LLC v. Roberto",
     "court": "N.J. Supreme Court (affirming 477 N.J. Super. 339 (App. Div. 2023))",
     "number": "A-29-23 (088959)",
     "date": "2025-01-09",
     "outcome": "AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED; unanimous (Rabner, C.J.); argued Sept. 23, 2024. Pre-2024 Tax Sale Law violates the Takings Clause to the extent it forfeits surplus equity without just compensation",
     "why": "Read the opinion: Roberto's sewer-tax debt was $606 on a property realtor-estimated up to $535,000; Court did not decide full retroactivity for other cases; syllabus says Tyler's retroactivity question was left open and the Court did not resolve who owes compensation"
    },
    {
     "case": "Johnson v. City of East Orange (Pacific Legal Foundation)",
     "court": null,
     "number": null,
     "date": null,
     "outcome": "unknown",
     "why": "Seen only as a PLF opening brief dated 2024-07-24 in a search result; court, number, and posture not verified."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2025/a_29_23.pdf",
    "https://riker.com/publications/new-jersey-aligns-tax-sale-law-with-u-s-supreme-court-decision/",
    "https://pacificlegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/2024-07-24-Johnson-v-City-of-East-Orange-PLF-AOB.pdf"
   ],
   "notes": "Roberto is a direct-review state-court ruling (vacatur of final judgment); a federal 1983 damages suit by owners foreclosed on or before July 9, 2024 is the open lane (retroactivity for already-final judgments, limitations, Rooker-Feldman, res judicata are the hurdles; NJ limitations is 2 years for 1983). TIA/comity: Edmondson (D. Md. 2025) and Cavaluzzi (S.D.N.Y. 2026) treat surplus-equity claims as outside TIA/comity; not tested in D.N.J. here. Pung (2026) fixes the measure at sale proceeds for a fair sale, which limits damages where the certificate was sold at a fair public auction but leaves fairness attacks. Re-check 2026-11-12: opinion syllabus read directly (decided Jan. 9, 2025; argued Sept. 23, 2024). Statute text of N.J.S.A. 54:5-86 not read; L. 2024, c. 39 not read.",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "_file": "taxsale_east.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "nj-new-jersey-tax-sale-law-version-in-effect-before-july-10-2024-strict-foreclos",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 2.67,
   "rank": 124
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New York",
   "state_code": "NY",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Pre-amendment Article 11 county retention of surplus (sales before L. 2024 ch. 55 pt. BB / May 25, 2023); county opt-in to Article 11",
   "citation": "N.Y. Real Prop. Tax Law art. 11 (as in effect before L. 2024, ch. 55, pt. BB)",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause (42 U.S.C. § 1983 against counties); Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines",
   "key_precedent": "Cavaluzzi v. County of Sullivan, 2026 WL 636847 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2026); Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "S.D.N.Y. granted liability summary judgment to 15 of 23 plaintiffs; county retention was a policy choice under optional Article 11, supporting Monell-type liability.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Cavaluzzi v. County of Sullivan",
     "court": "S.D.N.Y. (Engelmayer, J.)",
     "number": "23 Civ. 11067 (PAE), 2026 WL 636847",
     "date": "2026-03-06",
     "outcome": "SJ on takings liability for 15 of 23 plaintiffs; 8 plaintiffs' claims untimely; Excessive Fines claims of the 15 dismissed without prejudice as duplicative; unjust enrichment: SJ for County; damages briefing ordered (lien deductions from the Gains Report disputed)",
     "why": "Article 11 let counties retain surplus but Sullivan adopted it in 1993 and could opt out; three-year limitations; accrual when County receives and retains proceeds (deed date as proxy); EO 202.8 tolling insufficient for the eight. Two earlier plaintiffs dismissed in Sept. 2024 to use the amended Article 11 administrative remedy"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.tax.ny.gov/research/property/legal/judicial/cavaluzzi-v-county-of-sullivan.htm"
   ],
   "notes": "Practical window is narrow: three-year limitations from the deed date means retention events from mid-2023 onward are covered by the amended statute's retroactive claim, while earlier events are largely time-barred except as tolled. Other post-Tyler suits against NY counties (a Times Union item says dozens, including a Saratoga County class action) were not verified. Status 'succeeded' = liability SJ on a county's retention; damages and appeal pending/unknown. Re-check 2026-11-12: opinion read on tax.ny.gov; holdings as stated.",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "_file": "taxsale_east.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "ny-new-york-pre-amendment-article-11-county-retention-of-surplus-sales-before-l-",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.67,
   "rank": 125
  },
  {
   "law_name": "K-12 student-club, DEI and instruction restrictions (S.B. 12 (2025))",
   "citation": "S.B. 12, 89th Leg., R.S. (2025) (Tex. Educ. Code; section numbers not verified)",
   "subject_area": "other_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech/association); Equal Access Act",
   "key_precedent": "Board of Educ. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990); Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Viewpoint/subject-based bar on authorizing LGBTQ-related student clubs conflicts with Equal Access Act and First Amendment; district court granted PI.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "GSA Network v. Morath",
     "court": "S.D. Tex. (Eskridge, J.)",
     "number": "4:25-cv-04090",
     "date": "2026-02-20",
     "outcome": "PI against Houston ISD, Katy ISD, Plano ISD (club, DEI, social transition, LGBT curriculum provisions); Commissioner Morath dismissed",
     "why": "Enforcement rests with districts, so relief is district-limited; law remains in force elsewhere. Appeal status not found."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://transgenderlawcenter.org/case/gsa-network-v-morath/",
    "https://couriertexas.com/2026/02/23/judge-blocks-3-texas-schools-from-dei-ban/",
    "https://mygwork.com/news/federal-judge-blocks-texas-law-targeting-lgbtq-student-clubs"
   ],
   "notes": "Section 1983 suits against other districts could replicate the result; plaintiffs would need a district-level defendant. Re-check 2026-11-12: not independently re-verified in this pass.",
   "jurisdiction": "Texas",
   "state_code": "TX",
   "level": "state",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "states_southcentral_mountain.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "tx-texas-k-12-student-club-dei-and-instruction-restrictions-s-b-12-2025",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.67,
   "rank": 126
  },
  {
   "law_name": "Campus expression restrictions (S.B. 2972), including overnight ban",
   "citation": "S.B. 2972, 89th Leg. (2025) (Tex. Educ. Code § 51.9315 as amended) - not verified",
   "subject_area": "other_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech; overbreadth)",
   "key_precedent": "Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015); Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "District court found the overnight and other provisions likely sweep in protected, non-disruptive speech.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Student groups (FOCUS, The Retrograde, Young Americans for Liberty and others; counsel FIRE) v. University of Texas System",
     "court": "W.D. Tex. (Ezra, J.); 5th Cir.",
     "number": "not captured",
     "date": "2025-10-14",
     "outcome": "PI granted Oct. 2025 (suit filed Sept. 3, 2025) against enforcement across the UT System; State appealed Nov. 4, 2025; Fifth Circuit argued Oct. 6, 2026; panel questioned the scope of the injunction; no ruling found",
     "why": "Policies ambiguous and a substantial threat to speech; State argued the law regulates universities, not students"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://texastribune.org/2026/10/06/texas-college-campus-protest-first-amendment-lawsuit/",
    "https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/post/victory-federal-court-halts-texas-no-first-amendment-after-dark-campus-speech-ban/"
   ],
   "notes": "Case caption and numbers still not captured; plaintiffs and judge per press (KXAN, Texas Tribune, Higher Ed Dive). Injunction covers the UT System only; other public university systems remain subject. Law: overnight (10 p.m. to 8 a.m.) expression ban, no invited speakers or amplified sound in the final two weeks of term.",
   "jurisdiction": "Texas",
   "state_code": "TX",
   "level": "state",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "states_southcentral_mountain.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "tx-texas-campus-expression-restrictions-s-b-2972-including-overnight-ban",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.67,
   "rank": 127
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Vermont",
   "state_code": "VT",
   "law_name": "Municipal tax sale; one-year redemption; collector's deed",
   "citation": "32 V.S.A. §§ 5252-5261 (esp. §§ 5260, 5261)",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment (Takings); Fourteenth Amendment (due process, notice); Vt. Const. ch. I, art. 2",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Sale to the town/village for exactly the taxes owed, redemption price is purchase price plus 12% (per the complaint), and I found no surplus-return mechanism; notice gaps shown in a pending case.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Flynn v. Town of Barton and Incorporated Village of Orleans",
     "court": "D. Vt.",
     "number": "2:24-cv-00076",
     "date": "2024-01-23",
     "outcome": "unknown (not found)",
     "why": "Complaint read. § 1983 takings, excessive fines and due process claims; home with $79,300 grand list value sold twice for $14,571.48 and $6,549.78; plaintiff redeemed the first sale but the second sale notice never reached her. Disposition not located."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.vtlegalaid.org/sites/vtlegalaid/files/publications/Flynn-v-Town-of-Barton-Complaint-%28as-filed%29.pdf",
    "https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/32/133/05261",
    "https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2026/Workgroups/Senate%20Government%20Operations/Bills/S.196/Drafts,%20Amendments,%20Legal%20Documents/S.196~Cameron%20Wood~As%20Introduced~2-13-2026.pdf"
   ],
   "notes": "§ 5261 read: after the redemption period, collector delivers deed conveying title against the owner; no surplus text on that page. § 5260 text and any surplus provision (e.g., § 5254-5258) not read; Vermont Act 106 (2024) appeared in search results but content unverified. Pending S.196 (2026, introduced by Sen. Clarkson per the bill header) would shorten the redemption period, add taxpayer notice steps (email, door posting, payment plan); would be a second challenge risk if period shortens. Municipalities as sole bidders and tax-sale purchaser being a village (government) limit Plemons issues. TIA/comity: § 1983 damages claims for takings of surplus equity were litigated in federal court in Tyler itself; injunctive/declaratory attacks on the tax-collection scheme face 28 U.S.C. § 1341 and Fair Assessment v. McNary comity, though surplus-after-sale claims are generally not 'assessment/collection' of tax. Search budget was exhausted mid-task, so post-2024 litigation was not exhaustively checked.",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "level": "state",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "taxsale_east.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "vt-vermont-municipal-tax-sale-one-year-redemption-collector-s-deed",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.67,
   "rank": 128
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Virginia",
   "state_code": "VA",
   "law_name": "Judicial tax-sale surplus and unclaimed-surplus forfeiture to locality (in rem tax suit)",
   "citation": "Va. Code Ann. 58.1-3965 et seq., esp. 58.1-3967 (as amended through 2025 Acts ch. 267 (HB 2362))",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment (Takings); Due Process (notice)",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026)); McKeithen v. City of Richmond, 302 Va. 422 (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Unclaimed surplus (and unclaimed lienor amounts) is paid to the locality after two years from confirmation; Va. Sup. Ct. already held that application unconstitutional as to a lienor because a fully paid city has no property interest in the surplus.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "McKeithen v. City of Richmond",
     "court": "Supreme Court of Virginia (Kelsey, J.)",
     "number": "Record No. 210389; 302 Va. 422, 893 S.E.2d 369",
     "date": "2023-10-19",
     "outcome": "Reversed circuit court: as applied, Va. Code § 58.1-3967 unconstitutionally let the City keep surplus proceeds after its lien was satisfied rather than pay the subordinate lienor (Caldwell Trust)",
     "why": "Takings; as-applied relief only, statute left on books. Date from Leagle reprint (Oct. 19, 2023); holding per summaries and the Court of Appeals' later discussion, not read in full here"
    },
    {
     "case": "Refund Recovery Specialist, LLC v. City of Norfolk",
     "court": "Court of Appeals of Virginia",
     "number": "Record No. 0104-25-1",
     "date": "2026-06-16",
     "outcome": "Affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded: circuit court erred in summarily dismissing heirs' petition and in not letting them prove no Citibank debt; takings issue raised and McKeithen discussed; remand for hearing",
     "why": "Home appraised over $330,000 sold Oct. 23, 2023 at auction under 58.1-3965; heirs claim surplus; two-year lienor window had passed. Court of Appeals did not itself rule the statute unconstitutional on these facts."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title58.1/chapter39/section58.1-3967/",
    "https://www.vacourts.gov/opinions/opncavwp/0104251.pdf",
    "https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/58.1-3975/"
   ],
   "notes": "Read 3967 summary (two-year claim by former owner/heirs after confirmation; unclaimed amounts paid by clerk to locality; burden on claimant; local governing body may grant relief by ordinance; history line ends 2025 c. 267) and the full Refund Recovery opinion. Did NOT read HB 2362 text, so I cannot say whether 2025 amendments cured the forfeiture gap; 58.1-3967 still contains the two-year forfeiture language quoted in Refund Recovery. Gaps: short claim window; forfeiture to locality of unclaimed owner surplus; surplus measured by auction price (now sanctioned by Pung if sale fairly conducted, so FMV theory is dead; target is forfeiture and fairness of sale/notice); pre-amendment sales. Notice: Jones v. Flowers requires additional reasonable steps when mailing returned; 58.1-3965 et seq. relies on service and publication for unknown parties; 90-day post-confirmation rehearing for parties served by publication. Private purchaser state action: Plemons v. Gale, 396 F.3d 569 (4th Cir. 2005) arose from a Virginia tax sale; I could not fetch the opinion, so its holding is not verified here and I do not characterize it; check before pleading private-purchaser claims. Most promising forum is Va. state court or E.D./W.D. Va. under Tyler; TIA/comity: 28 U.S.C. 1341 and comity (Fair Assessment v. McNary; Levin v. Commerce Energy) bar federal suits that would enjoin or reduce tax collection, but a post-sale damages/just-compensation claim for surplus retention seeks no change in the tax assessed and Tyler itself was a class action seeking surplus compensation; defendants will still raise both. Not verified for this circuit in this survey. Re-check 2026-11-12: McKeithen decision date fixed at Oct. 19, 2023 (Leagle reprint; Justia and Virginia courts sites blocked); full McKeithen text not read.",
   "level": "state",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "_file": "taxsale_east.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "va-virginia-judicial-tax-sale-surplus-and-unclaimed-surplus-forfeiture-to-locali",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 2.67,
   "rank": 129
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "West Virginia",
   "state_code": "WV",
   "law_name": "Tax lien sale and deed: surplus claim within two years, then 90/10 to state school fund and Auditor",
   "citation": "W. Va. Code 11A-3-65 (also 11A-3-44, -45, -46, -48, -55, -66; CS for SB 651 (2026 R.S.) proposes amendments)",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment (Takings); Eighth Amendment (Excessive Fines); Due Process (notice)",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026); Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Former owner has only two years after sale confirmation to claim surplus in circuit court; unclaimed surplus is paid by the sheriff to the Auditor (90% general school fund, 10% Auditor's Land Operating Fund), and a federal court already let a Tyler claim proceed.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Reutelshofer and Grady v. Wood County Commission (reported as Grady v. Wood County)",
     "court": "S.D. W. Va.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2025-01 (early January; exact date not stated in source)",
     "outcome": "Motion to dismiss denied; Tyler takings claim (and Eighth Amendment excessive-fines claim) proceed to discovery",
     "why": "Tax lien sold Nov. 10, 2020 for $3,467.79 on $1,282.41 debt; clerical misapplication of redemption payment; tax deed issued April 29, 2022 to TASHPA; court rejected argument that state redemption/challenge procedures defeated the claim, relying on Continental Resources v. Fair and Hall v. Meisner. Source does not report TIA/comity discussion. Case number not in source."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.nelsonmullins.com/insights/alerts/additional_nelson_mullins_alerts/all/reacting-to-tyler-v-hennepin-county-west-virginia-federal-court-allows-wood-county-tax-sale-challenge-to-proceed",
    "https://bills.wvlegislature.gov/bill/history/2026/RS/SB651",
    "https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Text_HTML/2026_SESSIONS/RS/bills/sb651 sub1.pdf"
   ],
   "notes": "11A-3-65 text read from the CS for SB 651 PDF (strike/insert marks lost in extraction): two-year claim window after confirmation; unclaimed surplus to Auditor; proviso that surplus accruing before the effective date and already expended is exempt, while unspent pre-effective-date surplus is subject to the section (retroactivity gap for pre-reform takings; I could not tell which words are new). SB 651 title: modifies sale dates, requires personal service of certified notice of impending sale on certain owners/occupants, allows Auditor to use a private auctioneer with buyer's fee, modifies notice to redeem, and changes distribution of surplus. Committee substitute reported Feb. 24, 2026; I could not confirm passage or effective date. Commentary says WV made 2022 reforms (2022 W. Va. Acts 2361, per source). Pung holds sale price is the baseline when the sale is fairly conducted, so the Grady plaintiffs' best theories are forfeiture of surplus, defective redemption accounting, and unfair sale process. Private lien purchaser: Fourth Circuit Plemons v. Gale (2005) governs state-action arguments against private buyers; holding not verified here. TIA/comity: 28 U.S.C. 1341 and comity (Fair Assessment v. McNary; Levin v. Commerce Energy) bar federal suits that would enjoin or reduce tax collection, but a post-sale damages/just-compensation claim for surplus retention seeks no change in the tax assessed and Tyler itself was a class action seeking surplus compensation; defendants will still raise both. Not verified for this circuit in this survey.",
   "level": "state",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "_file": "taxsale_east.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "wv-west-virginia-tax-lien-sale-and-deed-surplus-claim-within-two-years-then-90-1",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 2.67,
   "rank": 130
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Alabama",
   "state_code": "AL",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "App Store Accountability Act (HB 161)",
   "citation": "2026 Ala. Acts, HB 161 (code section not verified); earlier HB 570 (2025) also reported",
   "subject_area": "age_verification",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Moody v. NetChoice, 603 U.S. 707 (2024); Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, 606 U.S. ___ (2025) (cuts against)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Age-gating all app downloads is broader than adult-content AV upheld in Paxton; Texas app-store law was enjoined",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "CCIA v. Marshall (caption approximate)",
     "court": "N.D. or M.D. Ala. (not verified)",
     "number": "not verified",
     "date": "2026",
     "outcome": "Pending",
     "why": "CCIA sued to block; filing date conflicts across sources (Feb. vs. Oct. 2026)"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.mlex.com/mlex/articles/2543750",
    "https://idtechwire.com/ccia-sues-to-block-alabamas-app-store-age-verification-law/",
    "https://compliancehub.wiki/alabama-app-store-age-verification-state-roundup/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Secondary headline sources only; dates and case caption unconfirmed. Texas SB 2420 comparison from one search snippet.",
   "_file": "states_southeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "al-alabama-app-store-accountability-act-hb-161",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.25,
   "rank": 131
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Atlanta, GA",
   "state_code": "GA",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Atlanta Equal Business Opportunity (EBO) program with minority and female participation goals (25% minority, 10% female)",
   "citation": "Atlanta Code of Ordinances, Part II, Ch. 2 (EBO/contract compliance); section numbers not verified",
   "subject_area": "race_preferences",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection",
   "key_precedent": "SFFA v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023); Croson, 488 U.S. 469 (1989)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Race-conscious goals need current disparity evidence; Atlanta says it kept the thresholds after rebranding its DEI office.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://ajc-ajc-prod.cdn.arcpublishing.com/business/2025/09/amid-federal-pressure-atlanta-forced-to-evaluate-vaunted-contract-diversity-goals",
    "https://www.ajc.com/business/2026/04/atlanta-quietly-joins-fight-against-the-trump-administrations-anti-dei-push/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Search snippets mention older challenges (Southeastern Legal Foundation; a plaintiff named Parks), undated and unverified; no current case located. Status 'none' means none found. 11th Cir. precedent (Engineering Contractors Ass'n v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 122 F.3d 895 (1997)) applies strict scrutiny but upheld a county program; check.",
   "_file": "cities_26_50.json",
   "provision_group": "Equal Protection",
   "id": "ga-atlanta-ga-atlanta-equal-business-opportunity-ebo-program-with-minority-and-f",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.25,
   "rank": 132
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Chicago, IL",
   "state_code": "IL",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Vehicle impound / immobilization for unpaid debt and boot ordinance",
   "citation": "Chicago Municipal Code § 9-92-080, § 9-100-120 et seq., § 2-14-132",
   "subject_area": "forfeiture_fines",
   "constitutional_provision": "Excessive Fines (Eighth/14th); Takings; Due Process; Fourth Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. 146 (2019); Culley v. Marshall (2024); Tyler v. Hennepin",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Fines and fees tied to impound plus disposal of vehicles over unpaid ticket debt raise excessive-fines and takings theories; a cert petition on the takings theory is pending.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "O'Donnell v. City of Chicago",
     "court": "U.S. Supreme Court",
     "number": "25-1098",
     "date": "2026-07-01",
     "outcome": "Cert petition pending (city brief in opposition filed July 2026)",
     "why": "Takings challenge to immobilization/impound/disposal of vehicles of residents with unpaid ticket debt; outcome unknown"
    },
    {
     "case": "Davis v. City of Chicago (Institute for Justice class action)",
     "court": "N.D. Ill.",
     "number": "null",
     "date": "null",
     "outcome": "Federal excessive-fines and other claims dismissed per Clearinghouse docket (updated June 21, 2026)",
     "why": "Reason not confirmed; Chicago also reformed the program after suit"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://clearinghouse.net/case/17198/",
    "https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/25-1098",
    "https://ij.org/press-release/chicagoans-challenging-the-citys-impound-program-will-appeal-court-decision/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "A 'Pinkney' case was not found in searching, so I did not record it. O'Donnell petition posture and Davis details are from search snippets only; verify dockets. A 2025 Seventh Circuit ruling reportedly let Chicago keep impounding/selling cars despite the state license-suspension change. Circuit has been unfavorable.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "il-chicago-il-vehicle-impound-immobilization-for-unpaid-debt-and-boot-ordinance",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.25,
   "rank": 133
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Colorado",
   "state_code": "CO",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Permit-to-purchase / training regime for semiautomatic firearms (SB25-003)",
   "citation": "SB25-003, Secs. 2-3 (eff. Aug. 1, 2026); codification not verified",
   "subject_area": "firearms_hardware",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022); Heller; pending Viramontes / Grant v. Higgins hardware-ban questions",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Hardware-ban/'not protected arms' question is unsettled and SCOTUS reportedly granted cert on semiauto rifles (unverified), but district court just denied a PI.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Del Toro et al. v. Polis (plaintiffs incl. Colorado State Shooting Association; Mountain States Legal Foundation; NRA-ILA counsel)",
     "court": "D. Colo. (Sr. J. William J. Martinez)",
     "number": "1:25-cv-?? (CourtListener docket id 246985; number not confirmed)",
     "date": "2026-11-04",
     "outcome": "Preliminary injunction DENIED; State's motion to dismiss still pending",
     "why": "Court found plaintiffs unlikely to show a violation: semiautos likely not protected 'arms' absent historical tradition of widespread use, and shall-issue licensing permissible; discretion is the exception; 3,574 applications and 1,125 eligibility cards by 9/1/2026."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/11/05/federal-judge-declines-to-block-colorado-permit-to-purchase-gun-law/",
    "https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/israel-del-toro-jared-polis-order.pdf"
   ],
   "notes": "Lead said RMGO sues; I found no RMGO suit on SB25-003, the suit is Del Toro/CSSA. Plaintiffs challenge only permit-to-purchase sections. Appeal not reported as of 11/5. Cert-grant claim comes from a CML article and must be checked. Order text not read.",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "states_southcentral_mountain.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "co-colorado-permit-to-purchase-training-regime-for-semiautomatic-firearms-sb25-0",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.25,
   "rank": 134
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Colorado",
   "state_code": "CO",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Large-capacity magazine ban (over 15 rounds)",
   "citation": "C.R.S. 18-12-302",
   "subject_area": "firearms_hardware",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022); pending Viramontes v. Cook County / Grant v. Higgins",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Bruen common-use argument; but most circuits upheld magazine limits and 10th Cir. has not ruled on the merits.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "United States v. Colorado (DOJ)",
     "court": "federal court (district not confirmed)",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2026-05-06",
     "outcome": "Filed; no ruling found",
     "why": "DOJ Second Amendment challenge to the 2013 magazine ban."
    },
    {
     "case": "Gun-rights advocates and Denver residents v. Colorado and Denver",
     "court": "federal court (not confirmed)",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2026-06",
     "outcome": "Filed; no ruling found",
     "why": "Same state and Denver laws; 'not historically regulated' theory."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.concealedcarry.com/court-decisions/doj-sues-denver-and-colorado-over-gun-bans-in-back-to-back-federal-lawsuits/",
    "https://www.cml.org/home/publications-news/article-detail/legal-corner-wolford-v.-lopez-and-beyond-implications-for-colorado-gun-laws"
   ],
   "notes": "Filing date inferred from article date of 5/6/2026. Case numbers and courts not found. Also note possible stale pre-existing challenge Colorado State Shooting Association v. Polis (older, unverified). Section 1983 plaintiffs: private individuals; DOJ suit is not 1983.",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "states_southcentral_mountain.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "co-colorado-large-capacity-magazine-ban-over-15-rounds",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.25,
   "rank": 135
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Delaware",
   "state_code": "DE",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Handgun qualified purchaser permit (permit-to-purchase)",
   "citation": "Del. S.B. 2 (2024), eff. Nov. 16, 2025 (codification not verified)",
   "subject_area": "firearms_carry",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Bruen; Rahimi",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Permit-to-purchase with delay and fees; Bruen n.9 favors objective shall-issue systems, but long waits and training costs invite challenge.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Neuberger v. Jennings (name per lead; unverified) / related PI motions",
     "court": "D. Del.; 3d Cir.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2025-11-14",
     "outcome": "PI denied by D. Del. (Noreika, J.); 3d Cir. denied expedited injunction Dec. 1, 2025, appeal proceeding",
     "why": "Court found likelihood of success not shown at PI stage"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://whyy.org/articles/delaware-law-gun-permit-requirement-ruling/",
    "https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2025/12/02/federal-appeals-court-refuses-to-halt-enforcement-of-delawares-newest-gun-control-law-n1230782"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Plaintiff caption and docket numbers unverified. This PI denial is not a final failure; status pending.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "de-delaware-handgun-qualified-purchaser-permit-permit-to-purchase",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.25,
   "rank": 136
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "District of Columbia",
   "state_code": "DC",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Assault weapon ban (D.C. registration-ban on 'assault weapons')",
   "citation": "D.C. Code § 7-2501.01(3A), § 7-2502.02(a)(6)",
   "subject_area": "firearms_hardware",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Bruen; Viramontes v. Cook County (pending)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "D.C. Circuit has not ruled on rifles; Benson reasoning and pending Supreme Court hardware petitions raise odds.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Existence of a current federal challenge not confirmed. Seed named it; no case found. Verify via CourtListener.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "dc-district-of-columbia-assault-weapon-ban-d-c-registration-ban-on-assault-weapo",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.25,
   "rank": 137
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Hawaii",
   "state_code": "HI",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Hawaiian Home Lands homestead leasing (50% Native Hawaiian blood-quantum requirement)",
   "citation": "Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920 (Pub. L. 67-34, 42 Stat. 108); Haw. Const. art. XII; sections unverified",
   "subject_area": "race_preferences",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection; Fifth Amendment Due Process",
   "key_precedent": "SFFA v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023); Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495 (2000); Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974) (defense)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Strict ancestry/blood-quantum test supports a racial-classification argument, but Mancari political-classification defense and federal-statute status make outcome uncertain.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Ryan v. Watson (also reported as Ryan v. Burgum)",
     "court": "D. Haw.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2026-06-01",
     "outcome": "Class action filed; no ruling found",
     "why": "Seeks injunction against blood-quantum test. A related Kauai eviction suit was filed July 2026."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://pacificlegal.org/case/ryan-watson-hawaii-racial-requirement",
    "https://www.hawaiipublicradio.org/text/local-news/2026-06-04/federal-lawsuit-challenges-hawaii-homestead-hawaiian-blood-quantum-requirement"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Filing date inferred from 'Monday' in June 4, 2026 coverage. Federal statute is also challenged, which limits pure § 1983 framing to the state officer's enforcement. Related: SFFA v. Kamehameha Schools (private, § 1981) and Do No Harm challenge to Native Hawaiian Health Scholarship (April 2026) are outside scope.",
   "_file": "categories_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "Equal Protection",
   "id": "hi-hawaii-hawaiian-home-lands-homestead-leasing-50-native-hawaiian-blood-quantum",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.25,
   "rank": 138
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Louisiana",
   "state_code": "LA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "App Store Accountability Act (age verification and parental consent at app-store level)",
   "citation": "La. App Store Accountability Act, as delayed by HB 977 (2026) to eff. July 1, 2027 (codified section unverified)",
   "subject_area": "online_minors",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Moody v. NetChoice, 603 U.S. 707 (2024); NetChoice v. Paxton (5th Cir. 2026 stay)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Same theory that won against Utah/Texas-type laws, but the 5th Cir. stayed the Texas app-store injunction on 2026-05-28.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/louisiana-delays-app-store-3163634/",
    "https://www.alstonprivacy.com/louisiana-delays-app-store-accountability-effective-date-to-july-2027/",
    "https://fpf.org/blog/comparing-enacted-app-store-accountability-acts/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "No suit found; not yet effective (7/1/2027), so ripeness/standing and 5th Cir. hostility drive effort. HB 977 signed 2026-05-15. Citation not verified.",
   "_file": "states_southcentral_mountain.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "la-louisiana-app-store-accountability-act-age-verification-and-parental-consent-",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.25,
   "rank": 139
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Maryland",
   "state_code": "MD",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "State minority business enterprise (MBE) procurement program",
   "citation": "Md. Code, State Fin. & Proc. § 14-301 et seq.",
   "subject_area": "race_preferences",
   "constitutional_provision": "Equal Protection (14th Am.)",
   "key_precedent": "SFFA v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023); City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Race-based presumptions need strict scrutiny and a current disparity study; program rests on periodic studies and goals.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Seed item only; not independently verified in this pass. Need current statute text, latest disparity study, and any pending MBE suit (none found). Check 2023 program amendments.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Equal Protection",
   "id": "md-maryland-state-minority-business-enterprise-mbe-procurement-program",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.25,
   "rank": 140
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New Jersey",
   "state_code": "NJ",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "State minority/women business set-aside and contracting preferences",
   "citation": "N.J.S.A. 52:32-17 et seq. (Set-Aside Act for Small, Minority and Women Businesses)",
   "subject_area": "race_preferences",
   "constitutional_provision": "Equal Protection (Fourteenth Amendment)",
   "key_precedent": "SFFA v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023); Croson, 488 U.S. 469 (1989)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Race-based set-aside; state relies on a 2024 disparity study, which must satisfy strict scrutiny under Croson.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.nj.gov/governor/admin/equity/pdf/2024-NJDisparityStudyOverview.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "No direct challenge to the Set-Aside Act found; citation not verified against statute text. Disparity study 2024 raises defense strength; fact-heavy.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Equal Protection",
   "id": "nj-new-jersey-state-minority-women-business-set-aside-and-contracting-preference",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.25,
   "rank": 141
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New York",
   "state_code": "NY",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Child Data Protection Act",
   "citation": "N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 899-ee et seq.",
   "subject_area": "online_minors",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Moody v. NetChoice, 603 U.S. 707 (2024)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Data and design restrictions on minors face content-based and overbreadth attack, but privacy framing and Moody's facial burden cut against.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [
    "https://netchoice.org/new-yorks-final-safe-for-kids-rules-cement-an-unconstitutional-censorship-regime/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "No NetChoice suit against NY found in search. Statute citation from memory, not verified against legislature site.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "ny-new-york-child-data-protection-act",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.25,
   "rank": 142
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New York",
   "state_code": "NY",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "State MWBE contracting program (30% utilization goals, race-conscious certification)",
   "citation": "N.Y. Exec. Law art. 15-A (§§ 310-318)",
   "subject_area": "race_preferences",
   "constitutional_provision": "Equal Protection",
   "key_precedent": "SFFA, 600 U.S. 181 (2023); Houston contracting ruling (S.D. Tex. July 2026)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Race-conscious goals need a compelling interest and narrow tailoring; disparity-study support and sunset are the State's answer.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://will-law.org/will-identifies-billions-in-illegal-discriminatory-diversity-spending-by-wisconsin-and-new-york/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Only a Title VI administrative complaint (WILL, 2025) found, no federal suit. Standing requires an able and ready bidder. Related CSTEP/STEP education suits exist (Chu v. Rosa, pending) but are not contracting.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Equal Protection",
   "id": "ny-new-york-state-mwbe-contracting-program-30-utilization-goals-race-conscious-c",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.25,
   "rank": 143
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "North Carolina",
   "state_code": "NC",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "State minority HUB (Historically Underutilized Business) procurement program",
   "citation": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-48 and § 143-128.4 (not verified against text)",
   "subject_area": "race_preferences",
   "constitutional_provision": "Equal Protection (14th Amend.)",
   "key_precedent": "SFFA v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023); Ultima Servs. Corp. v. USDA (E.D. Tenn. 2023)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "HUB definition includes race-based categories with participation goals; strict scrutiny requires current disparity evidence",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.doa.nc.gov/divisions/historically-underutilized-businesses-hub-office"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "No reported challenge found. NC has had a general-statewide HUB goal of 10 percent; confirm current statute and any 2025-26 amendments. Standing requires a bidder able and ready to bid.",
   "_file": "states_southeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Equal Protection",
   "id": "nc-north-carolina-state-minority-hub-historically-underutilized-business-procure",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.25,
   "rank": 144
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "South Carolina",
   "state_code": "SC",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Age-Appropriate Code Design / Social Media Regulation Act (H.B. 3431)",
   "citation": "2026 S.C. Acts (H.B. 3431), signed Feb. 5, 2026 (code section not verified)",
   "subject_area": "online_minors",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Moody v. NetChoice, 603 U.S. 707 (2024); NetChoice v. Bonta (9th Cir.) (CA AADC)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Design-code content duties are speech regulation; California AADC litigation is the best analogue",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "NetChoice v. Wilson (caption approximate)",
     "court": "D.S.C.",
     "number": "not verified",
     "date": "2026-02-09",
     "outcome": "PI motion filed Mar. 9, 2026; no injunction as of June 2026",
     "why": "First and Fourteenth Amendment claims"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.hunton.com/privacy-and-cybersecurity-law-blog/netchoice-files-suit-challenging-south-carolina-age-appropriate-code-design",
    "https://news.bgov.com/privacy-and-data-security/netchoice-sues-over-south-carolina-age-related-social-media-law",
    "https://www.loeb.com/fr/insights/publications/2026/06/childrens-online-privacy-2026-state-app-store-design-code-and-social-media-laws"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Current PI status unchecked after June 2026. Fourth Circuit law on design codes is untested.",
   "_file": "states_southeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "sc-south-carolina-age-appropriate-code-design-social-media-regulation-act-h-b-34",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.25,
   "rank": 145
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Tennessee",
   "state_code": "TN",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Protecting Children from Social Media Act (HB 1891)",
   "citation": "Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-5701 et seq. (not verified)",
   "subject_area": "online_minors",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Moody v. NetChoice, 603 U.S. 707 (2024); NetChoice v. Skrmetti (6th Cir. Aug. 28, 2026)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "6th Cir. vacated PI denial and ordered fresh analysis, but a Sixth Circuit panel upheld Ohio's similar law in June 2026",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "NetChoice v. Skrmetti",
     "court": "M.D. Tenn.; 6th Cir.",
     "number": "6th Cir. 25-5660",
     "date": "2026-08-28",
     "outcome": "PI denial vacated and remanded (split panel)",
     "why": "District court must redo the platform-by-platform analysis; decision does not reach constitutionality"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://netchoice.org/netchoice-v-skrmetti-tennessee/",
    "https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca6/25-5660",
    "https://courthousenews.com/sixth-circuit-revives-tech-groups-challenge-to-tennessee-social-media-law/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Enforcement status after remand not confirmed. Ohio ruling (NetChoice v. Yost) per one search summary only.",
   "_file": "states_southeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "tn-tennessee-protecting-children-from-social-media-act-hb-1891",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.25,
   "rank": 146
  },
  {
   "law_name": "SCOPE Act (H.B. 18): minors' social media monitoring/filtering, targeted-ad and age provisions",
   "citation": "Tex. Bus. & Com. Code ch. 509 (esp. § 509.053) (H.B. 18, 88th Leg. (2023))",
   "subject_area": "online_minors",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech); vagueness; Section 230 preemption",
   "key_precedent": "Moody v. NetChoice, 603 U.S. 707 (2024); Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (2025)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "District court held monitoring/filtering mandate likely violates First Amendment; Fifth Circuit panel affirmed only on Section 230 and now en banc rehearing is granted.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "CCIA & NetChoice v. Paxton",
     "court": "W.D. Tex. (1:24-cv-849); 5th Cir. No. 24-50721 (en banc granted)",
     "number": "1:24-cv-849",
     "date": "2024-08-30",
     "outcome": "PI against monitoring/filtering requirement (747 F. Supp. 3d 1011); panel affirmed on Section 230 preemption 2026-07-24 (184 F.4th 420); panel opinion VACATED, rehearing en banc granted 2026-10-28",
     "why": "Panel did not reach First Amendment; Judge Ho dissented in part on Section 230."
    },
    {
     "case": "Students Engaged in Advancing Texas (SEAT) v. Paxton",
     "court": "W.D. Tex. (1:24-cv-945); 5th Cir. No. 25-50096",
     "number": "1:24-cv-945",
     "date": "2025-02-01",
     "outcome": "PI as to parts of H.B. 18 (765 F. Supp. 3d 575); panel vacated injunction for lack of standing on several provisions and held age-verification challenge foreclosed by FSC v. Paxton; vacated with en banc grant 2026-10-28",
     "why": "Plaintiffs not directly regulated; subjective chill insufficient; en banc will reconsider."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.recordinglaw.com/news/fifth-circuit-en-banc-texas-scope-act/",
    "https://netchoice.org/another-netchoice-victory-for-free-speech-families-fifth-circuit-keeps-a-texas-online-censorship-law-blocked/",
    "https://www.texaspolicyresearch.com/fifth-circuit-blocks-key-scope-act-provision/"
   ],
   "notes": "District court PI dates are approximate (null-safe); en banc grant per one secondary source (recordinglaw.com), confirmed by fetch but not against the Fifth Circuit docket. Plaintiffs are trade groups/organizations; individual § 1983 plaintiff would need standing as regulated or directly burdened speaker. Re-check 2026-11-12: not independently re-verified in this pass; no Fifth Circuit docket read.",
   "jurisdiction": "Texas",
   "state_code": "TX",
   "level": "state",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "states_southcentral_mountain.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "tx-texas-scope-act-h-b-18-minors-social-media-monitoring-filtering-targeted-ad-a",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.25,
   "rank": 147
  },
  {
   "law_name": "App Store Accountability Act (S.B. 2420): app-store age verification and parental consent",
   "citation": "S.B. 2420, 89th Leg. (2025) (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code; section numbers not verified)",
   "subject_area": "online_minors",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech)",
   "key_precedent": "Moody v. NetChoice, 603 U.S. 707 (2024); Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n, 564 U.S. 786 (2011)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "District court applied strict scrutiny and enjoined; Fifth Circuit motions panel stayed it finding Texas likely to win, and SCOTUS declined to vacate the stay.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "CCIA & SEAT v. Paxton (app-store law)",
     "court": "W.D. Tex. (Pitman, J.); 5th Cir.; S. Ct. No. 25A1390",
     "number": "25A1390 (S. Ct. application)",
     "date": "2025-12-23",
     "outcome": "PI granted 2025-12-23 (statewide); stayed by 5th Cir. June 2026 (Texas likely to succeed); SCOTUS declined to vacate stay July 2026; merits appeal argued ~Aug 2026, outcome not found",
     "why": "Fifth Circuit motions panel reasoned Texas showed strong likelihood on the merits; merits decision unknown."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://ccianet.org/litigation/ccia-v-paxton/",
    "https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/texas-asks-court-to-leave-in-place-age-verification-and-parental-consent-law-on-apps/",
    "https://www.texaspolicyresearch.com/fifth-circuit-lets-texas-app-store-law-take-effect-for-now/"
   ],
   "notes": "Law is currently enforceable on a stay. District and appellate case numbers not captured. Fifth Circuit merits decision may exist after my search index.",
   "jurisdiction": "Texas",
   "state_code": "TX",
   "level": "state",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "states_southcentral_mountain.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "tx-texas-app-store-accountability-act-s-b-2420-app-store-age-verification-and-pa",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.25,
   "rank": 148
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Texas",
   "state_code": "TX",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Tax foreclosure sale; struck-off property resale; excess proceeds",
   "citation": "Tex. Tax Code §§ 34.01, 34.02, 34.03, 34.04, 34.05",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause (via 14th Amendment)",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026) (decided 2026-06-23; sale-price baseline for just compensation after a fairly conducted tax sale; FMV theory and Excessive Fines theory rejected; procedural-unfairness claims left open on remand)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Excess proceeds go to former owner via registry, but struck-off property deeded to taxing units without market sale and resale surplus handling are exposed; amendment status unverified.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._tax_code_section_34.03",
    "https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._tax_code_section_34.04",
    "https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._tax_code_section_34.05",
    "https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/tax-code/tax-sect-34-01/",
    "https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/el-paso-urges-texas-court-to-ditch-tax-foreclosure-surplus-case"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Verified 2026-11-12 from statute text on texas.public.law and findlaw (not the official capitol site, which would not render): Tex. Tax Code 34.03(a) requires the district clerk to hold excess proceeds two years after the sale, with certified-mail notice to the former owner's last known address if over $25. 34.03(b): if no claimant establishes entitlement in that period, the clerk distributes the proceeds to the participating taxing units. 34.04(a): petition must be filed before the second anniversary of the sale; 34.04(c) limits who may claim (defendants, relatives within the third degree, heirs). 34.02(d) and 34.03 amended in 2023 (S.B. 2091 and H.B. 4250 as listed by the site); I could not read what those bills changed, so no post-Tyler surplus reform is confirmed. 34.01(j): officer bids the property off to the taxing unit at the lesser of the judgment or market value. 34.05: resale of struck-off property is subject to the owner's redemption right; the text shows no former-owner share of resale proceeds, so a taxing unit that resells above its bid keeps the difference. That resale gap, the two-year forfeiture to taxing units, and the notice-to-last-known-address rule are the Tyler/Pung-type exposures. Syntax, Inc. v. Hall, 899 S.W.2d 189 (Tex. 1995) could not be located or confirmed in two searches and a citator fetch; treat the citation as unverified. No federal Tyler suit against any Texas county found. Reported state appeal: Baily v. City of El Paso (Tex. App.), pending per a July 30, 2025 Bloomberg Law report on the City's brief; as reported it is a late-claim/wrong-address dispute, not a takings claim. TIA/comity (28 U.S.C. 1341; Fair Assessment v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100 (1981)) may be raised against federal suits; surplus claims are usually framed as post-collection retention, not assessment or collection, but circuit law should be checked. After Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026), damages are limited to the sale surplus.",
   "_file": "taxsale_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "tx-texas-tax-foreclosure-sale-struck-off-property-resale-excess-proceeds",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 2.25,
   "rank": 149
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Virginia",
   "state_code": "VA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Fair Housing Law source-of-funds provision as applied to Section 8 vouchers (forced participation and warrantless inspections)",
   "citation": "Va. Code § 36-96.1 et seq. (source of funds, § 36-96.3); section unverified",
   "subject_area": "searches_inspections",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fourth Amendment; Supremacy Clause",
   "key_precedent": "Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967); City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 576 U.S. 409 (2015); People v. Commons West, LLC (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2026)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "New York appellate court adopted the same theory, but the E.D. Va. judge denied a PI on abstention and Fourth Amendment ripeness grounds.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Lucinda LC and Wheatley v. Jones",
     "court": "E.D. Va.",
     "number": "1:26-cv-252 (HLLI page lists 1:25-cv-252; complaint file named vaed.26-cv-252)",
     "date": "2026-04-10",
     "outcome": "Preliminary injunction denied orally (abstention; Fourth Amendment claim not ripe)",
     "why": "State likely to prevail on abstention and ripeness arguments; appeal pending."
    },
    {
     "case": "Lucinda LC v. Jones",
     "court": "4th Cir.",
     "number": "26-1442",
     "date": "2026-06-12",
     "outcome": "Opening brief filed; no decision found",
     "why": "Appeal from PI denial."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://hlli.org/virginia-housing-descrim/",
    "https://hlli.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/vaed.26-cv-252.1.complaint.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Ripeness and Pullman/Younger-type abstention are the main hurdles (Attorney General enforcement actions may be pending against defendants). Class cert motion filed Mar. 9, 2026. Statute section not read.",
   "_file": "categories_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "Fourth Amendment",
   "id": "va-virginia-fair-housing-law-source-of-funds-provision-as-applied-to-section-8-v",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.25,
   "rank": 150
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Virginia",
   "state_code": "VA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Assault firearms sale/transfer ban (SB 749 / HB 217)",
   "citation": "2026 Va. Acts, SB 749 and HB 217, eff. July 1, 2026 (Code section number not verified)",
   "subject_area": "firearms_hardware",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022); cert petitions pending (Viramontes v. Cook County; Grant v. Higgins)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Bruen text-and-history test, but Bianchi v. Brown, 111 F.4th 438 (4th Cir. 2024) (en banc) upheld Maryland's AWB and binds district courts; relief likely turns on SCOTUS cert",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "McDonald v. Katz (NRA, FPC, SAF plaintiffs)",
     "court": "E.D. Va.",
     "number": "unverified",
     "date": "2026-05-14",
     "outcome": "Pending",
     "why": "Filed days after signing; Bianchi is the obstacle"
    },
    {
     "case": "United States v. Commonwealth of Virginia and Virginia State Police",
     "court": "E.D. Va. (federal court; district not verified)",
     "number": "unverified",
     "date": "2026-07-01",
     "outcome": "Pending",
     "why": "DOJ suit alleging Second Amendment violation"
    },
    {
     "case": "GOA/VCDL and Middletown Training/VSSA v. Commonwealth",
     "court": "Virginia state court",
     "number": "unverified",
     "date": "2026-05",
     "outcome": "Pending",
     "why": "Claims under Va. Const. art. I, § 13, not § 1983"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-files-federal-lawsuit-challenging-virginia-gun-ban",
    "https://www.ffxnow.com/2026/07/01/trump-administration-sues-virginia-over-assault-weapons-ban/",
    "https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/may/15/nra-files-lawsuits-challenging-virginias-new-ban-assault-firearms/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Signing date conflicts across sources (May 14 vs. June 16, 2026). I did not read the statute text or dockets, so the code section, case numbers, and current PI status are unverified. A plaintiff would plead for preservation and wait for a cert grant. Do not file expecting a win in the Fourth Circuit.",
   "_file": "states_southeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "va-virginia-assault-firearms-sale-transfer-ban-sb-749-hb-217",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.25,
   "rank": 151
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Virginia",
   "state_code": "VA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Small, Women- and Minority-owned (SWaM) business procurement program",
   "citation": "Va. Code §§ 2.2-1604, 2.2-4310 (not verified against current text)",
   "subject_area": "race_preferences",
   "constitutional_provision": "Equal Protection (14th Amend.)",
   "key_precedent": "SFFA v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023); Ultima Servs. Corp. v. USDA, 2023 (E.D. Tenn.) (SBA 8(a) presumption)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Minority-owned designations used for state contracting goals must meet strict scrutiny; Virginia disparity-study support is the key fact",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.sbsd.virginia.gov/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "I found no reported challenge to the Virginia program. Plaintiff needs standing as a non-minority contractor 'able and ready' to bid. Program may be partly race-neutral (small-business categories). Verify what the statute actually mandates.",
   "_file": "states_southeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Equal Protection",
   "id": "va-virginia-small-women-and-minority-owned-swam-business-procurement-program",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.25,
   "rank": 152
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Cook County, IL",
   "state_code": "IL",
   "level": "county",
   "law_name": "Cook County tax sale and scavenger sale surplus handling",
   "citation": "35 ILCS 200/21-90, 21-150, 21-260, 22-40, 22-42; new 21-296, 21-301, 21-302 (P.A. 104-0553, HB 4537, eff. on becoming law; signed July 10, 2026 per NMP)",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings (via 14th); Due Process",
   "key_precedent": "Kidd v. Pappas, No. 22 C 7061 (N.D. Ill. May 11, 2026) (Kennelly, J.) (Monell liability, Takings and Excessive Fines)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Illinois tax-deed process generally lets owner redeem and gives holder only the tax debt claim, and no surplus is retained by the county in an ordinary tax sale; scavenger sale to be checked for any equity-stripping at tiny bids.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Kidd v. Pappas (formerly Bell v. Pappas)",
     "court": "N.D. Ill.",
     "number": "1:22-cv-07061",
     "date": "2026-05-11",
     "outcome": "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: Cook County liable under Monell for Fifth Amendment Takings and Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines violations from tax sales; status report due May 18, 2026",
     "why": "Read the opinion (Doc. 231). Class certified July 2025 and an earlier summary-judgment ruling dated Dec. 8, 2025 per secondary sources; Seventh Circuit appeal status not verified; entered before Pung (June 23, 2026), so damages measure is open"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://assets.alm.com/3f/be/93f2a5d9466d88d0f38765dabd6f/gov-uscourts-ilnd-424523-231-0.pdf",
    "https://ilga.gov/documents/legislation/publicacts/104/PDF/104-0553.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Material change. Pre-2026 Cook system: tax purchaser takes entire title on a tax deed; owner recovers at most from the Indemnity Fund (cap about $99,000 per the opinion). Kidd v. Pappas, 1:22-cv-07061 (N.D. Ill., Judge Kennelly), Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law dated May 11, 2026: County liable under Monell for takings and excessive-fines violations; County's inaction was deliberately indifferent. Class (Kidd, Rates) seeks damages; SWOP and PLSNA seek other relief. P.A. 104-0553 (read, enrolled text; Section 99: effective upon becoming law): adds a county surplus equity fund (21-296, 21-301) funded by a nonrefundable fee on tax buyers, and 21-302 lets a previous owner recover surplus equity (value at deed date less liens and taxes paid by the purchaser) by petition; for deeds recorded in the 2 years before the Act, claims are due within 2 years after the effective date; for pre-Act certificates ripening into deeds after the Act, within 2 years of deed recording; also adds tax deed auctions (22-40, 22-42). Signing date July 10, 2026 comes from a news report, not the Act. The fix gives a prospective remedy, but the Kidd class covers past sales and the Act uses a value-based award while Pung limits takings damages to sale surplus after a fair sale; whether Pung's fair-sale premise reaches a tax-certificate sale with no sale of the property is untested. Sharritt v. Henry (filed Nov. 2023, per an ISACo brief) not verified. Vulnerability raised 2 to 4 because the system was held unconstitutional; the Act lowers future exposure.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "il-cook-county-il-cook-county-tax-sale-and-scavenger-sale-surplus-handling",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 153
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Indiana",
   "state_code": "IN",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Proxy Advisory Transparency Act (H.B. 1273)",
   "citation": "Indiana H.B. 1273 (2026); code section not confirmed",
   "subject_area": "other_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (viewpoint discrimination, compelled speech)",
   "key_precedent": "Moody v. NetChoice, 603 U.S. 707 (2024); Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "S.D. Ind. enjoined it as likely viewpoint-discriminatory.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Institutional Shareholder Services v. Rokita; Glass Lewis v. Rokita",
     "court": "S.D. Ind. (Brookman, J.)",
     "number": "not captured",
     "date": "2026-06-25",
     "outcome": "Preliminary injunctions granted (Ballotpedia says ruling June 28, 2026; seed says June 25); state noticed appeal July 20, 2026",
     "why": "Law burdens advice opposing management's recommendations"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://news.ballotpedia.org/2026/07/08/federal-courts-block-proxy-advisor-disclosure-laws-in-kansas-and-indiana/",
    "https://www.climatecasechart.com/document/institutional-shareholder-services-inc-v-rokita_7fc5"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Ballotpedia names Judge Matthew Brookman and bill H.B. 1273; dates differ across sources (June 25 vs June 28). Docket not found; statute text not read. Plaintiffs are corporate proxy advisers; low value to ordinary § 1983 plaintiffs.",
   "_file": "states_midwest.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "in-indiana-proxy-advisory-transparency-act-h-b-1273",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 154
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Kansas",
   "state_code": "KS",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Proxy Advisory Transparency Act (SB 375)",
   "citation": "Kan. SB 375 (2026); code section not confirmed",
   "subject_area": "other_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (viewpoint discrimination)",
   "key_precedent": "Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "D. Kan. enjoined it as viewpoint-discriminatory.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Institutional Shareholder Services v. Kobach; Glass Lewis v. Kobach (separate suits)",
     "court": "D. Kan. (Teeter, J.)",
     "number": "not captured",
     "date": "2026-06-24",
     "outcome": "Preliminary injunction granted (Ballotpedia says June 24, 2026; seed says June 29)",
     "why": "Viewpoint discrimination; S.B. 375 passed April 2026 over the governor's veto"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.mealeys.com/mealeys/articles/2498969",
    "https://news.ballotpedia.org/2026/07/08/federal-courts-block-proxy-advisor-disclosure-laws-in-kansas-and-indiana/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Ballotpedia names Judge Holly Teeter and S.B. 375 (passed over Gov. Kelly's veto, April 2026). Date conflict between sources remains. Docket not found; statute text not read. Tenth Circuit.",
   "_file": "states_midwest.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "ks-kansas-proxy-advisory-transparency-act-sb-375",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 155
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "South Dakota",
   "state_code": "SD",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Ban on advertising abortion pills",
   "citation": "SDCL § 22-17-5.3 (added by H.B. 1274, 2026)",
   "subject_area": "other_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (content-based restriction on truthful speech)",
   "key_precedent": "Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 (1975); Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Federal court enjoined enforcement against plaintiffs as a content-based ad ban.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 2,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Mayday Health v. Rhoden (also styled v. Jackley)",
     "court": "D.S.D. (Theeler, J.)",
     "number": "4:26-cv-04096-CCT",
     "date": "2026-07-17",
     "outcome": "Preliminary injunction (ECF 51, 43 pp.): State may not enforce SDCL § 22-17-5.3 against Mayday Health and co-plaintiff Nancy Turbak Berry; no bond; defendants' spoliation motion denied. AG announced appeal Aug. 4, 2026; stay motion pending in 8th Cir. No. 26-2705 (per press and a Sept. 2, 2026 motion)",
     "why": "Content-based restriction on advertising 'for purposes of an unlawful abortion'; plaintiffs' First Amendment claim"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://courthousenews.com/south-dakota-federal-judge-sides-with-abortion-information-provider/",
    "https://www.law360.com/articles/2502986",
    "https://litigationtracker.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Mayday-v-Rhoden_2026.07.17_ORDER-ON-MOTION-FOR-PRELIMINARY-INJUNCTION.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Read the order itself. Statute identified in the order as SDCL § 22-17-5.3 (H.B. 1274; the bill also amended § 22-17-5.1). Relief is plaintiff-specific. Date conflict resolved: injunction July 17, 2026 (the 'April 2025' item in earlier sources was wrong or a different matter). Suit filed May 29, 2026.",
   "_file": "states_midwest.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "sd-south-dakota-ban-on-advertising-abortion-pills",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 156
  },
  {
   "law_name": "HUB (Historically Underutilized Business) race- and sex-conscious contracting program",
   "citation": "Tex. Gov't Code ch. 2161; 34 Tex. Admin. Code § 20.281 et seq.",
   "subject_area": "race_preferences",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection)",
   "key_precedent": "SFFA v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023); City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989)",
   "vulnerability": 4,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Race and sex classifications in contracting must satisfy strict/intermediate scrutiny; Texas AG opinion KP-0505 (1/19/2026) concluded the framework fails strict scrutiny.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Aerospace Solutions LLC v. Abbott (Pacific Legal Foundation)",
     "court": "federal district court, Texas",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2025-12-01",
     "outcome": "Dismissed (reported Dec. 2025)",
     "why": "Reported dismissal for lack of demonstrated injury/standing, not on the merits; month approximate."
    },
    {
     "case": "Ipsum General Contractors et al. v. State of Texas / Acting Comptroller Hancock",
     "court": "Travis County district court (Meachum, J.)",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2026-04-13",
     "outcome": "Temporary reinstatement of HUB rules and six businesses; trial set Nov. 9, 2026",
     "why": "State-law claims (ultra vires, due process, Texas Constitution); not an Equal Protection challenge."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://pacificlegal.org/?p=99420",
    "https://wtop.com/national/2026/04/judge-temporarily-allows-women-minority-owned-businesses-to-qualify-for-texas-hub-program-again/",
    "https://ezel.ai/ag-opinions/tx/kp-0505"
   ],
   "notes": "Comptroller suspended new certifications and de-certified ~15,000 firms in Dec. 2025; the state is unlikely to defend the preferences, so a § 1983 target is the statutory goals/agency programs that remain, and standing needs a concrete lost bid. Real mismatch: the live fight is by minority firms seeking reinstatement. Case numbers unknown.",
   "jurisdiction": "Texas",
   "state_code": "TX",
   "level": "state",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "states_southcentral_mountain.json",
   "provision_group": "Equal Protection",
   "id": "tx-texas-hub-historically-underutilized-business-race-and-sex-conscious-contract",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 157
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Alabama",
   "state_code": "AL",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Public-university 'divisive concepts'/DEI ban (SB 129)",
   "citation": "2024 Ala. SB 129 (code section not verified)",
   "subject_area": "other_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment; vagueness",
   "key_precedent": "Pernell v. Fla. Bd. of Governors (11th Cir. 2026) (same circuit, binding on N.D. Ala. as precedent for viewpoint discrimination)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "11th Cir. Pernell supports a viewpoint-discrimination claim against university teaching restrictions",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Simon v. Ivey (caption from memory)",
     "court": "N.D. Ala.",
     "number": "not verified",
     "date": "2025-08",
     "outcome": "PI reported denied",
     "why": "Reported from memory; reason unverified"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Unverified; included because Pernell is binding in the 11th Circuit and may support renewal. Confirm case caption, ruling, and posture.",
   "_file": "states_southeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "al-alabama-public-university-divisive-concepts-dei-ban-sb-129",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 158
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Alaska",
   "state_code": "AK",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Municipal tax foreclosure (judgment foreclosure and sale)",
   "citation": "AS 29.45.290-29.45.480",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause (via 14th Amendment); Alaska Const. art. I, § 18",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026) (decided 2026-06-23; sale-price baseline for just compensation after a fairly conducted tax sale; FMV theory and Excessive Fines theory rejected; procedural-unfairness claims left open on remand)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Foreclosure judgment vests title in municipality and surplus treatment for former owner unverified.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://touchngo.com/LGLCNTR/AKSTATS/Statutes/Title29/Chapter45/Section480.htm",
    "https://codes.findlaw.com/ak/title-29-municipal-government/ak-st-sect-29-45-480/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Official akleg.gov statute pages could not be rendered (JavaScript). Search-result excerpts of AS 29.45.480 (not the full text) indicate that when sale proceeds exceed taxes, penalty, interest, and costs, the municipality must give the former owner written notice of the excess (mail to last address of record is sufficient), and 480(b) (1990 session law ch. 192) entitles the former owner to the excess over taxes for property the municipality sold within 10 years after the redemption period without public use; 29.45.460(d) treats property held more than 10 years differently. Claim window and treatment of unclaimed excess not confirmed. Vulnerability lowered from 4 to 3 because an owner-surplus mechanism exists; the retained-property (no sale) and 10-year-held categories remain open. No Tyler challenge or post-2023 amendment found. Needs a read of the akleg.gov text of 29.45.440 to 29.45.480 before reliance.",
   "_file": "taxsale_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "ak-alaska-municipal-tax-foreclosure-judgment-foreclosure-and-sale",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 159
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Albuquerque, NM",
   "state_code": "NM",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Mayoral administrative instruction banning firearms in city parks and recreation facilities",
   "citation": "City of Albuquerque Administrative Instruction No. 5-20 (2020, as amended)",
   "subject_area": "firearms_carry",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment; N.M. Const. art. II, § 6 and state preemption",
   "key_precedent": "Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022); Wolford v. Lopez, 609 U.S. 185 (2026)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "A blanket ban at all public parks and city recreation facilities, adopted by executive instruction rather than council ordinance, is hard to square with Bruen's limits on 'sensitive places' (parks are contested) and with state preemption.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "New Mexico Patriots Advocacy Coalition v. Keller (state court)",
     "court": "N.M. state district court (not verified)",
     "number": null,
     "date": null,
     "outcome": "Challenge to community-center instruction reported dismissed; challenge to parks instruction reported pending as of 2023",
     "why": "State-law and state-constitution theories; current status not found"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.cabq.gov/artsculture/documents/ai-5-20.pdf/@@download/file/AI 5-20.pdf",
    "https://everytownlaw.org/case/everytown-law-wins-dismissal-of-challenge-to-city-of-albuquerques-enforcement-of-state-prohibition-on-firearms-in-community-health-multigenerational-centers-and-senior-centers/",
    "https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/gun-ban-for-albuquerque-parks-challenge-nixed-by-appeals-court"
   ],
   "notes": "Not a council ordinance and I did not read the full instruction. The separate Springer v. Lujan Grisham federal cases target the governor's public-health order, not this city rule; the Tenth Circuit dismissed one challenge to the governor's park order. Current status of the state case was not found. No federal §1983 challenge to AI 5-20 was found.",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "cities_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "nm-albuquerque-nm-mayoral-administrative-instruction-banning-firearms-in-city-pa",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 160
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Bexar County, TX",
   "state_code": "TX",
   "level": "county",
   "law_name": "Bexar County tax-foreclosure sale surplus",
   "citation": "Tex. Tax Code §§ 34.01-34.05",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Takings",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Same Texas excess-proceeds structure as Harris County.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._tax_code_section_34.03",
    "https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._tax_code_section_34.04",
    "https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._tax_code_section_34.05"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Bexar County applies state Tex. Tax Code ch. 34 (clerk holds excess proceeds; sale by constable or sheriff). No county-specific surplus ordinance or Tyler suit found in cheap checks. Statute findings are in the Texas state entry. Texas vulnerability is unchanged.  TIA/comity (28 U.S.C. 1341; Fair Assessment v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100 (1981)) may be raised against federal suits; surplus claims are usually framed as post-collection retention, not assessment or collection, but circuit law should be checked. After Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026), damages are limited to the sale surplus.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "tx-bexar-county-tx-bexar-county-tax-foreclosure-sale-surplus",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 161
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Charlotte, NC",
   "state_code": "NC",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Charlotte MWSBE subcontracting program",
   "citation": "Charlotte City Code ch. 2? 'Minority, Women, and Small Business Enterprise' (SBO) policy",
   "subject_area": "race_preferences",
   "constitutional_provision": "Equal Protection",
   "key_precedent": "SFFA v. Harvard (2023); North Carolina state law (G.S. 143-128.2)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Race-based goals must be narrowly tailored; North Carolina law constrains local goals.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Charlotte's Small Business Opportunity program is a policy of the city; not an ordinance in all respects. Not confirmed.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "Equal Protection",
   "id": "nc-charlotte-nc-charlotte-mwsbe-subcontracting-program",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 162
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Colorado",
   "state_code": "CO",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Candidate election deepfake disclosure law (60 days before primary, 90 before general)",
   "citation": "Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 1-46-101 to -106 (HB 24-1147)",
   "subject_area": "election_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Kohls v. Bonta (E.D. Cal. 2025); Babylon Bee v. Lopez (D. Haw. 2026)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Disclosure-only structure with metadata requirement is somewhat more tailored than bans, but still content-based and reaches satire absent an exemption.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://codes.findlaw.com/co/title-1-elections/co-rev-st-sect-1-46-101/",
    "https://legiscan.com/CO/text/HB1147/id/2997396/Colorado-2024-HB1147-Enrolled.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Knowingly-or-recklessly standard. Statute text not read in full; no challenge found.",
   "_file": "categories_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "co-colorado-candidate-election-deepfake-disclosure-law-60-days-before-primary-90",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 163
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Connecticut",
   "state_code": "CT",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Minimum-age and algorithm limits on social media for minors",
   "citation": "Conn. Pub. Act 25-113 (2025) and related online-minors provisions (citation unverified)",
   "subject_area": "online_minors",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Moody v. NetChoice (2024); NetChoice v. Bonta",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Algorithmic-feed and age-verification mandates have been enjoined in several states; Connecticut's version has not been tested.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Existence, number, and effective date of the Connecticut law not confirmed through search. Verify before using.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "ct-connecticut-minimum-age-and-algorithm-limits-on-social-media-for-minors",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 164
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Dallas County, TX",
   "state_code": "TX",
   "level": "county",
   "law_name": "Dallas County tax-foreclosure excess proceeds",
   "citation": "Tex. Tax Code §§ 34.01-34.05",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Takings",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Same Texas structure.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._tax_code_section_34.03",
    "https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._tax_code_section_34.04",
    "https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._tax_code_section_34.05"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Dallas County applies state Tex. Tax Code ch. 34 (clerk holds excess proceeds; sale by constable or sheriff). No county-specific surplus ordinance or Tyler suit found in cheap checks. Statute findings are in the Texas state entry. Texas vulnerability is unchanged.  TIA/comity (28 U.S.C. 1341; Fair Assessment v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100 (1981)) may be raised against federal suits; surplus claims are usually framed as post-collection retention, not assessment or collection, but circuit law should be checked. After Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026), damages are limited to the sale surplus.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "tx-dallas-county-tx-dallas-county-tax-foreclosure-excess-proceeds",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 165
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Dallas, TX",
   "state_code": "TX",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Dallas minority and women business program (Business Inclusion and Development policy)",
   "citation": "Dallas City Code ch. 2, art. V, § 2-?? and BID policy",
   "subject_area": "race_preferences",
   "constitutional_provision": "Equal Protection",
   "key_precedent": "SFFA v. Harvard (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Participation goals via the BID program face narrow-tailoring review.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Dallas BID is adopted as policy; whether it is ordinance or council resolution not checked. Weak.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "Equal Protection",
   "id": "tx-dallas-tx-dallas-minority-and-women-business-program-business-inclusion-and-d",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 166
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Delaware",
   "state_code": "DE",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Concealed-carry sensitive places and private-property rules",
   "citation": "11 Del. C. § 1441 and related (verify)",
   "subject_area": "firearms_carry",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Wolford v. Lopez, 609 U.S. 185 (2026); Koons en banc (pending)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Unverified whether Delaware has a private-property default; sensitive-place lists follow Bruen limits.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "No search success on Delaware sensitive-places statute or challenges. Needs primary-source review.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "de-delaware-concealed-carry-sensitive-places-and-private-property-rules",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 167
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Denver, CO",
   "state_code": "CO",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Denver Minority/Women Business Enterprise program",
   "citation": "D.R.M.C. ch. 28, art. III",
   "subject_area": "race_preferences",
   "constitutional_provision": "Equal Protection",
   "key_precedent": "Concrete Works v. Denver, 321 F.3d 950 (10th Cir. 2003); SFFA (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Tenth Circuit upheld Denver's program in 2003 on a 1990s record; SFFA and stale evidence expose it.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Whether Denver still runs race-conscious goals unverified.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "Equal Protection",
   "id": "co-denver-co-denver-minority-women-business-enterprise-program",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 168
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "El Paso County, TX",
   "state_code": "TX",
   "level": "county",
   "law_name": "El Paso County tax-foreclosure sale excess proceeds",
   "citation": "Tex. Tax Code §§ 34.01-34.05",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Takings",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Same Texas statute.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._tax_code_section_34.03",
    "https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._tax_code_section_34.04",
    "https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._tax_code_section_34.05"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "El Paso County applies state Tex. Tax Code ch. 34 (clerk holds excess proceeds; sale by constable or sheriff). No county-specific surplus ordinance or Tyler suit found in cheap checks. A state appeal involving the City of El Paso (Baily) is reported pending on late-claim/notice grounds. Statute findings are in the Texas state entry. Texas vulnerability is unchanged.  TIA/comity (28 U.S.C. 1341; Fair Assessment v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100 (1981)) may be raised against federal suits; surplus claims are usually framed as post-collection retention, not assessment or collection, but circuit law should be checked. After Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026), damages are limited to the sale surplus.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "tx-el-paso-county-tx-el-paso-county-tax-foreclosure-sale-excess-proceeds",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 169
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Florida",
   "state_code": "FL",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Political advertisement AI disclosure requirement (HB 919, 2024)",
   "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 106.145",
   "subject_area": "election_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Kohls v. Bonta (E.D. Cal. 2025); Babylon Bee v. Lopez (D. Haw. 2026)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Mandatory disclaimer with first-degree misdemeanor penalty mirrors disclaimer rules struck in Hawaii, but is limited to ads showing a real person doing something that did not happen.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.vaquill.ai/blog/deepfake-laws-by-state-what-is-actually-on-the-books"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Citation and penalty from a secondary summary only; not read on leg.state.fl.us. No challenge found.",
   "_file": "categories_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "fl-florida-political-advertisement-ai-disclosure-requirement-hb-919-2024",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 170
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Fort Worth, TX",
   "state_code": "TX",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Fort Worth M/WBE program",
   "citation": "Fort Worth City Code ch. 20, art. IV (Business Equity)",
   "subject_area": "race_preferences",
   "constitutional_provision": "Equal Protection",
   "key_precedent": "SFFA v. Harvard (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Race-conscious goals subject to strict scrutiny.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Citation from memory; Fort Worth moved to 'business equity' framing in 2020 - verify.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "Equal Protection",
   "id": "tx-fort-worth-tx-fort-worth-m-wbe-program",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 171
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Georgia",
   "state_code": "GA",
   "law_name": "Tax sale excess funds: five-year transfer of unclaimed excess to Dept. of Revenue, release only by interpleader order",
   "citation": "O.C.G.A. 48-4-5(c) (see also 48-4-1 et seq.)",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment (Takings); Due Process",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Owner is entitled to excess funds and gets first-class mailed notice within 30 days, but unclaimed funds pass to the state after five years and can be recovered only through an interpleader action.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://codes.findlaw.com/ga/title-48-revenue-and-taxation/ga-code-sect-48-4-5/",
    "https://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/court-of-appeals/2015/a15a1485.html"
   ],
   "notes": "Based on a FindLaw page current to March 28, 2024; I could not load the official code (Justia returned 403) and could not tell what changed in 2024. Georgia notice scheme: first-class mail within 30 days to record owner, security-deed holders and recorded-interest holders, describing sale price and excess. DLT List v. M7VEN (Ga. 2017) held a redeeming creditor has no priority lien on excess funds (secondary summary). Georgia redemption, bar-of-redemption, and tax deed notice provisions (48-4-40 et seq.) were not researched here and may carry the stronger Jones v. Flowers issues. No Georgia Tyler suit found; search budget ran out before targeted searches. TIA/comity: 28 U.S.C. 1341 and comity (Fair Assessment v. McNary; Levin v. Commerce Energy) bar federal suits that would enjoin or reduce tax collection, but a post-sale damages/just-compensation claim for surplus retention seeks no change in the tax assessed and Tyler itself was a class action seeking surplus compensation; defendants will still raise both. Not verified for this circuit in this survey.",
   "level": "state",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "_file": "taxsale_east.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "ga-georgia-tax-sale-excess-funds-five-year-transfer-of-unclaimed-excess-to-dept-",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 172
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Harris County, TX",
   "state_code": "TX",
   "level": "county",
   "law_name": "Harris County tax-foreclosure sale, excess proceeds",
   "citation": "Tex. Tax Code §§ 34.01-34.05",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Takings; Due Process",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Texas pays excess proceeds to former owner but with claim deadlines and cost deductions; forfeiture after claim deadline is the Tyler exposure.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._tax_code_section_34.03",
    "https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._tax_code_section_34.04",
    "https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._tax_code_section_34.05"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Harris County applies state Tex. Tax Code ch. 34 (clerk holds excess proceeds; sale by constable or sheriff). No county-specific surplus ordinance or Tyler suit found in cheap checks. Statute findings are in the Texas state entry. Texas vulnerability is unchanged.  TIA/comity (28 U.S.C. 1341; Fair Assessment v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100 (1981)) may be raised against federal suits; surplus claims are usually framed as post-collection retention, not assessment or collection, but circuit law should be checked. After Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026), damages are limited to the sale surplus.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "tx-harris-county-tx-harris-county-tax-foreclosure-sale-excess-proceeds",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 173
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Houston, TX",
   "state_code": "TX",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Houston Minority and Women Business Enterprise program",
   "citation": "Houston Code of Ordinances ch. 15, art. V, § 15-81 et seq.",
   "subject_area": "race_preferences",
   "constitutional_provision": "Equal Protection",
   "key_precedent": "SFFA v. Harvard (2023); Fifth Circuit strict scrutiny",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Contracting goals tied to MWDBE certification invite narrow-tailoring review after SFFA; Houston updated its program following 2020 study.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Citation from memory. No suit located. Texas also has state anti-DEI measures (SB 17 applies to higher ed, not city contracting).",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "Equal Protection",
   "id": "tx-houston-tx-houston-minority-and-women-business-enterprise-program",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 174
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Illinois",
   "state_code": "IL",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Stalking and cyberstalking (course of conduct including 'communicates to or about'; 'knows or should know' emotional-distress prong)",
   "citation": "720 ILCS 5/12-7.3; 720 ILCS 5/12-7.5",
   "subject_area": "harassment_threats",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (overbreadth; mens rea)",
   "key_precedent": "People v. Relerford, 2017 IL 121094; Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Relerford struck the 'communicates to or about' language as content-based and overbroad; remaining 'should know' standard may not satisfy Counterman recklessness for speech-based courses of conduct.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "People v. Relerford",
     "court": "Ill. (Supreme Court)",
     "number": "121094",
     "date": "2017-11-30",
     "outcome": "Struck 'communicates to or about' provisions; vacated convictions",
     "why": "Content-based restriction not narrowly tailored; sources conflict on whether the opinion separately analyzed 'should know'."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [
    "https://law.justia.com/cases/illinois/supreme-court/2017/121094.html",
    "https://criminallegalnews.org/news/2018/apr/19/illinois-supreme-court-strikes-down-part-two-stalking-statutes-unconstitutional",
    "https://ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/103/103-0183.htm"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "I could not fetch the current ILGA text, so the present mens rea wording is unconfirmed; P.A. 103-0183 (2023) added a 'knowingly' harassment prong to cyberstalking. No post-Counterman Illinois decision found. Needs statute text check before relying.",
   "_file": "categories_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "il-illinois-stalking-and-cyberstalking-course-of-conduct-including-communicates-",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 175
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Jacksonville, FL",
   "state_code": "FL",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Pedestrian-to-motor-vehicle solicitation ban (traffic code, 2023)",
   "citation": "Jacksonville Ordinance Code, traffic provision enacted Feb. 2023 barring 'any physical interaction' between pedestrian and vehicle occupant (section not verified)",
   "subject_area": "other_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (content-based restriction in public forum; vagueness)",
   "key_precedent": "Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015); City of Austin v. Reagan Nat'l Advert., 596 U.S. 61 (2022)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Roadside solicitation limits that single out fundraising face strict-scrutiny arguments after Reed, but City of Austin narrowed content-based analysis and the district court found a limited record.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "COSAC Foundation v. City of Jacksonville",
     "court": "M.D. Fla.",
     "number": "3:24-cv-00213 (as reported; not verified on docket)",
     "date": "2024-02-26",
     "outcome": "Preliminary injunction denied May 2024; later history not found",
     "why": "Limited record on likelihood of success; city promised not to enforce on public sidewalks"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://fji.law/newsroom/press-coverage/cosac-sues-jax-over-anti-panhandling-law/",
    "https://floridatrib.org/2024/05/21/federal-judge-denies-request-to-pause-jacksonville-panhandling-ban-as-lawsuit-argues-its-unconstitutional/",
    "https://jaxtoday.org/2024/05/22/panhandling-law-stands-at-least-for-now/"
   ],
   "notes": "Current docket status unknown, so check CourtListener before relying on it. Eleventh Circuit law on panhandling restrictions should be checked. The ordinance carries $100 fines and jail on the fourth violation.",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "cities_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "fl-jacksonville-fl-pedestrian-to-motor-vehicle-solicitation-ban-traffic-code-202",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 176
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Kentucky",
   "state_code": "KY",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "2026 HB 600: county/city special tax-bill collection by judicial sale (KRS 91.481-91.527, new KRS ch. 68 section)",
   "citation": "2026 Ky. Acts ch. 48 (HB 600), amending KRS 134.504, 91.514, 91.517, 91.527; signed Apr. 7, 2026",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings (surplus escheat; sale to city); Fourteenth Amendment due process",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County (2023); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Leftover sale proceeds escheat to the state if unclaimed within two years of the sale (KRS 91.517(3)); barred owners' exclusive remedy is a claim to sale proceeds; city or land bank may buy at the commissioner's sale and take title free of tax liens.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/acts/26RS/documents/0048.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Read the enrolled act text (pdftotext). It does not mention Tyler. Gaps: two-year claim window then escheat under KRS ch. 393; surplus measured by sale price; no-sale/credit-bid by city or land bank under KRS 91.514(3), 91.527; title vests in purchaser and barred owners keep only a proceeds claim (91.514(1)(d)). Whether KRS 91.481 procedure is used for real-property ad valorem taxes broadly is unclear; HB 600 extends it to county tax bills. No known challenge. Pung v. Isabella County (U.S. June 23, 2026) per Holland & Knight alert (docket/U.S. cite not retrieved): when the sale is fairly conducted, compensation is the sale surplus, not FMV; fairness of the auction remains open. TIA/comity: 28 U.S.C. 1341 and Fair Assessment in Real Estate Ass'n v. McNary bar federal damages/injunction suits that attack state tax administration where a plain, speedy, efficient state remedy exists; courts split on whether a Tyler surplus claim (a takings claim for proceeds after the tax is paid) escapes the bar, so plan on a state-court or Williamson-free forum analysis. Plemons v. Gale, 396 F.3d 569 (4th Cir. 2005): private tax-lien purchaser not a state actor for mere purchase; foreclosure-stage conduct invoking state process is the stronger hook. ",
   "_file": "taxsale_east.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "ky-kentucky-2026-hb-600-county-city-special-tax-bill-collection-by-judicial-sale",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 177
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Louisiana",
   "state_code": "LA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Tax sale title and post-sale foreclosure by tax purchaser",
   "citation": "La. R.S. 47:2153, 47:2266.1, 47:2267; La. Const. art. VII, § 25",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause (via 14th Amendment)",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026) (decided 2026-06-23; sale-price baseline for just compensation after a fairly conducted tax sale; FMV theory and Excessive Fines theory rejected; procedural-unfairness claims left open on remand); Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "2024 revision moved to public-auction foreclosure, but unclaimed surplus passes to state after six months to one year and tax purchaser retains title/interest in earlier tax sales.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://impactforequity.org/report/liening-on-the-wrong-side-of-the-law-a-multi-state-comparative-analysis-of-property-tax-sale-reform-in-response-to-tyler-v-hennepin/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Three-year redemption; bid-down interest-rate auction. Short claim window is the strongest residual gap. Private purchaser state action: Plemons v. Gale, 396 F.3d 569 (4th Cir. 2005) supports state action for private tax-lien purchasers; Nebraska Supreme Court (Fair/Nieveen, 2024) treated private purchaser as liable for taking under state privilege. TIA/comity: 28 U.S.C. 1341 and Fair Assessment v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100 (1981) may be raised against federal suits over county tax enforcement; former-owner surplus takings claims are usually framed as challenging post-collection retention, not tax assessment/collection, but this is not uniformly settled; check circuit law. After Pung, FMV-based damages theories are weak; viable claims target no-sale transfers to government/purchaser, forfeiture of unclaimed surplus, unfair procedure, and pre-cure deeds.",
   "_file": "taxsale_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "la-louisiana-tax-sale-title-and-post-sale-foreclosure-by-tax-purchaser",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 178
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Maine",
   "state_code": "ME",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Election deepfake disclosure law (LD 517)",
   "citation": "P.L. 2026, ch. 593; 21-A M.R.S. § 1014(5-C)",
   "subject_area": "election_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech)",
   "key_precedent": "Kohls v. Bonta (E.D. Cal. 2025) (struck California election deepfake law); X Corp. v. Ellison / Kohls v. Ellison (D. Minn.)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Disclosure-based approach is more defensible than California's takedown regime; outcome turns on text (disclosure vs prohibition) which I did not read.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://vorplabs.com/ai-regulatory-updates/deepfake-laws/maine",
    "https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/christopher-kohls-v-bonta"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Citation and effective date (July 29, 2026) from a compliance tracker; verify on legislature.maine.gov. Minnesota X Corp. claim was dismissed on standing in Dec. 2025, a warning for plaintiff selection.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "me-maine-election-deepfake-disclosure-law-ld-517",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 179
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Maryland",
   "state_code": "MD",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Election deepfake / synthetic media disclosure law",
   "citation": "Md. Code, Elec. Law § 13-401.1 et seq. (2025 Md. Laws)",
   "subject_area": "election_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Kohls v. Bonta (E.D. Cal. 2025) (California deepfake law enjoined/struck)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Kohls v. Bonta enjoined California analog; Maryland statute text not checked.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Unclear whether Maryland enacted a deepfake election law; I did not locate or confirm the statute. Treat as a lead only, do not rely on the citation.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "md-maryland-election-deepfake-synthetic-media-disclosure-law",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 180
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Massachusetts",
   "state_code": "MA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "State anti-discrimination curriculum rules and district LGBTQ-inclusive instruction without adequate opt-out",
   "citation": "Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 76, § 5; 603 CMR 26.00 (per ACLUM); ch. 71, § 32A (sex-ed opt-out; unverified)",
   "subject_area": "religion",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (Free Exercise)",
   "key_precedent": "Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U.S. ___ (2025)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Court granted a narrow preliminary injunction (materials access) but has not found a burden; scope of Mahmoud for kindergarten read-alouds is unsettled.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Alan L. v. Lexington Public Schools",
     "court": "D. Mass.",
     "number": "CourtListener docket 71677178 (no case number found)",
     "date": "2025-12-30",
     "outcome": "Narrow PI requiring access to LGBTQ-themed materials; merits undecided",
     "why": "Court did not decide whether materials burden free exercise; PI motion filed 2025-12-30 per PDF name."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.aclum.org/?p=13308",
    "https://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/L.-v.-Lexington-Public-Schools-Motion-for-PI-12302025.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "District-level defendant; state statutes are context, not the direct target. Weak state-law target.",
   "_file": "categories_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "Establishment / Free Exercise",
   "id": "ma-massachusetts-state-anti-discrimination-curriculum-rules-and-district-lgbtq-i",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 181
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Missouri",
   "state_code": "MO",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Land Tax Collection Law surplus and forfeiture of unclaimed surplus",
   "citation": "Mo. Rev. Stat. 140.230 (surplus), 140.250 (third offering, post-third-year sales), 140.405 (purchaser notice, redemption)",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause (via 14th Amendment)",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026) (decided 2026-06-23; sale-price baseline for just compensation after a fairly conducted tax sale; FMV theory and Excessive Fines theory rejected; procedural-unfairness claims left open on remand); Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Surplus is returned on claim, but unclaimed surplus is forfeited to the state/school fund after a short window and land bank transfers skip public sale.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=140.230",
    "https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=140.250",
    "https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=140.405"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Statute text read (Revisor of Missouri; 140.230 version shown is eff. Aug. 28, 2018, history lists amendments in 1990, 2003, 2010, 2013, 2018; no post-Tyler amendment). 140.230: when a parcel sells for more than the debt, taxes, and costs, the sheriff/collector pays the surplus to the county treasury; it is held for the lesser of three years or 90 days after the redemption period for lienholders of record first (by lien priority as of the sale date), then the owner; claims are made to the county commission with proof; no surplus is distributed until 90 days after redemption expires; at the end of three years undistributed funds become a permanent school fund of the county; no interest. 140.250: a parcel unsold for two years is sold at the third offering for not less than taxes, interest, penalty, and costs, with a 90-day redemption period; post-third-year sales carry no redemption period and an immediate collector's deed, so low-bid sales of valuable parcels leave the owner only the bid surplus, if any. 140.405: the purchaser must give the owner 90 days' notice by first-class and certified mail before taking the deed. The structure pays surplus (Tyler-compliant on its face) but forfeits unclaimed surplus to the school fund; the window is short and the 'lesser of' wording is ambiguous. No case claimed; none found. Vulnerability left at 3. Pung limits damages to sale surplus.",
   "_file": "taxsale_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "mo-missouri-land-tax-collection-law-surplus-and-forfeiture-of-unclaimed-surplus",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 182
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Nashville-Davidson County, TN",
   "state_code": "TN",
   "level": "county",
   "law_name": "Metro Nashville contracting program (Equal Business Opportunity)",
   "citation": "Metro Code ch. 4.46 (Minority- and Women-Owned Business Program)",
   "subject_area": "race_preferences",
   "constitutional_provision": "Equal Protection",
   "key_precedent": "SFFA v. Harvard (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Metro race- and sex-based participation goals face SFFA-based narrow tailoring.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Citation from memory; Tennessee also has anti-DEI measures.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "Equal Protection",
   "id": "tn-nashville-davidson-county-tn-metro-nashville-contracting-program-equal-busine",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 183
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Nebraska",
   "state_code": "NE",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Private tax-certificate purchaser acting as state actor in tax deed process",
   "citation": "Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 77-1801 et seq., 77-1824",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause (via 14th Amendment); Due Process (notice)",
   "key_precedent": "Plemons v. Gale, 396 F.3d 569 (4th Cir. 2005); Fair v. Continental Resources (Neb. 2024); Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Private purchaser invoking state tax-deed machinery is plausibly a 1983 defendant; Nebraska court already imposed liability.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Fair v. Continental Resources, Inc.",
     "court": "Neb. Sup. Ct.",
     "number": "S-21-0363 (not verified)",
     "date": "2024-08",
     "outcome": "Private purchaser may be liable",
     "why": "state privilege/state-law claim; not a 1983 holding"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.nelsonmullins.com/insights/alerts/additional_nelson_mullins_alerts/all/reacting-to-tyler-v-hennepin-county-nebraska-supreme-court-imposes-liability-on-investors"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Federal circuit law on private-purchaser state action in the Eighth Circuit not researched. TIA/comity: 28 U.S.C. 1341 and Fair Assessment v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100 (1981) may be raised against federal suits over county tax enforcement; former-owner surplus takings claims are usually framed as challenging post-collection retention, not tax assessment/collection, but this is not uniformly settled; check circuit law. After Pung, FMV-based damages theories are weak; viable claims target no-sale transfers to government/purchaser, forfeiture of unclaimed surplus, unfair procedure, and pre-cure deeds. Re-check 2026-11-12: not independently re-verified (Justia 403).",
   "_file": "taxsale_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "ne-nebraska-private-tax-certificate-purchaser-acting-as-state-actor-in-tax-deed-",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 184
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New Hampshire",
   "state_code": "NH",
   "law_name": "Tax-deeded property: excess proceeds distribution and 3-year repurchase/claim cutoff",
   "citation": "RSA 80:88, 80:89 (esp. 80:89, VII), 80:90",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment (Takings); N.H. Const. Pt. I, art. 12",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Polonsky v. Town of Bedford, 171 N.H. 89 (2018)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Statute text of the 3-year cutoff still on the books though state courts held it unconstitutional; municipality keeps unclaimed interpleaded funds; surplus measured from sale price.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Polonsky v. Town of Bedford",
     "court": "N.H. Super. Ct. (remand) and N.H. Supreme Court",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2019-05-14 (Super. Ct.)",
     "outcome": "3-year limit held unconstitutional under Part I, art. 12 (state constitution)",
     "why": "Extinguishing the duty to pay excess proceeds three years after the deed recording was an uncompensated taking. Supreme Court decisions in 2018 (171 N.H. 89) and 2020 per NHMA/secondary summaries; I did not read the opinions and the 2020 date is unverified."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/V/80/80-88.htm",
    "https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/V/80/80-89.htm",
    "https://www.nhmunicipal.org/node/3963",
    "https://www.nhmunicipal.org/sites/default/files/uploads/webinars/navigating_tax_deed_traps_2024-08-28.pdf"
   ],
   "notes": "RSA 80:88 read: municipality recovers only taxes, interest, costs and penalty; excess goes by interpleader to superior court within 60 days of settlement; municipality keeps costs and a continuing interest, and unclaimed funds become municipal property. Latest amendments seen: 2007 c.184 and 2016 c.37; no post-Tyler amendment found, but not exhaustively checked. Gaps: unclaimed-fund forfeiture, interpleader cost deduction, sale price rather than FMV, municipal retention (no sale) valuation unaddressed. The success is under the state constitution; a federal § 1983 claim is untested in my search. TIA/comity: § 1983 damages claims for takings of surplus equity were litigated in federal court in Tyler itself; injunctive/declaratory attacks on the tax-collection scheme face 28 U.S.C. § 1341 and Fair Assessment v. McNary comity, though surplus-after-sale claims are generally not 'assessment/collection' of tax. Search budget was exhausted mid-task, so post-2024 litigation was not exhaustively checked. Re-check 2026-11-12: not independently re-verified in this pass.",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "level": "state",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "taxsale_east.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "nh-new-hampshire-tax-deeded-property-excess-proceeds-distribution-and-3-year-rep",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 185
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New Jersey",
   "state_code": "NJ",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Tax Sale Law as amended by L. 2024, c. 39 (owner must demand judicial sale or internet auction to preserve equity; no-bid presumption of no equity)",
   "citation": "N.J.S.A. 54:5-87(b) (2024) and related provisions of N.J.S.A. 54:5-1 et seq.; L. 2024, c. 39 (eff. July 10, 2024)",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause; Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process (Mullane; Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006))",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Roberto (N.J. 2025); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026)) (fairly conducted sale: compensation is sale surplus, not FMV; fairness challenges preserved); Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Cure is opt-in: if the owner does not demand a sale before final judgment, owner 'shall have no claim against the holder for any equity,' and a no-bid transfer is 'presumed' to carry no equity; Roberto expressly did not reach whether the revised law is still unconstitutional.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2025/a_29_23.pdf",
    "https://riker.com/publications/new-jersey-aligns-tax-sale-law-with-u-s-supreme-court-decision/",
    "https://newjerseymonitor.com/2024/07/10/bill-aligning-n-j-tax-sale-with-u-s-supreme-court-decision-becomes-law/"
   ],
   "notes": "Residual gaps: (1) waiver by silence when notice of the demand right is inadequate (Jones/Mullane problem; adequacy of the notice content not reviewed); (2) forfeiture of equity on no-bid/credit transfer to the certificate holder via a rebuttable-looking presumption; (3) abandoned-property exclusion; (4) prospective only (no effect where final judgment entered before 7/10/2024). Roberto: 'Court did not reach' the revised law. Later NJ bills (e.g., S2334 and a 2026-27 session bill to revise tax lien foreclosure law) were seen in search results only; enactment not verified. Surplus is sale-price-based (consistent with Pung). Challenge would proceed in NJ Superior Court or D.N.J.; TIA/comity should not bar a claim for equity beyond the debt (see Edmondson).",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "_file": "taxsale_east.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "nj-new-jersey-tax-sale-law-as-amended-by-l-2024-c-39-owner-must-demand-judicial-",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 186
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New York",
   "state_code": "NY",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Election deepfake disclosure law",
   "citation": "N.Y. Elec. Law § 14-106(5)",
   "subject_area": "election_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Kohls v. Bonta (E.D. Cal. 2025); Moody v. NetChoice",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "California's analogous deepfake laws were enjoined; NY's disclosure model is milder but still content-based.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "No NY challenge found; citation and details from memory. Standing and timing issues (pre-election).",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "ny-new-york-election-deepfake-disclosure-law",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 187
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Oakland, CA",
   "state_code": "CA",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Protected-tree removal permit and value-based penalty ordinance",
   "citation": "Oakland Municipal Code ch. 12.36 (penalty under § 12.36.150)",
   "subject_area": "takings",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment (taking; unconstitutional conditions); Eighth Amendment (excessive fines)",
   "key_precedent": "Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, 601 U.S. 267 (2024); Koontz; Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. 146 (2019)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Permit conditions requiring payment of tree 'value' and a $915,135.40 penalty plus lien invite Sheetz/Koontz exaction and Timbs excessive-fine claims, though Ninth Circuit law on tree/land-use regulation is mixed.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Bernard v. City of Oakland",
     "court": "N.D. Cal.",
     "number": "4:26-cv-06551",
     "date": "2026-06-29",
     "outcome": "Complaint filed; no ruling found",
     "why": "Facial and as-applied §1983 challenge after May 5, 2026 resolution fining owners $915,135.40 for removing 38 protected trees in 2021-22, with permit hold and lien"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.texaspolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Matthew-Bernard-and-Lynn-Warner-v.-City-of-Oakland-California-Complaint.pdf"
   ],
   "notes": "I read the complaint (Texas Public Policy Foundation) but not the code text. Ripeness/Williamson County is not an issue after Knick, but the as-applied claim depends on the permit-condition facts. A live case, so the useful move is to track it. Check for an answer or motion to dismiss.",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "cities_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "ca-oakland-ca-protected-tree-removal-permit-and-value-based-penalty-ordinance",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 188
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Ohio",
   "state_code": "OH",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "OVI vehicle forfeiture / penalty in lieu of forfeiture",
   "citation": "Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.19(G)(1)(c)(v)",
   "subject_area": "forfeiture_fines",
   "constitutional_provision": "Eighth Amendment (Excessive Fines)",
   "key_precedent": "Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. 146 (2019); State v. O'Malley (Ohio 2022)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Ohio courts already treat OVI vehicle forfeiture as subject to excessive-fines review, making as-applied challenges viable.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "State v. Kirk, 2026-Ohio-1102",
     "court": "Ohio Ct. App. (9th Dist.)",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2026",
     "outcome": null,
     "why": "Challenged $17,000 penalty in lieu of vehicle forfeiture; outcome not confirmed from snippet."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [
    "https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-kirk-ohioctapp-2026",
    "https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/9/2026/2026-Ohio-1102.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Outcome in Kirk unknown; read opinion. Criminal-case forfeiture, so § 1983 route is limited and fact-specific.",
   "_file": "categories_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "Eighth Amendment",
   "id": "oh-ohio-ovi-vehicle-forfeiture-penalty-in-lieu-of-forfeiture",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 189
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Oklahoma",
   "state_code": "OK",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "County treasurer resale and tax deed",
   "citation": "68 Okla. Stat. §§ 3105, 3131 (3131(D) governs excess proceeds)",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause (via 14th Amendment)",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026) (decided 2026-06-23; sale-price baseline for just compensation after a fairly conducted tax sale; FMV theory and Excessive Fines theory rejected; procedural-unfairness claims left open on remand)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Struck-off/resale mechanics and surplus remedy unverified.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/oag/opinions/ag-opinions/2025/A.G.%20Opinion%202025-10%202025%20OK%20AG%2010.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Verified 2026-11-12 from Okla. Att'y Gen. Op. 2025-10 (July 30, 2025), which quotes 68 O.S.2021 § 3131(D): remaining proceeds are held for the record owner as of the date the resale begins, to be withdrawn within one year; after one year they are credited to the county resale property fund. Claim period was two years until 2009 (one year since); 2014 amendment bars assignments on or after the resale date; 2023 amendments to 3131(C)-(D) added a multi-step county/OTC process. The AG concludes the one-year deadline and the assignment bar do not violate Tyler, relying on Nelson v. City of New York. That is an executive opinion, not a court ruling. I did not read the full current statute on an official code site, and I found no court challenge. 3135 concerns county-acquired property, not the surplus claim. TIA/comity (28 U.S.C. 1341; Fair Assessment v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100 (1981)) may be raised against federal suits; surplus claims are usually framed as post-collection retention, not assessment or collection, but circuit law should be checked. After Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026), damages are limited to the sale surplus.",
   "_file": "taxsale_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "ok-oklahoma-county-treasurer-resale-and-tax-deed",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 190
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Philadelphia, PA",
   "state_code": "PA",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Philadelphia contracting set-asides (Office of Economic Opportunity, MBE/WBE/DSBE participation)",
   "citation": "Philadelphia Code ch. 17-1600",
   "subject_area": "race_preferences",
   "constitutional_provision": "Equal Protection",
   "key_precedent": "SFFA v. Harvard (2023); Contractors Ass'n of E. Pa. v. City of Philadelphia, 91 F.3d 586 (3d Cir. 1996)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Participation ranges tied to race/gender evaluated under strict scrutiny; Third Circuit has previously required rigorous evidence.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Citation chapter from memory. No pending suit located.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "Equal Protection",
   "id": "pa-philadelphia-pa-philadelphia-contracting-set-asides-office-of-economic-opport",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 191
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Portland, OR",
   "state_code": "OR",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Loaded firearm in public place ordinance",
   "citation": "Portland City Code ch. 14A.60 (loaded-firearm-in-public-place provision; exact section not verified)",
   "subject_area": "firearms_carry",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022); Wolford v. Lopez, 609 U.S. 185 (2026)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Broad public-place carry ban with license exemption; post-Bruen text-and-history test is hard for a general public-place ban, but Oregon state courts have rejected facial attack and only as-applied or nonresident-permit challenges remain open.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "City of Portland v. Sottile",
     "court": "Or. Ct. App.; cert. denied No. 25-6428 (U.S.)",
     "number": "25-6428 (cert.)",
     "date": "2024-12-11",
     "outcome": "Facial challenge rejected; cert. denied 2026-01-20",
     "why": "Ordinance capable of constitutional application (e.g., carrier without concealed-carry license); facial challenge requires unconstitutionality in all applications"
    },
    {
     "case": "City of Portland v. Ali",
     "court": "Or. Ct. App.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2025-04",
     "outcome": "Affirmed; facial and as-applied challenges rejected",
     "why": "Followed Sottile"
    },
    {
     "case": "Gun Owners of America-backed nonresident carry suit (names Portland among jurisdictions)",
     "court": "federal (court not verified)",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2026-09",
     "outcome": "Reported pending",
     "why": "Targets Oregon's nonresident permit recognition and local loaded-carry limits"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://wlo.willamette.edu/orappeals/2024/12/city-of-portland-v-sottile.html",
    "https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-6428/387780/20251217164657794_Sottile-Petition.pdf",
    "https://www.ammoland.com/2026/09/goa-oregon-nonresident-concealed-carry-ban/"
   ],
   "notes": "Cert denial on the Sottile docket verified on supremecourt.gov. Denial of cert is not a merits ruling. Section number and the GOA case caption, court and number were not verified. A federal §1983 plaintiff who holds an out-of-state permit is the cleanest vehicle. Oregon preemption statutes may also matter.",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "cities_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "or-portland-or-loaded-firearm-in-public-place-ordinance",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 192
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "San Antonio, TX",
   "state_code": "TX",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "San Antonio Small Business Economic Development Advocacy (SBEDA) program",
   "citation": "San Antonio City Code ch. 2, art. X (SBEDA)",
   "subject_area": "race_preferences",
   "constitutional_provision": "Equal Protection",
   "key_precedent": "SFFA v. Harvard (2023); Fifth Circuit",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Program uses preferences for small, minority and women businesses; race-conscious elements must be narrowly tailored.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Citation from memory; program modified in 2020s; verify what race-conscious features remain.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "Equal Protection",
   "id": "tx-san-antonio-tx-san-antonio-small-business-economic-development-advocacy-sbeda",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 193
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "South Carolina",
   "state_code": "SC",
   "law_name": "Tax sale overage: owner of record entitled, but unclaimed overage escheats to county/municipal general fund after five years",
   "citation": "S.C. Code Ann. 12-51-130 (overages); 12-51-60 (collector retains excess, written notice after deed)",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment (Takings)",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Overage belongs to the pre-redemption owner but is lost to the governing body if not claimed or assigned within five years of the auction, and municipal liens are paid first from it; five-year window is long, so the claim is weaker than short-window states.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t12c051.php",
    "https://www.nelsonmullins.com/insights/blogs/tax-reports/all/the-u-s-supreme-court-is-interested-in-tax-sales"
   ],
   "notes": "Section text read via fetch of scstatehouse.gov (summary of statute, not verbatim). Payable 90 days after deed execution unless judicial claim filed; held in separate invested account with earnings to the governing body; collector must notify prior owner in writing of excess after deed issues (12-51-60), which helps on notice. Nelson Mullins did not list SC among problem states. No Tyler suit found; search budget ended before a dedicated SC litigation search, so absence is unconfirmed. Mercury Funding v. 2019 tax sales (S.C. Sup. Ct., argued 2021) concerned redemption periods, not surplus; outcome not verified. TIA/comity: 28 U.S.C. 1341 and comity (Fair Assessment v. McNary; Levin v. Commerce Energy) bar federal suits that would enjoin or reduce tax collection, but a post-sale damages/just-compensation claim for surplus retention seeks no change in the tax assessed and Tyler itself was a class action seeking surplus compensation; defendants will still raise both. Not verified for this circuit in this survey.",
   "level": "state",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "_file": "taxsale_east.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "sc-south-carolina-tax-sale-overage-owner-of-record-entitled-but-unclaimed-overag",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 194
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "South Carolina",
   "state_code": "SC",
   "law_name": "Tax sale notice of end of redemption (certified mail; returned mail does not defeat tax title) and incontestable tax deed",
   "citation": "S.C. Code Ann. 12-51-40, 12-51-120, 12-51-90(C), 12-51-130",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process: notice)",
   "key_precedent": "Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006); Mullane v. Central Hanover, 339 U.S. 306 (1950)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "12-51-120 says returned undelivered notice does not by itself defeat issuance of the tax title, which conflicts with Jones v. Flowers unless 12-51-40(c) posting and other steps count as the required additional reasonable steps.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t12c051.php"
   ],
   "notes": "Section 12-51-40: April 1 delinquent notice, certified restricted-delivery mail after 30 days, posting if returned, three weeks of newspaper advertising. 12-51-120: certified notice 45 to 20 days before redemption ends. 12-51-90(C): deed incontestable on procedural grounds 12 months after redemption period lapses. Whether SC courts treat posting as satisfying Jones is not researched here; a facial claim is weaker than an as-applied claim for an owner whose notice was returned and who lost a home. Remedy is typically setting aside the deed (state procedures) rather than damages, and TIA/comity questions are sharper where relief would undo a tax sale. TIA/comity: 28 U.S.C. 1341 and comity (Fair Assessment v. McNary; Levin v. Commerce Energy) bar federal suits that would enjoin or reduce tax collection, but a post-sale damages/just-compensation claim for surplus retention seeks no change in the tax assessed and Tyler itself was a class action seeking surplus compensation; defendants will still raise both. Not verified for this circuit in this survey.",
   "level": "state",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "_file": "taxsale_east.json",
   "provision_group": "Due Process",
   "id": "sc-south-carolina-tax-sale-notice-of-end-of-redemption-certified-mail-returned-m",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 195
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "St. Louis, MO",
   "state_code": "MO",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "St. Louis Land Tax Suit and Land Reutilization Authority sales",
   "citation": "RSMo ch. 140 (Land Tax Collection Law), incl. § 140.405 et seq.; St. Louis Land Reutilization Authority",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment (Takings); due process",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Missouri's Land Tax Suit forecloses and sells at auction; surplus handling and notice need checking.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=140.230",
    "https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=140.250"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Seed unchanged otherwise. Read the state sections that govern: RSMo 140.230 does pay sale surplus (to lienholders first, then owner, with a 90-day post-redemption wait and school-fund forfeiture after three years) and 140.250 sets the third-offering minimum bid at taxes, interest, penalty, and costs. Did not read the St. Louis LRA statutes (RSMo 92.700 to 92.920) or any St. Louis land tax suit procedure; no Tyler litigation against the City or LRA found in two searches. Verification is secondary because the city-specific mechanism is unread. Vulnerability left at 3; the LRA's acquisition of parcels at the minimum bid with no surplus to the owner is the likely angle but is unverified.",
   "_file": "cities_26_50.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "mo-st-louis-mo-st-louis-land-tax-suit-and-land-reutilization-authority-sales",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 196
  },
  {
   "law_name": "Election deepfake video offense",
   "citation": "Tex. Elec. Code § 255.004(d) (S.B. 751 (2019)); see also § 255.0041 (unverified)",
   "subject_area": "election_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech); vagueness",
   "key_precedent": "Kohls v. Bonta (E.D. Cal. 2025); United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709 (2012)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Criminal ban on distributing deepfakes within 30 days of an election is content-based; similar laws in California and Montana have been enjoined.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://tcpaworld.com/2024/05/28/texas-did-it-first-texas-was-the-first-to-enact-state-legislation-on-the-use-of-deep-fakes-in-elections/",
    "https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/texas-court-confronts-misleading-political-communications-and-the-first-amendment"
   ],
   "notes": "No ruling found on subsection (d). A separate subsection (the 'true source' provision) was held content-based/unconstitutional in Ex parte Stafford (Tex. App.; reports conflict on court and reach), so confirm what survives. Class A misdemeanor, giving pre-enforcement standing under Susan B. Anthony List framework. § 255.0041 existence/text unverified.",
   "jurisdiction": "Texas",
   "state_code": "TX",
   "level": "state",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "states_southcentral_mountain.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "tx-texas-election-deepfake-video-offense",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 197
  },
  {
   "law_name": "Under-21 ban on handgun carry (License to Carry age floor)",
   "citation": "Tex. Penal Code § 46.02; Tex. Gov't Code § 411.172(a)(2)",
   "subject_area": "firearms_carry",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022); Reese v. BATFE (5th Cir. 2025)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "District court held 18-20 year olds are 'the people' and enjoined the age floor; Fifth Circuit struck a federal under-21 handgun sales ban in Reese; no controlling ruling on Texas carry.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Firearms Policy Coalition v. McCraw (Andrews v. McCraw)",
     "court": "N.D. Tex. (Pittman, J.)",
     "number": "4:21-cv-01245",
     "date": "2022-08-25",
     "outcome": "Age-based carry licensing bar held unconstitutional (reported); appellate posture not confirmed",
     "why": "Not shown in sources whether this reached judgment as final or remains on appeal; a 2026 cert petition (S. Ct. 26-5146) asks whether Bruen invalidated § 46.02 in a criminal case."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://versustexas.com/wp-content/uploads/Firearms-Policy-Coalition-v.-McCraw.pdf",
    "https://www.tdcaa.com/journal/how-and-why-reese-re-armed-18-to-20-year-olds/",
    "https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26-5146/409670/20260720143829302_salas-martinez-cert-pet-CORRECTED.20260720.pdf"
   ],
   "notes": "Current enforcement status unclear; confirm the McCraw injunction's scope and the 5th Cir. posture before use. Wolford v. Lopez (6/25/2026) concerns a private-property default rule; Texas §§ 30.06/30.07 are notice-based opt-ins, so they are weak targets.",
   "jurisdiction": "Texas",
   "state_code": "TX",
   "level": "state",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "states_southcentral_mountain.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "tx-texas-under-21-ban-on-handgun-carry-license-to-carry-age-floor",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 198
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Travis County, TX",
   "state_code": "TX",
   "level": "county",
   "law_name": "Travis County tax-foreclosure excess proceeds",
   "citation": "Tex. Tax Code §§ 34.01-34.05",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Takings",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Same Texas statute.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._tax_code_section_34.03",
    "https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._tax_code_section_34.04",
    "https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._tax_code_section_34.05"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Travis County applies state Tex. Tax Code ch. 34 (clerk holds excess proceeds; sale by constable or sheriff). No county-specific surplus ordinance or Tyler suit found in cheap checks. Statute findings are in the Texas state entry. Texas vulnerability is unchanged.  TIA/comity (28 U.S.C. 1341; Fair Assessment v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100 (1981)) may be raised against federal suits; surplus claims are usually framed as post-collection retention, not assessment or collection, but circuit law should be checked. After Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026), damages are limited to the sale surplus.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "tx-travis-county-tx-travis-county-tax-foreclosure-excess-proceeds",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 199
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Virginia",
   "state_code": "VA",
   "law_name": "Non-judicial treasurer tax sale: excess proceeds, two-year claim and hearing requirement, then general fund",
   "citation": "Va. Code Ann. 58.1-3975(K) (amended 2023 cc. 506, 507; 2024 c. 636; 2025 c. 376)",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment (Takings); Due Process (notice)",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Excess proceeds remain the former owner's, but the claimant must schedule a circuit-court hearing within two years of the sale or the funds go to the locality's general fund; short window plus forfeiture is the residual Tyler gap.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/58.1-3975/"
   ],
   "notes": "Based on a fetch-tool summary of the statute, not my own reading of the full text. Summary says: treasurer holds excess in interest-bearing escrow; on claim, forwards to circuit clerk for interpleader; claimant must schedule hearing within two years; if funds remain with court two years after the sale locality may petition to move to general fund; notice 30 days pre-sale by certified/registered mail to owners and interested parties, posting, and newspaper (website allowed for parcels under $500 annual tax). The 2024 c. 636 and 2025 c. 376 changes were not described and I did not read them. No challenge found; search budget ran out before I could run a dedicated search. Jones v. Flowers: check what the treasurer must do if certified mail returns unclaimed. Private purchaser state action: Plemons v. Gale (4th Cir. 2005), holding not verified. TIA/comity: 28 U.S.C. 1341 and comity (Fair Assessment v. McNary; Levin v. Commerce Energy) bar federal suits that would enjoin or reduce tax collection, but a post-sale damages/just-compensation claim for surplus retention seeks no change in the tax assessed and Tyler itself was a class action seeking surplus compensation; defendants will still raise both. Not verified for this circuit in this survey.",
   "level": "state",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "_file": "taxsale_east.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "va-virginia-non-judicial-treasurer-tax-sale-excess-proceeds-two-year-claim-and-h",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 200
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Washington",
   "state_code": "WA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Synthetic media in electoral campaigns (disclosure; injunctive relief)",
   "citation": "Wash. Rev. Code ch. 42.62 (2023 SSB 5152); a secondary source says recodified at RCW 29B.35.010 effective Jan. 1, 2026",
   "subject_area": "election_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Kohls v. Bonta (E.D. Cal. 2025); Babylon Bee v. Lopez (D. Haw. 2026)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Disclosure-based scheme with a private right of action; vulnerability depends on satire exemptions and fault standard I did not read.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.vaquill.ai/blog/deepfake-laws-by-state-what-is-actually-on-the-books"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Current section number is uncertain (42.62 vs 29B.35). Not read from the legislature site.",
   "_file": "categories_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "wa-washington-synthetic-media-in-electoral-campaigns-disclosure-injunctive-relie",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 201
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Washington",
   "state_code": "WA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "County tax foreclosure, auction and surplus",
   "citation": "RCW 84.64.080 (subsection 10 for surplus)",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause (via 14th Amendment); Wash. Const. art. I, § 16",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026) (decided 2026-06-23; sale-price baseline for just compensation after a fairly conducted tax sale; FMV theory and Excessive Fines theory rejected; procedural-unfairness claims left open on remand)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Surplus returned on claim, but unclaimed surplus goes to county after short period; county credit-bid/ struck-off mechanics unverified.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=84.64.080"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Verified 2026-11-12 on app.leg.wa.gov. RCW 84.64.080(4): minimum bid is taxes, interest and costs. (10): the excess over the minimum is refunded to the record owner as of the certificate of delinquency issue date after water-sewer liens are paid; if no claim is made within three years after the sale, the treasurer deposits it in the county current expense fund and owner claims end. Amendment history lists 2019 c 28 as the latest; no post-Tyler amendment. The surplus is returned to the owner, but the three-year forfeiture is the exposure. TIA/comity (28 U.S.C. 1341; Fair Assessment v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100 (1981)) may be raised against federal suits; surplus claims are usually framed as post-collection retention, not assessment or collection, but circuit law should be checked. After Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026), damages are limited to the sale surplus.",
   "_file": "taxsale_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "wa-washington-county-tax-foreclosure-auction-and-surplus",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 202
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Idaho",
   "state_code": "ID",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Tax deed to county and resale",
   "citation": "Idaho Code §§ 63-1005 to 63-1007 (tax deed to county; 14-month redemption); § 31-808 (county sale of tax-deed property; surplus to former owner), as amended 2024, ch. 22",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause (via 14th Amendment); Idaho Const. art. I, § 14",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026) (decided 2026-06-23; sale-price baseline for just compensation after a fairly conducted tax sale; FMV theory and Excessive Fines theory rejected; procedural-unfairness claims left open on remand)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "County takes tax deed after redemption and sells; surplus remedy for former owner unverified.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title63/T63CH10/SECT63-1006/",
    "https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title63/T63CH10/SECT63-1007/",
    "https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title31/T31CH8/SECT31-808/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Statute text read on the Idaho Legislature site. § 63-1006: commissioners direct issuance of a tax deed to the county; § 63-1007: owner may redeem until the county contracts to sell or deeds the property, and the right expires 14 months after the county tax deed. § 31-808 (history 'am. 2024, ch. 22'): county auctions tax-deed property with minimum bid covering taxes, interest and costs; after parties in interest are paid, remaining funds 'shall be returned to the owner(s) of record'; 30-day notice, 60-day claim window, unclaimed funds may go to the state treasurer; § 31-808(9) bars gifts/exchanges of tax-deed property to government entities for property acquired by tax deed on or after July 1, 2024. Secondary reports tie this to H.B. 444 (signed Mar. 2024, effective July 1, 2024); the enrolled-bill number was not independently confirmed. Vulnerability lowered from 4 to 2: the surplus-return gap Tyler targets appears closed for sales and deeds after the 2024 amendment. Remaining exposure: pre-amendment tax-deed sales and gifts to government entities, the short 60-day claim window with state-treasurer forfeiture, and notice. No Idaho lawsuit found.",
   "_file": "taxsale_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "id-idaho-tax-deed-to-county-and-resale",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 203
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Michigan",
   "state_code": "MI",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "General Property Tax Act tax foreclosure; post-Rafaeli surplus claim procedure",
   "citation": "MCL 211.78 et seq.; MCL 211.78t (2020 PA 256, eff. Dec. 22, 2020)",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Takings Clause; Due Process (notice); Excessive Fines",
   "key_precedent": "Howard v. Macomb County, No. 24-1665 (6th Cir. Mar. 28, 2025), cert. denied (No. 25-451, Jan. 12, 2026)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "2020 PA 256 returns surplus through a claim procedure, but its deadlines and its treatment of pre-2020 foreclosures remain contested.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Rafaeli, LLC v. Oakland County",
     "court": "Mich.",
     "number": "505 Mich. 429 (952 N.W.2d 434)",
     "date": "2020-07-17",
     "outcome": "Retaining surplus is a taking under Mich. Const.; surplus owed",
     "why": "Cited in Howard and in the compiler's note to 78t; opinion itself not re-read"
    },
    {
     "case": "Hall v. Meisner",
     "court": "6th Cir.",
     "number": "21-1700; 51 F.4th 185",
     "date": "2022-10-13",
     "outcome": "Reversed dismissal; pre-2020 Michigan scheme violated federal Takings Clause (as described in Howard, 25a0070p)",
     "why": "Applied the pre-2020 GPTA; cert. denied 143 S. Ct. 2638/2639 (2023) per secondary source"
    },
    {
     "case": "Fox v. Saginaw County",
     "court": "6th Cir.",
     "number": "22-1272; 67 F.4th 284",
     "date": "2023-04-28",
     "outcome": "Class certification reversed/vacated for lack of Rule 23 rigorous analysis (per Bowles v. Sabree, No. 23-1256, 6th Cir. Nov. 4, 2024, citing 67 F.4th at 300-01)",
     "why": "Class-wide damages route for pre-2020 foreclosures; opinion not read directly, date from Justia URL"
    },
    {
     "case": "Proctor v. Saginaw County",
     "court": "Mich.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2024-07",
     "outcome": "Rafaeli applies retroactively (secondary sources only)",
     "why": "Opens pre-2020 foreclosure claims in state court; opinion not read"
    },
    {
     "case": "Howard v. Macomb County",
     "court": "6th Cir.",
     "number": "24-1665 (published, 25a0070p)",
     "date": "2025-03-28",
     "outcome": "Affirmed dismissal; amended GPTA with 78t claim procedure is constitutionally adequate; 5% sale fee not shown unconstitutional. Cert. denied Jan. 12, 2026 (No. 25-451); rehearing denied Mar. 2, 2026",
     "why": "Read opinion and Supreme Court docket; defeats federal damages claims against post-2020 sales"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=MCL-211-78t",
    "https://michbar.org/Portals/0/opinions/us_appeals/2025/032825/83420.pdf",
    "https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-451.html"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "MCL 211.78t read (added by 2020 PA 256, eff. Dec. 22, 2020). Remaining proceeds = amount above minimum bid, fees, and 5% sale commission. Deadlines: claimant notice by July 1 after foreclosure effective date; unit notice by Jan. 31; motion window Feb. 1 to May 15; payment within 21 days of order; section is the exclusive mechanism; order bars further claims. For sales before July 18, 2020, 78t(1)(b) conditions a claim on a Michigan Supreme Court retroactivity order (since issued in Proctor, July 2024, per secondary sources). Post-2020 law is upheld against a federal takings challenge in the 6th Cir., so vulnerability lowered 3 to 2; residual exposure is claimants who miss the notice deadlines (Howard lost on that basis) and pre-July 2020 sales. Pung limits damages to sale surplus. Not read: Hall, Fox, and Proctor opinions directly. McGee v. Alger County Treasurer (No. 25-203) appears in search results; disposition not checked.",
   "_file": "taxsale_east.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "mi-michigan-general-property-tax-act-tax-foreclosure-post-rafaeli-surplus-claim-",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 204
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New York",
   "state_code": "NY",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Pistol permit 'good moral character' standard and licensing requirements",
   "citation": "N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(1)",
   "subject_area": "firearms_carry",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Bruen; Antonyuk v. James (2d Cir. 2024)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Antonyuk enjoined the standard's vagueness-prone parts ('good moral character' as applied to social-media and character references) but upheld much of it facially.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Antonyuk v. James",
     "court": "2d Cir.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2024-10-24",
     "outcome": "Good moral character requirement largely upheld on facial review; some social-media and character-reference parts enjoined",
     "why": "Objective vs subjective criteria; court distinguished suppressible provisions"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Verify the disposition of each licensing provision. Delay and fee challenges (as applied) remain. Not confirmed against opinion text.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "ny-new-york-pistol-permit-good-moral-character-standard-and-licensing-requiremen",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 205
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "North Dakota",
   "state_code": "ND",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Tax sale and county tax deed / resale",
   "citation": "N.D. Cent. Code 57-28-01 to 57-28-28 (esp. 57-28-02, -09, -10, -15, -18, -20)",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause (via 14th Amendment)",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026) (decided 2026-06-23; sale-price baseline for just compensation after a fairly conducted tax sale; FMV theory and Excessive Fines theory rejected; procedural-unfairness claims left open on remand)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "County acquires title after redemption period and sells; surplus remedy for former owner unverified.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://ndlegis.gov/cencode/t57c28.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Read ch. 57-28 (ndlegis.gov PDF, last modified July 1, 2025). County forecloses the lien on Oct. 1 after notice, takes a tax deed (57-28-09), appraises, and sells at annual public or private sale (57-28-10 to -18). 57-28-20 now provides that sale proceeds above taxes, special assessments, penalty, interest, and costs are held by the county for 90 days; excess is paid to the record owner on an undisputed claim in that window, to the district court clerk on a disputed or multiple claim, and otherwise to the unclaimed property administrator under ch. 47-30.2 (so not forfeited to the county). 57-28-19 gives a repurchase right. 57-28-28 lets the county impose a lien on the prior owner's other property for unrecovered cleanup costs when the property sells below taxes. Because the statute returns surplus (with a short 90-day claim window), vulnerability lowered from 4 to 2. Residual exposure: the 90-day window; county retention where the county keeps the property (57-28-19.1, -22 to -27) without a sale; fairness of the appraisal and minimum price. Amendment date for 57-28-20 not checked. No cases found.",
   "_file": "taxsale_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "nd-north-dakota-tax-sale-and-county-tax-deed-resale",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 2.0,
   "rank": 206
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Ohio",
   "state_code": "OH",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Social Media Parental Notification Act (parental consent for under-16 accounts)",
   "citation": "Ohio Rev. Code § 1349.09 (R.C. 1349.091 et seq.)",
   "subject_area": "online_minors",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment; Fourteenth Amendment vagueness",
   "key_precedent": "Moody v. NetChoice, 603 U.S. 707 (2024); Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n, 564 U.S. 786 (2011)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "District court struck it permanently in 2025, but the Sixth Circuit reversed 2-1 on June 18, 2026; other circuits and districts have enjoined similar laws.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 5,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "NetChoice, LLC v. Yost",
     "court": "S.D. Ohio / 6th Cir.",
     "number": "6th Cir. 25-3371; S. Ct. 26A557 (extension application)",
     "date": "2026-06-18",
     "outcome": "Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded for judgment for Ohio (Ritz, J., dissenting); mandate stayed; cert petition expected",
     "why": "Majority (Clay, J.) rejected First Amendment and vagueness challenges to the parental-consent mandate."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/sixth-circuit-ohio-social-media-ban-opinion.pdf",
    "https://netchoice.org/netchoice-v-yost/",
    "https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26A557/429869/20261019094334133_2.%202026-10-18%20Decisions%20below%20NetChoice_Yost%20SCOTUS%20extension%20application.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Sources conflict on whether the order below was a preliminary or permanent injunction; I did not read the opinion. Circuit is now adverse. Watch for cert and a split with the Fifth/Eleventh/Ninth Circuit cases.",
   "_file": "states_midwest.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "oh-ohio-social-media-parental-notification-act-parental-consent-for-under-16-acc",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.8,
   "rank": 207
  },
  {
   "law_name": "Ten Commandments display mandate in public school classrooms (S.B. 10)",
   "citation": "Tex. Educ. Code § 1.0041 (S.B. 10, 89th Leg. (2025))",
   "subject_area": "religion",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (Establishment Clause)",
   "key_precedent": "Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980); Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist., 597 U.S. 507 (2022)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Stone v. Graham squarely invalidated a Kentucky classroom Ten Commandments mandate; the en banc Fifth Circuit held Stone obsolete after Kennedy, so success depends on SCOTUS.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 5,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Nathan v. Alamo Heights ISD (with Cribbs Ringer v. Comal ISD)",
     "court": "5th Cir. (en banc), on appeal from W.D. Tex.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2026-04-21",
     "outcome": "En banc court upheld S.B. 10, 9-8; cert petition filed 2026-08-17, S. Ct. No. 26-257",
     "why": "Majority (Duncan, J.) held Stone v. Graham obsolete after Kennedy abandoned Lemon; dissent says Stone still controls. SCOTUS docket as of 2026-11-10 shows brief in opposition, no conference distribution or cert order. Stay application 26A15 also filed."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-257.html",
    "https://www.aclu.org/cases/nathan-v-alamo-heights-independent-school-district",
    "https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/ten-commandments-school-dispute-heading-to-the-supreme-court"
   ],
   "notes": "Fifth Circuit en banc number not captured (null). Circuit law is now adverse; only vehicle is cert or other-circuit challenge (Louisiana H.B. 71 is in the same circuit). Verified: SCOTUS docket (fetched). Statute text not read directly.",
   "jurisdiction": "Texas",
   "state_code": "TX",
   "level": "state",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "states_southcentral_mountain.json",
   "provision_group": "Establishment / Free Exercise",
   "id": "tx-texas-ten-commandments-display-mandate-in-public-school-classrooms-s-b-10",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.8,
   "rank": 208
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Alaska",
   "state_code": "AK",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Mandatory forfeiture of aircraft used in alcohol 'bootlegging' to dry villages",
   "citation": "Alaska Stat. tit. 4 (alcohol; bootlegging forfeiture); section unverified",
   "subject_area": "forfeiture_fines",
   "constitutional_provision": "Eighth Amendment (Excessive Fines)",
   "key_precedent": "Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. 146 (2019); United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "SCOTUS granted cert on how courts measure excessiveness of an in rem forfeiture tied to a $95,000 plane for a beer-smuggling misdemeanor.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "State v. Jouppi",
     "court": "Alaska Ct. App.",
     "number": "A-13147",
     "date": "2022",
     "outcome": "Remanded for proportionality analysis",
     "why": "Required Bajakajian factors in criminal-case forfeiture."
    },
    {
     "case": "Jouppi v. State",
     "court": "Alaska (Supreme Court)",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2025",
     "outcome": "Reversed; forfeiture not shown excessive (566 P.3d 943)",
     "why": "Plane value about 9.5 times max fine not grossly disproportional."
    },
    {
     "case": "Jouppi v. Alaska",
     "court": "U.S. Supreme Court",
     "number": "25-246",
     "date": "2026-07-20",
     "outcome": "Cert granted; argument reportedly Dec. 1 (unverified)",
     "why": "Whether to weigh the owner's specific conduct versus the offense in the abstract."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://news.bgov.com/us-law-week/pilot-gets-us-high-court-review-of-airplane-forfeiture-in-alaska",
    "https://law.justia.com/cases/alaska/court-of-appeals/2022/a-13147.html",
    "https://www.cato.org/legal-briefs/jouppi-v-alaska"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Arises on direct criminal review, not a § 1983 suit; the decision will set the standard for § 1983 excessive-fines claims nationwide. Exact Alaska statute section not confirmed.",
   "_file": "categories_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "Eighth Amendment",
   "id": "ak-alaska-mandatory-forfeiture-of-aircraft-used-in-alcohol-bootlegging-to-dry-vi",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.5,
   "rank": 209
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Baltimore, MD",
   "state_code": "MD",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Baltimore Minority and Women's Business Enterprise program",
   "citation": "Baltimore City Code, Art. 5, Subt. 28 (MWBE); seed from lead, text not read",
   "subject_area": "race_preferences",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection",
   "key_precedent": "SFFA v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023); City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Race-conscious goals need current strict-scrutiny evidence; post-SFFA open question, but Croson studies may support it.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Seed says open post-SFFA; I found no challenge and did not read the code or disparity study. Standing requires a bidder able and ready (Northeastern Fla. Contractors).",
   "_file": "cities_26_50.json",
   "provision_group": "Equal Protection",
   "id": "md-baltimore-md-baltimore-minority-and-women-s-business-enterprise-program",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.5,
   "rank": 210
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "California",
   "state_code": "CA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (AB 2273)",
   "citation": "Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1798.99.28-.40",
   "subject_area": "online_minors",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Moody v. NetChoice, 603 U.S. 707 (2024); NetChoice v. Bonta, 170 F.4th 744 (9th Cir. 2026)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Ninth Circuit (Mar. 12, 2026) left age-estimation, certain data-use and dark-pattern provisions enjoined but freed other provisions.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "NetChoice v. Bonta (AADC) second appeal",
     "court": "9th Cir.",
     "number": "25-2366",
     "date": "2026-03-12",
     "outcome": "PI affirmed in part, vacated in part, remanded for severability (per Cooley and Holland & Knight summaries)",
     "why": "Facial challenge to coverage definition failed under Moody; data-use limits (§ 1798.99.31(b)(1)-(4)) and dark-patterns (§ 1798.99.31(b)(7)) likely vague and remain enjoined; age estimation (§ 1798.99.31(a)(5)) injunction vacated; DPIA requirement and § 1798.99.35(c)(2) stay enjoined"
    },
    {
     "case": "NetChoice v. Bonta (first appeal)",
     "court": "9th Cir.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2024-08-16",
     "outcome": "PI mostly vacated after Moody",
     "why": "Facial-challenge analysis incomplete"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.cooley.com/news/insight/2026/2026-03-30-netchoice-v-bonta-ninth-circuit-narrows-injunction-against-californias-ageappropriate-design-code-act",
    "https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2026/03/ninth-circuit-issues-mixed-ruling-on-california-age-appropriate-design-code-act"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Section cites match the Cooley summary. Opinion not read. Partial injunction; remaining provisions in effect. Existing plaintiff is NetChoice; little room for a new plaintiff.",
   "_file": "states_west.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "ca-california-age-appropriate-design-code-act-ab-2273",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.5,
   "rank": 211
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Cleveland, OH",
   "state_code": "OH",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Cleveland MBE/FBE contracting program",
   "citation": "Cleveland Codified Ordinances (MBE/FBE provisions); section not verified",
   "subject_area": "race_preferences",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection",
   "key_precedent": "SFFA, 600 U.S. 181 (2023); Croson",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Race-conscious set-asides depend on an up-to-date disparity study; none checked.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "From memory that Cleveland runs MBE/FBE goals; no source checked.",
   "_file": "cities_26_50.json",
   "provision_group": "Equal Protection",
   "id": "oh-cleveland-oh-cleveland-mbe-fbe-contracting-program",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.5,
   "rank": 212
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Connecticut",
   "state_code": "CT",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "State small-contractor and minority business set-aside program",
   "citation": "Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4a-60g",
   "subject_area": "race_preferences",
   "constitutional_provision": "Equal Protection",
   "key_precedent": "SFFA (2023); Adarand v. Pena; Croson",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Race-conscious set-aside faces strict scrutiny; exposure depends on current disparity study.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "No challenge found; details from memory, section citation unverified.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Equal Protection",
   "id": "ct-connecticut-state-small-contractor-and-minority-business-set-aside-program",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.5,
   "rank": 213
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Delaware",
   "state_code": "DE",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Office of Supplier Diversity minority/women business certification preferences",
   "citation": "29 Del. C. ch. 69, § 6903A (verify)",
   "subject_area": "race_preferences",
   "constitutional_provision": "Equal Protection",
   "key_precedent": "SFFA; Croson",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Race-conscious certification/preferences need strict scrutiny and a current disparity study.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Not researched beyond identification; citation unverified.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Equal Protection",
   "id": "de-delaware-office-of-supplier-diversity-minority-women-business-certification-p",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.5,
   "rank": 214
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Florida",
   "state_code": "FL",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Foreign-principal land ownership restriction (SB 264)",
   "citation": "Fla. Stat. §§ 692.201-.205",
   "subject_area": "other",
   "constitutional_provision": "Equal Protection; Fair Housing Act (not § 1983 for FHA); preemption",
   "key_precedent": "Shen v. Simpson (N.D. Fla.; 11th Cir.)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Alienage/national-origin classification; status of 11th Cir. appeal not confirmed",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Shen v. Simpson",
     "court": "N.D. Fla.; 11th Cir.",
     "number": "4:23-cv-208 (district number from memory; unverified)",
     "date": "unverified",
     "outcome": "Unverified",
     "why": "Not searched this turn"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Not verified; included as a lead only. Please verify docket before use.",
   "_file": "states_southeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Equal Protection",
   "id": "fl-florida-foreign-principal-land-ownership-restriction-sb-264",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.5,
   "rank": 215
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Hawaii",
   "state_code": "HI",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Assault pistol ban and pistol magazine capacity limit",
   "citation": "Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-8",
   "subject_area": "firearms_hardware",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Heller; Bruen; Viramontes v. Cook County, No. 25-238 (cert. granted June 30, 2026); Duncan v. Bonta pending",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Cert grant in Viramontes/Grant on AR-15 bans likely resets law on commonly owned arms; Hawaii statute is narrower (pistols, 10-round pistol magazines).",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-238/423130/20260904140014849_2026-09-04%20Viramontes_Grant%20Amicus%20Brief%20re%20CRPA.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "I did not research the Hawaii statute text or any Hawaii-specific litigation; citation from memory. Ninth Circuit en banc Duncan makes a lower-court win unlikely before SCOTUS decides Viramontes (OT2026).",
   "_file": "states_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "hi-hawaii-assault-pistol-ban-and-pistol-magazine-capacity-limit",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.5,
   "rank": 216
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Illinois",
   "state_code": "IL",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Concealed carry licensing limits for nonresidents",
   "citation": "430 ILCS 66/40 (nonresident licensing); exact subsection not confirmed",
   "subject_area": "firearms_carry",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment; Privileges and Immunities / Equal Protection",
   "key_precedent": "Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Residency-based denial of the right to bear arms in public; Bruen does not allow discretion or residency screens without historical analogue, but no controlling decision yet.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Name not confirmed (suit filed March 2026)",
     "court": "Not confirmed",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2026-03-01",
     "outcome": "Pending; no ruling found",
     "why": "Challenge says the law blocks most nonresidents from obtaining an Illinois carry license."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.dailysignal.com/2026/04/06/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-challenge-to-illinois-public-transport-gun-ban/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Only a one-line mention in a search result; statute text, court, case name and date all need confirmation. Date shown is the month only.",
   "_file": "states_midwest.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "il-illinois-concealed-carry-licensing-limits-for-nonresidents",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.5,
   "rank": 217
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Kentucky",
   "state_code": "KY",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "State minority and women business participation program",
   "citation": "KRS § 45.590 et seq. (not verified)",
   "subject_area": "race_preferences",
   "constitutional_provision": "Equal Protection",
   "key_precedent": "SFFA v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Race-conscious goals for state contracting require strict scrutiny and current evidence",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [
    "https://finance.ky.gov/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Not verified; lead only. Sixth Circuit district court (Ultima, E.D. Tenn. 2023) is persuasive.",
   "_file": "states_southeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Equal Protection",
   "id": "ky-kentucky-state-minority-and-women-business-participation-program",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.5,
   "rank": 218
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Maine",
   "state_code": "ME",
   "law_name": "Automatic tax-lien foreclosure for foreclosures completed before the Tyler rewrite",
   "citation": "36 M.R.S. §§ 942, 943, 946-B (pre-2023 PL c. 358/640 sales)",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment (Takings); Fourteenth Amendment (due process)",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Municipalities that foreclosed and sold before 2023-24 kept all proceeds; § 946-B gives former owners a 5-year window, so claims may still be live.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/36/title36sec943-C.html",
    "https://rudmanwinchell.com/2024/04/03/your-guide-to-recent-shifts-in-selling-tax-foreclosed-properties-in-maine/"
   ],
   "notes": "Maine foreclosure is by automatic lien-mortgage foreclosure after the lien matures, not judicial. I found no reported post-Tyler Maine lawsuit but did not run a docket search. Whether municipalities owe surplus from pre-amendment sales is described as case-by-case by Preti. TIA/comity: § 1983 damages claims for takings of surplus equity were litigated in federal court in Tyler itself; injunctive/declaratory attacks on the tax-collection scheme face 28 U.S.C. § 1341 and Fair Assessment v. McNary comity, though surplus-after-sale claims are generally not 'assessment/collection' of tax. Search budget was exhausted mid-task, so post-2024 litigation was not exhaustively checked.",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "level": "state",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "taxsale_east.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "me-maine-automatic-tax-lien-foreclosure-for-foreclosures-completed-before-the-ty",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.5,
   "rank": 219
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Massachusetts",
   "state_code": "MA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Controlled-substance civil forfeiture (probable-cause, burden-shifting; Institute for Justice grade F)",
   "citation": "Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, § 47",
   "subject_area": "forfeiture_fines",
   "constitutional_provision": "Due Process; Eighth Amendment (Excessive Fines)",
   "key_precedent": "Culley v. Marshall, 601 U.S. 377 (2024); Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. 146 (2019)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Low evidentiary standard and no conviction requirement, but Culley forecloses a separate preliminary-hearing claim.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit-4/grading-civil-forfeiture-laws/recent-reforms-and-overall-grades/",
    "https://reason.com/2026/06/05/most-civil-forfeiture-victims-never-see-the-inside-of-a-courtroom/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Grade F per Reason summary of IJ Policing for Profit 4 (March 2026). I did not read the statute or find a federal challenge. Statute section is from memory; verify.",
   "_file": "categories_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "Eighth Amendment",
   "id": "ma-massachusetts-controlled-substance-civil-forfeiture-probable-cause-burden-shi",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.5,
   "rank": 220
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Massachusetts",
   "state_code": "MA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Age-21 limit on firearm ID cards and licenses (no handgun/semiauto access for 18-20)",
   "citation": "G.L. c. 140, §§ 129B, 131 (as amended by St. 2024, c. 135)",
   "subject_area": "other",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment (18-20 year olds)",
   "key_precedent": "Bruen; NRA v. Bondi (11th Cir. en banc 2025, contra); Reese v. ATF (5th Cir.); Worth v. Jacobson (8th Cir.), Lara v. Commissioner (3d Cir.)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Several circuits hold 18-20 are 'the people'; First Circuit has not ruled and has upheld the state's other gun laws.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Escher v. Noble",
     "court": "D. Mass.",
     "number": "25-10389-GAO",
     "date": "2025-02-14",
     "outcome": "Cross-motions for summary judgment fully briefed (reply Jan. 26, 2026); ruling not found",
     "why": "Awaiting decision."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.firearmspolicy.org/escher",
    "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.280868/gov.uscourts.mad.280868.69.0.pdf",
    "https://www.ammoland.com/2025/11/motions-filed-for-summary-judgment-in-massachusetts-young-adult-gun-ban/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Did not search past Jan. 2026 for a ruling; check docket. Complaint filing date from NRA press (Feb. 14, 2025).",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "ma-massachusetts-age-21-limit-on-firearm-id-cards-and-licenses-no-handgun-semiau",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.5,
   "rank": 221
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Memphis, TN",
   "state_code": "TN",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Memphis MWBE / Minority and Women Business Enterprise contracting program",
   "citation": "Memphis City Code (MWBE provisions); section not verified",
   "subject_area": "race_preferences",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection",
   "key_precedent": "SFFA, 600 U.S. 181 (2023); Croson",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Lead flagged; goals need current evidence. Not checked.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Lead only; no program text or challenge found. 6th Cir.",
   "_file": "cities_26_50.json",
   "provision_group": "Equal Protection",
   "id": "tn-memphis-tn-memphis-mwbe-minority-and-women-business-enterprise-contracting-pr",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.5,
   "rank": 222
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Michigan",
   "state_code": "MI",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "License-to-purchase regime for handguns and related reporting and forfeiture provisions",
   "citation": "Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 28.421-28.435",
   "subject_area": "other",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second and Fourteenth Amendments",
   "key_precedent": "Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) (shall-issue licensing; delays and fees)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Challenge focuses on denials and delays in a licensing scheme; shall-issue regimes are generally tolerated, so facial success is uncertain.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Moser v. Nessel (NRA-backed)",
     "court": "W.D. Mich. (Judge Jonker, reported)",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2026-06-15",
     "outcome": "Pending; no ruling found",
     "why": "Seeks declaration and permanent injunction on licensing, reporting and forfeiture statutes."
    },
    {
     "case": "Separate suit over approval delays (name not confirmed)",
     "court": "Not confirmed",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2025-09-01",
     "outcome": "Pending; no ruling found",
     "why": "Delay in the same process."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://shared.nrapvf.org/sharedmedia/1512195/2026-nra-moser-v-nessel-complaint.pdf",
    "https://news.bgov.com/litigation/michigan-gun-licensing-scheme-hit-with-constitutional-challenge",
    "https://news.aroutfitting.com/2026/06/15/nra-ila-nra-files-lawsuit-challenging-michigans-license-to-purchase-regime/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Complaint date is inferred from a June 15, 2026 post. Sixth Circuit venue.",
   "_file": "states_midwest.json",
   "provision_group": "Other",
   "id": "mi-michigan-license-to-purchase-regime-for-handguns-and-related-reporting-and-fo",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.5,
   "rank": 223
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Minneapolis, MN",
   "state_code": "MN",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Minneapolis Small and Underutilized Business Enterprise (SUBE) program",
   "citation": "Minneapolis Code of Ordinances, ch. 423 (from memory)",
   "subject_area": "race_preferences",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection",
   "key_precedent": "SFFA, 600 U.S. 181 (2023); Croson",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "If goals use race categories, strict scrutiny applies; unverified.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "From memory; no source checked. 8th Cir. (Sherbrooke Turf v. Minnesota DOT, 345 F.3d 964 (2003)) is the key local precedent on DBE-type programs.",
   "_file": "cities_26_50.json",
   "provision_group": "Equal Protection",
   "id": "mn-minneapolis-mn-minneapolis-small-and-underutilized-business-enterprise-sube-p",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.5,
   "rank": 224
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Minnesota",
   "state_code": "MN",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Harassment and stalking statute (negligence-style mens rea)",
   "citation": "Minn. Stat. § 609.749",
   "subject_area": "harassment_threats",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (true threats; overbreadth)",
   "key_precedent": "Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023) (recklessness required for true threats)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Provisions framed as 'knows or has reason to know' are an objective standard of the kind Counterman rejects, but only as applied to threat-based speech.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Statute text not read and no case found; this is a lead from memory. Facial relief unlikely; as-applied defense in criminal cases is the usual route, and Younger/Heck limit a § 1983 plaintiff with a pending prosecution.",
   "_file": "states_midwest.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "mn-minnesota-harassment-and-stalking-statute-negligence-style-mens-rea",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.5,
   "rank": 225
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New York, NY",
   "state_code": "NY",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "NYC residential firearm licensing (handgun and long-gun permits, fees and delays)",
   "citation": "N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 10-131 and 38 RCNY ch. 3-5",
   "subject_area": "firearms_carry",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Discretionary, fee-heavy licensing with long processing times is exposed under Bruen's rejection of shall-issue abuse (n.9), though most carry claims target state law.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Delay/fee challenges have been litigated in the Second Circuit and S.D.N.Y. (I recall Srour v. NYC, others) with unclear results; I could not confirm docket numbers. Mark all as leads. Section numbers from memory.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "ny-new-york-ny-nyc-residential-firearm-licensing-handgun-and-long-gun-permits-fe",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.5,
   "rank": 226
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Oklahoma",
   "state_code": "OK",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Riot statute",
   "citation": "Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1311 et seq. (from memory; verify)",
   "subject_area": "other_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (overbreadth); vagueness",
   "key_precedent": "Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Challenge cites Counterman on mental state; outcome of Tenth Circuit appeal unknown.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Terry v. Drummond",
     "court": "10th Cir.",
     "number": null,
     "date": null,
     "outcome": "Appeal briefed; status unknown",
     "why": "Appellants' opening brief cites Counterman; disposition not found."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [
    "https://cornell1a.law.cornell.edu/blog/wp-content/uploads/Terry-v.-Drummond-Oklahoma-Riot-Statute-Challenge-05-10th-Circuit-Appellants-Opening-Merits-Brief.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Only a brief title surfaced; I never read the statute or the opinion. Treat as a lead.",
   "_file": "states_southcentral_mountain.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "ok-oklahoma-riot-statute",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.5,
   "rank": 227
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Tennessee",
   "state_code": "TN",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Governor's Office of Diversity Business Enterprise (minority business procurement)",
   "citation": "Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-26-101 et seq. (not verified)",
   "subject_area": "race_preferences",
   "constitutional_provision": "Equal Protection",
   "key_precedent": "SFFA v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023); Ultima Servs. Corp. v. USDA (E.D. Tenn. 2023)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Race-conscious certification and goals for state contracting require strict scrutiny",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.tn.gov/generalservices/procurement/central-procurement-office--cpo-/supplier-information.html"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Not verified; included as a lead. Ultima is an in-state (E.D. Tenn.) holding on federal SBA presumptions, useful as persuasive authority.",
   "_file": "states_southeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Equal Protection",
   "id": "tn-tennessee-governor-s-office-of-diversity-business-enterprise-minority-busines",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.5,
   "rank": 228
  },
  {
   "law_name": "Foreign-adversary land ownership ban (S.B. 17)",
   "citation": "S.B. 17, 89th Leg. (2025) (Tex. Prop. Code ch. 5, subch. D, section numbers unverified)",
   "subject_area": "other",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection); Fair Housing Act; preemption",
   "key_precedent": "Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971); Terrace v. Thompson (limits)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Nationality/domicile classification invites heightened scrutiny, but standing barriers have defeated the first suit.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Wang v. Paxton",
     "court": "5th Cir. No. 25-20354 (from S.D. Tex.)",
     "number": "25-20354",
     "date": "2025-12-11",
     "outcome": "Dismissal affirmed",
     "why": "Plaintiff not domiciled in China, so no injury; Paxton disclaimed applying SB 17 to him."
    },
    {
     "case": "Huang v. Paxton",
     "court": "W.D. Tex.",
     "number": null,
     "date": null,
     "outcome": "Pending per Dec. 2025 report",
     "why": "New plaintiffs; status not verified."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.tpr.org/news/2025-12-11/appeals-court-rejects-lawsuit-over-texas-foreign-land-buyers-law",
    "https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/Opinions/pub/25/25-20354-CV0.pdf"
   ],
   "notes": "Standing is the main obstacle. Opinion PDF not read.",
   "jurisdiction": "Texas",
   "state_code": "TX",
   "level": "state",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "states_southcentral_mountain.json",
   "provision_group": "Equal Protection",
   "id": "tx-texas-foreign-adversary-land-ownership-ban-s-b-17",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.5,
   "rank": 229
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "West Virginia",
   "state_code": "WV",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "School immunization requirement without religious exemption",
   "citation": "W. Va. Code § 16-3-4",
   "subject_area": "religion",
   "constitutional_provision": "Free Exercise",
   "key_precedent": "Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U.S. ___ (2025); Miller v. McDonald (SCOTUS GVR in light of Mahmoud; new cert petition No. 26-438 pending)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "If SCOTUS applies Mahmoud to religious exemptions in school vaccine rules, Free Exercise claims strengthen; Second Circuit rejected on remand June 30, 2026",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26-438/431489/20261102121409304_26-438%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "I did not find any West Virginia federal case in search results; West Virginia litigation and executive action on exemptions exist in my recollection but are unverified. Fourth Circuit law applies. The New York case is the lead vehicle.",
   "_file": "states_southeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Establishment / Free Exercise",
   "id": "wv-west-virginia-school-immunization-requirement-without-religious-exemption",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.5,
   "rank": 230
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "California",
   "state_code": "CA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "SB 976 Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act",
   "citation": "Cal. Health & Safety Code § 27000 et seq.",
   "subject_area": "online_minors",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Moody v. NetChoice, 603 U.S. 707 (2024); NetChoice v. Bonta, 152 F.4th 1002 (9th Cir. 2025)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Ninth Circuit upheld the addictive-feed and parental-consent provisions on a facial challenge; as-applied challenges lost in district court Aug. 2026.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "NetChoice v. Bonta",
     "court": "9th Cir.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2025-09",
     "outcome": "Mostly upheld facially (152 F.4th 1002); some provisions enjoined earlier",
     "why": "Facial challenge failed under Moody; personalized feeds treated as non-expressive"
    },
    {
     "case": "NetChoice / Meta / Google / TikTok as-applied",
     "court": "N.D. Cal. (Davila)",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2026-08-05",
     "outcome": "PI denied",
     "why": "Ranking algorithms outside First Amendment protection"
    },
    {
     "case": "TikTok et al. v. Bonta",
     "court": "9th Cir.",
     "number": "26-5120, 26-5121, 26-5132",
     "date": "2026-08-11",
     "outcome": "Appeals pending",
     "why": "Pending"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.hunton.com/privacy-and-information-security-law/ninth-circuit-upholds-addictive-social-media-feed-ban-and-default-privacy-settings-for-minors-in-californias-protecting-our-kids-from-social-media-addiction-act",
    "https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/j-edward-davila-order.pdf",
    "https://epic.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/TikTok-opening-brief.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Weak target. Cert status for the first appeal unverified.",
   "_file": "states_west.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "ca-california-sb-976-protecting-our-kids-from-social-media-addiction-act",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.5,
   "rank": 231
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Connecticut",
   "state_code": "CT",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Assault-weapon and large-capacity magazine bans",
   "citation": "Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 53-202a et seq., 53-202w",
   "subject_area": "firearms_hardware",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "NAGR v. Lamont, 2d Cir. Aug. 22, 2025; Bruen",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Upheld by 2d Cir.; cert petition pending as of last sources, so success needs SCOTUS to take the question.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "NAGR v. Lamont; Grant v. Rovella (consolidated)",
     "court": "2d Cir.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2025-08-22",
     "outcome": "Bans upheld; panel treated them as regulation of 'unusually dangerous' weapons",
     "why": "Analogical tradition of regulating unusually dangerous arms"
    },
    {
     "case": "NAGR v. Lamont",
     "court": "U.S. Supreme Court",
     "number": "25-421",
     "date": "2025-10-03",
     "outcome": "Cert petition filed; briefing complete; conference stage, no order found",
     "why": "Pending; companion petition Grant (No. 25-566 per docket URL, not independently verified)"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://gunrightsfoundation.org/nagr-v-lamont/",
    "https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2025/11/scotus-gun-watch-week-of-11-18-25"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Verify current SCOTUS action on No. 25-421 on supremecourt.gov; search tool could not confirm whether the Court acted. Possible hold for Viramontes.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "ct-connecticut-assault-weapon-and-large-capacity-magazine-bans",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.5,
   "rank": 232
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Florida",
   "state_code": "FL",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Social media use for minors (HB 3, under-14 ban; parental consent 14-15)",
   "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 501.1736 (2024 Fla. Laws ch. 2024-42)",
   "subject_area": "online_minors",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Moody v. NetChoice, 603 U.S. 707 (2024); CCIA & NetChoice v. Uthmeier, No. 25-11881 (11th Cir. Oct. 14, 2026)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "11th Cir. merits panel held content-neutral and surviving intermediate scrutiny; PI vacated",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "CCIA & NetChoice v. Uthmeier",
     "court": "N.D. Fla.; 11th Cir.",
     "number": "11th Cir. No. 25-11881 (N.D. Fla. number not verified)",
     "date": "2026-10-14",
     "outcome": "PI reversed and vacated, remanded",
     "why": "Facial challenge failed under Moody; law treated as content-neutral. Stay granted Nov. 25, 2025 (2-1); vote on merits reported inconsistently"
    },
    {
     "case": "State v. Snap Inc. (AG enforcement)",
     "court": "11th Cir. appeal",
     "number": "25-12814",
     "date": "2026-03-10",
     "outcome": "Argued with CCIA/Georgia cases",
     "why": "Federal appeal of AG action against Snap; outcome not found"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://floridaphoenix.com/2026/10/14/appeals-court-lifts-block-on-florida-law-restricting-social-media-access-for-teens/",
    "https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/11th-circuit-ruling-florida-minor-social-media-ban.pdf",
    "https://ccianet.org/news/2026/03/floridas-hb3-to-get-full-hearing-by-federal-court-of-appeals-tuesday/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "AG sued TikTok/ByteDance in St. Lucie County state court (June 15, 2026; TikTok MTD Sept. 2026). As-applied challenge by a minor or parent plaintiff remains open; remand continues in district court. Statute cite not verified against text.",
   "_file": "states_southeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "fl-florida-social-media-use-for-minors-hb-3-under-14-ban-parental-consent-14-15",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.5,
   "rank": 233
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Florida",
   "state_code": "FL",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Citizen ballot-initiative petition restrictions (HB 1205)",
   "citation": "Fla. Stat. ch. 100 and § 104 as amended by 2025 HB 1205 (sections not verified)",
   "subject_area": "election_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (political speech; petition circulation); Equal Protection",
   "key_precedent": "Buckley v. ACLF, 525 U.S. 182 (1999); Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Court upheld most after trial; circulator residency/citizenship and $50,000 organization fines are the stronger remaining targets",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Florida Decides Healthcare v. Byrd (consolidated)",
     "court": "N.D. Fla. (Walker, J.)",
     "number": "4:25-cv-211 (number from memory; verify)",
     "date": "2026-04-30",
     "outcome": "Mostly upheld after Feb. 2026 trial; one criminal-penalty provision earlier enjoined",
     "why": "Deadlines and penalties treated as routine safeguards"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://floridaphoenix.com/2026/02/20/federal-ruling-in-florida-ballot-initiative-restriction-challenge-could-have-national-implications/",
    "https://flaglerlive.com/florida-law-restricting-ballot-initiatives-survives-court-challenge/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Appeal outcome not found. Citizen initiatives were shut out of the 2026 ballot; next window is 2028.",
   "_file": "states_southeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "fl-florida-citizen-ballot-initiative-petition-restrictions-hb-1205",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.5,
   "rank": 234
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Georgia",
   "state_code": "GA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Protecting Georgia's Children on Social Media Act of 2024 (SB 351)",
   "citation": "O.C.G.A. § 39-6-1 et seq. (not verified)",
   "subject_area": "online_minors",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech); vagueness; § 230 preemption",
   "key_precedent": "Moody v. NetChoice, 603 U.S. 707 (2024); NetChoice v. Carr (11th Cir. Oct. 15, 2026)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "11th Cir. vacated the PI on vagueness and § 230 theories; remand continues the facial inquiry",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "NetChoice v. Carr",
     "court": "N.D. Ga. (PI granted 2025); 11th Cir.",
     "number": "N.D. Ga. 1:25-cv-2152 (number not verified); 11th Cir. number unverified",
     "date": "2026-10-15",
     "outcome": "PI vacated (Newsom, Luck, Tjoflat)",
     "why": "Panel reversed vagueness and § 230 holdings; did not hold the law constitutional"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.atlantanewsfirst.com/2026/10/19/federal-court-clears-georgias-under-16-social-media-law-critics-warn-supreme-court-fight-looms/",
    "https://www.courthousenews.com/11th-circuit-resumes-georgia-limits-on-minors-social-media-use/",
    "https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/GAOAG/2026/10/15/file_attachments/3818445/10.15.26%20NetChoice%20v.%20Carr%20Opinion.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Law is now enforceable. NetChoice can seek rehearing en banc or cert; the Florida HB 3 and Georgia rulings are the same circuit and likely headed to SCOTUS together. A one-source report says $2,500 per violation; verify. I read only the news coverage and the opinion's existence, not its text.",
   "_file": "states_southeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "ga-georgia-protecting-georgia-s-children-on-social-media-act-of-2024-sb-351",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.5,
   "rank": 235
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Mississippi",
   "state_code": "MS",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Walker Montgomery Protecting Children Online Act (HB 1126)",
   "citation": "Miss. Code Ann. § 45-38-1 et seq. (not verified)",
   "subject_area": "online_minors",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Moody v. NetChoice, 603 U.S. 707 (2024); NetChoice v. Fitch (5th Cir.)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Fifth Circuit stayed the PI and SCOTUS declined to vacate the stay; law is in effect",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "NetChoice v. Fitch",
     "court": "S.D. Miss.; 5th Cir.",
     "number": "S.D. Miss. 1:24-cv-170; 5th Cir. 24-60341 (prior appeal, Apr. 17, 2025); later appeal number unverified",
     "date": "2025-06",
     "outcome": "PI granted twice; stayed by 5th Cir. July 2025; appeal argued Feb. 3, 2026",
     "why": "Second PI limited to NetChoice members; SCOTUS application No. 25A97 outcome reported as stay allowed (per search summary)"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://netchoice.org/netchoice-v-fitch-mississippi/",
    "https://news.bloomberglaw.com/states-of-play/netchoice-asks-scotus-to-pause-mississippi-online-age-gate-law"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "No 2026 Fifth Circuit merits ruling found as of my search. Hostile circuit; likely to ride along with Georgia/Florida cert petitions.",
   "_file": "states_southeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "ms-mississippi-walker-montgomery-protecting-children-online-act-hb-1126",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.5,
   "rank": 236
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New York",
   "state_code": "NY",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Assault-weapon and large-capacity magazine bans (SAFE Act)",
   "citation": "N.Y. Penal Law §§ 265.00(22), 265.36, 265.37, 265.20(a)(7-f); 265.00(23)",
   "subject_area": "firearms_hardware",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "NAGR v. Lamont (2d Cir. 2025); Bruen",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "2d Cir. upheld the parallel Connecticut bans as 'unusually dangerous' arms; SCOTUS petition pending, so success depends on a grant and reversal.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Lane v. James",
     "court": "W.D.N.Y. / 2d Cir.",
     "number": null,
     "date": null,
     "outcome": "Challenge to NY assault-weapon and magazine laws; disposition not verified",
     "why": "Not verified"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [
    "https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2025/06/an-update-on-challenges-to-state-assault-weapon-and-magazine-bans"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Challenge case details for NY not verified; flag for follow-up. Outcome likely tracks NAGR v. Lamont cert petition (No. 25-421) and Viramontes.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "ny-new-york-assault-weapon-and-large-capacity-magazine-bans-safe-act",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.5,
   "rank": 237
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Washington",
   "state_code": "WA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Permit-to-purchase for all firearms (HB 1163)",
   "citation": "2025 Wash. Laws ch. __ (HB 1163), eff. May 1, 2027",
   "subject_area": "firearms_carry",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Bruen; Wolford v. Lopez, 609 U.S. 185 (2026); Heller footnote on shall-issue licensing",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Shall-issue licensing is footnote-blessed in Bruen but fingerprinting, fee and training requirements for every purchase are untested; not yet in force.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.opb.org/article/2025/05/21/washington-gun-law-permit-safety-course-house-bill-1163-firearms",
    "https://www.nraila.org/articles/20260914/washington-permit-to-purchase-disaster-unfolding-in-washington"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Pre-enforcement; ripeness and standing OK once permit rules finalized; no filed challenge found. Session-law chapter number not captured. Delay-based as-applied claims likely stronger than facial.",
   "_file": "states_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "wa-washington-permit-to-purchase-for-all-firearms-hb-1163",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 1.5,
   "rank": 238
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Baltimore, MD",
   "state_code": "MD",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Baltimore City unclaimed tax-sale surplus (no notice/claim process)",
   "citation": "Md. Code, Tax-Prop. 14-818(a)(4)-(6) (surplus distribution and notice); 14-817 is the auction section; 14-844 related",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Due process (Mullane; Jones v. Flowers); Takings",
   "key_precedent": "Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006); Mullane v. Central Hanover, 339 U.S. 306 (1950)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Seed says ~$6M surplus sits unclaimed with no notice to owners; notice-based claim is plausible but unverified.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Edmondson Community Organization, Inc. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (with Tempest LLC)",
     "court": "D. Md.",
     "number": "1:24-cv-01921-BAH",
     "date": null,
     "outcome": "Motion to dismiss reported denied (takings claim plausibly alleged); defendants later sought a stay tied to Pung; current status not confirmed",
     "why": "Challenges Baltimore's tax-sale process for failing to pay surplus equity; reported by Bloomberg Tax and a Nelson Mullins alert; the opinion and docket were not read."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2026RS/Statute_Google/gtp/14-818.pdf",
    "https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-report/maryland-u-s-district-court-allows-unconstitutional-property-tax-sale-takings-claim-to-go-forward",
    "https://www.nelsonmullins.com/insights/alerts/additional_nelson_mullins_alerts/all/reacting-to-tyler-v-hennepin-county-maryland-federal-court-applies-fair-v-continental-resources",
    "https://www.thebanner.com/community/housing/baltimore-tax-sale-lawsuit-changes-DGOCZYBMFFECZHU4D53CB42ZD4/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Read the 2026 session text of Tax-Prop. 14-818 (mgaleg.maryland.gov PDF). 14-817 governs the public auction; the surplus rules are in 14-818(a)(4) to (6): any balance over taxes, interest, penalties, and costs is paid by the collector to the person entitled (or to a court when disputed); each county must create a claim process that cannot require a court order absent a dispute; within 90 days after delivering the deed the collector must notify the prior owner of record of the balance and the claim process. So the entry's premise of 'no notice/claim process' is not borne out by the current text (when (a)(5)-(6) were added was not checked). The text read says nothing on unclaimed balances; their disposition and any claim deadline are not confirmed. Baltimore abandoned-property sales for less than taxes are handled by 14-818(a)(1)(iii). Edmondson challenge details are secondary (docket not read). Vulnerability lowered from 3 to 2 for the statute; litigation reported as pending.",
   "_file": "cities_26_50.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "md-baltimore-md-baltimore-city-unclaimed-tax-sale-surplus-no-notice-claim-proces",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.33,
   "rank": 239
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Indiana",
   "state_code": "IN",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Tax sale surplus fund and tax deed",
   "citation": "Ind. Code §§ 6-1.1-24-7, 6-1.1-25-4, 6-1.1-24-4",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Takings Clause; Due Process (notice)",
   "key_precedent": "EHF-Indiana4, LLC v. M&M Inv. Grp., No. 25A-TP-2505 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2026) (applying Pung)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Surplus (tax sale overbid) is held for the owner, but unclaimed funds revert to the county after a fixed period and no-bid/certificate sales may not return equity.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "EHF-Indiana4, LLC v. M&M Investment Group LLC",
     "court": "Ind. Ct. App.",
     "number": "25A-TP-2505",
     "date": "2026-08-13",
     "outcome": "Affirmed; takings and excessive-fines claims fail under Pung because the owner received the surplus proceeds and did not challenge the fairness of the sale; court assumed without deciding that the private tax-certificate purchaser was a state actor",
     "why": "Read via an opinion aggregator (law.co), not the court site; applies Pung to an Indiana tax-deed order"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://law.co/app/cases/9000005762",
    "https://secure.in.gov/sboa/files/Appendix-to-Indiana-Codes-County-Treasurer-Manual.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Could not retrieve the text of IC 6-1.1-24-7 (Justia and FindLaw blocked; iga.in.gov is script-rendered). From secondary sources: the surplus is held in a tax sale surplus fund; owner claims it by petition; older text (2010 bill) shows a 3-year claim limit, and the SBOA index points to 24-7(f) for the claim period and 24-7.5 for recovery agreements. The Indiana Court of Appeals confirms the owner can recover surplus proceeds after the delinquency is paid. No post-Tyler amendment confirmed. Verified instead: the first Indiana appellate treatment of Tyler/Pung rejected the owner's claim, so vulnerability lowered 3 to 2. Remaining exposure: the claim deadline and forfeiture, and commissioner's-certificate (no-bid) transfers to the county or a land bank (not checked).",
   "_file": "taxsale_east.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "in-indiana-tax-sale-surplus-fund-and-tax-deed",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.33,
   "rank": 240
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Maine",
   "state_code": "ME",
   "law_name": "Sale of tax-acquired property; excess proceeds (post-Tyler rewrite)",
   "citation": "36 M.R.S. § 943-C (PL 2023, c. 358; PL 2023, c. 640, § 3)",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment (Takings); Me. Const. art. I, § 21",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Maine rewrote § 943-C to return excess proceeds; remaining gaps are a 30-day claim window, fees, waiver of foreclosure challenge, and escheat.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/36/title36sec943-C.html",
    "https://preti.com/publications/municipal-update-maine-legislature-acts-to-clarify-sales-of-tax-acquired-properties",
    "https://lldc.mainelegislature.org/Open/Laws/2023/2023_PL_c358.pdf"
   ],
   "notes": "Statute read: surplus = sale price less taxes, interest, fees, costs, utility charges and taxes the municipality would have assessed; municipal retention uses an appraisal prepared within 120 days; former owner has 30 days after final published notice to claim; unclaimed goes to Unclaimed Property Fund (33 M.R.S. § 2141); accepting surplus waives right to contest under § 946-B; municipality may deduct a 10% administrative fee (per Preti summary of LD 101 as introduced; verify in final text) and may require a quitclaim before paying. No transition clause found for foreclosures completed before the amendment. TIA/comity: § 1983 damages claims for takings of surplus equity were litigated in federal court in Tyler itself; injunctive/declaratory attacks on the tax-collection scheme face 28 U.S.C. § 1341 and Fair Assessment v. McNary comity, though surplus-after-sale claims are generally not 'assessment/collection' of tax. Search budget was exhausted mid-task, so post-2024 litigation was not exhaustively checked.",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "level": "state",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "taxsale_east.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "me-maine-sale-of-tax-acquired-property-excess-proceeds-post-tyler-rewrite",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.33,
   "rank": 241
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Massachusetts",
   "state_code": "MA",
   "law_name": "Tax-title foreclosure: excess equity after Land Court judgment (post-Tyler amendment)",
   "citation": "Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 60, §§ 64, 64A, 65 (St. 2024, c. 140; § 64A(a) amended eff. Aug. 5, 2025)",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment (Takings) via Fourteenth; Mass. Const. art. 10",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Legislature added a surplus-return regime after Tyler; residual gaps are timing and unclaimed-fund forfeiture, not outright retention.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleIX/Chapter60/Section64A",
    "https://www.nelsonmullins.com/insights/alerts/additional_nelson_mullins_alerts/all/reacting-to-tyler-v-hennepin-county-massachusetts-passes-surplus-funds-revisions",
    "https://www.mass.gov/doc/2025-municipal-law-seminar-workshop-a-discussion-summary-slides/download"
   ],
   "notes": "§ 64A text read (via fetch summary): judgment holder elects retain or sell within 30 days of final judgment; if retained, excess equity = appraisal at highest and best use (not sale price); if sold, auction bids must be at least 2/3 of appraisal; unknown owners must claim within 18 months of notice; funds unclaimed 19 months after sale/appraisal go to ch. 200A (state unclaimed property); Superior Court complaint within 12 months of accounting. Residual gaps: 12-18 month claim windows, escheat of unclaimed excess, 2/3 floor means sale price can be below FMV, municipality chooses valuation path. Effective date of the original 2024 act reported as Nov. 1, 2024 (DLS slides); a law-firm alert wrongly calls it part of the 2025 budget. Whether it applies to judgments entered before the act is not stated in the text read. TIA/comity: § 1983 damages claims for takings of surplus equity were litigated in federal court in Tyler itself; injunctive/declaratory attacks on the tax-collection scheme face 28 U.S.C. § 1341 and Fair Assessment v. McNary comity, though surplus-after-sale claims are generally not 'assessment/collection' of tax. Search budget was exhausted mid-task, so post-2024 litigation was not exhaustively checked.",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "level": "state",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "taxsale_east.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "ma-massachusetts-tax-title-foreclosure-excess-equity-after-land-court-judgment-p",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.33,
   "rank": 242
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Milwaukee, WI",
   "state_code": "WI",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Milwaukee in rem tax foreclosure (city-held tax liens)",
   "citation": "Wis. Stat. 75.521 (in rem foreclosure); 75.36 (sale and net proceeds to former owner, incl. 75.36(2m)); 75.06 (city treated as county)",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment (Takings)",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Municipality takes title and sells; whether Wisconsin law returns surplus above the debt is the question; unverified.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Elliott v. Trempealeau County (class action v. State of Wisconsin, 72 counties, and City of Milwaukee)",
     "court": "E.D. Wis. (removed from Wisconsin circuit court)",
     "number": "2:25-cv-00421 (per press release; not confirmed on docket)",
     "date": null,
     "outcome": "Remand to state court granted; motion to dismiss granted in part and denied in part (secondary summary of E.D. Wis. 2025 opinion; counts not identified)",
     "why": "Seeks surplus kept in tax foreclosure sales 1989 to Apr. 2, 2022, pleaded under Wis. Const. art. I, sec. 13; opinion and docket not read"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/75/36",
    "https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/75.521",
    "https://milberg.com/news/class-action-filed-to-recover-wisconsin-tax-foreclosure-takings/",
    "https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elliott-v-trempealeau-county-wied-2025"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Statute text read. 75.521: in rem judgment vests fee simple in the county and forecloses owner equity of redemption, with no personal judgment. 75.36(3), (2m): when the county sells property acquired by tax deed, net proceeds (sale price less foreclosure, maintenance, and sale costs and taxes) go to the former owner, notice by certified mail, and if returned or not claimed within one year of mailing the payment is treated as unclaimed funds under s. 59.66(2); no interest. History note lists 2021 Act 216, 2023 Act 207, and 2025 Act 129 as amendments (I did not read what each changed; secondary sources say Act 216 returns surplus on post-Apr. 2022 sales and Act 207 was the post-Tyler update). Secondary source says Milwaukee is treated as a county under 75.06. So the current regime pays surplus; exposure is legacy foreclosures (pre-Apr. 2022) now in the E.D. Wis./state class action, and the 1-year claim window and 59.66(2) forfeiture. Vulnerability lowered 3 to 2. Pung limits damages to sale surplus.",
   "_file": "cities_26_50.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "wi-milwaukee-wi-milwaukee-in-rem-tax-foreclosure-city-held-tax-liens",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.33,
   "rank": 243
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New Jersey",
   "state_code": "NJ",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "LGBT and disability history instruction mandate (middle and high school)",
   "citation": "N.J. Stat. Ann. § 18A:35-4.35",
   "subject_area": "religion",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (Free Exercise)",
   "key_precedent": "Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U.S. ___ (2025)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Nov. 2025 NJDOE memo acknowledges opt-outs are required after Mahmoud, reducing the live conflict.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [
    "https://njsbf.org/2026/02/18/opting-out-of-lessons-with-lgbtq-themed-books/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Statute section from memory; state guidance reported by a bar-foundation article. Low priority.",
   "_file": "categories_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "Establishment / Free Exercise",
   "id": "nj-new-jersey-lgbt-and-disability-history-instruction-mandate-middle-and-high-sc",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.33,
   "rank": 244
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Washington",
   "state_code": "WA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Large-capacity magazine sale ban (ESSB 5078)",
   "citation": "Wash. Rev. Code § 9.41.370",
   "subject_area": "firearms_hardware",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment (state-court Art. I, § 24 also)",
   "key_precedent": "Duncan v. Bonta pending; Benson (D.C. 2026); N.J. 3d Cir. en banc (2026); Gator's Custom Guns v. State, No. 25-153 (cert pending)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Square split with Washington Supreme Court; cert petition in Gator's pending (likely held for Viramontes).",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 5,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Gator's Custom Guns v. State",
     "court": "Wash. Supreme Court",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2025-05",
     "outcome": "Ban upheld (reported 7-2); magazines not arms",
     "why": "Court held magazines not protected arms (state and federal)"
    },
    {
     "case": "Gator's Custom Guns v. State",
     "court": "U.S. Supreme Court",
     "number": "25-153",
     "date": "2025",
     "outcome": "Cert pending; supplemental briefs 2026",
     "why": "Awaiting Viramontes"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-153/417915/20260803125652597_2026-8-3%20Gators%20supp%20br%20re%20ANJRPC.pdf",
    "https://www.heraldnet.com/news/wa-state-supreme-court-upholds-ban-on-high-capacity-ammo-magazine-sales"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "State-court case, not § 1983. A federal § 1983 action would face Ninth Circuit Duncan en banc.",
   "_file": "states_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "wa-washington-large-capacity-magazine-sale-ban-essb-5078",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.2,
   "rank": 245
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Massachusetts",
   "state_code": "MA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Assault-style firearm and large-capacity feeding device ban",
   "citation": "G.L. c. 140, §§ 121, 131M (as amended by St. 2024, c. 135)",
   "subject_area": "firearms_hardware",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022); pending Viramontes v. Cook County / Grant v. Higgins cert petitions",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "First Circuit has upheld the ban at the PI stage and treats it as law of the circuit; success depends on SCOTUS granting an AR-15 case.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 5,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Capen v. Campbell",
     "court": "1st Cir. (appeal from D. Mass.)",
     "number": "D. Mass. 1:22-cv-11431 (from memory; appellate no. not verified)",
     "date": "2025-04-18",
     "outcome": "PI denial affirmed, 134 F.4th 660",
     "why": "Ban fits historical tradition of regulating especially dangerous weapons; plaintiffs unlikely to succeed. Merits stage continued in district court."
    },
    {
     "case": "Recchia v. Campbell",
     "court": "1st Cir.",
     "number": "25-1817",
     "date": "2026-07-21",
     "outcome": "Followed Capen under law-of-the-circuit; cert petition filed No. 26-541 (Oct. 2026)",
     "why": "Panel bound by Capen. Cert petition pending."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.swlaw.com/publication/first-circuit-upholds-denial-of-preliminary-injunction-against-massachusetts-ban-on-assault-weapons-and-large-capacity-magazines/",
    "https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26-541/430121/20261020140125908_26-_Petition.pdf",
    "https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6166/attachments/original/1769090590/2026.01.21_Brief_of_Plaintiffs-Appellants_%28FPC%29.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Reporter cite 134 F.4th 660 vs 600 conflict across sources; used 660 (petition's table of authorities). Recchia read only via header/petition TOC. Also an NRA-backed 2025 complaint exists (nrapvf 2025-ma-awb-complaint), details not verified. Hold for SCOTUS action in Viramontes/Grant/Recchia. A § 1983 filing now is futile in 1st Cir. except to preserve issue.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "ma-massachusetts-assault-style-firearm-and-large-capacity-feeding-device-ban",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.2,
   "rank": 246
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Las Vegas, NV",
   "state_code": "NV",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Fremont Street Experience under-21 entry restriction (special permit condition)",
   "citation": "Las Vegas Municipal Code and Fremont Street Experience special-event permit conditions (sections not verified)",
   "subject_area": "other_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (access to public forum); Fourteenth Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Barring 18-20-year-olds from a traditional public forum after hours is a speech-access restriction subject to narrow tailoring.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Gordon v. City of Las Vegas",
     "court": "D. Nev.",
     "number": "2:22-cv-01446-RFB-EJY",
     "date": "2022",
     "outcome": "Outcome not found",
     "why": "ACLU of Nevada suit against city and Fremont Street Experience"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.aclunv.org/press-releases/aclu-nevada-files-legal-challenge-pedestrian-flow-zone-ordinance/"
   ],
   "notes": "Status and whether the restriction is still enforced were not confirmed. Verify before use. Clark County's Strip pedestrian-flow-zone ordinance (McAllister v. Clark County) is already covered elsewhere.",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "cities_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "nv-las-vegas-nv-fremont-street-experience-under-21-entry-restriction-special-per",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 247
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Rhode Island",
   "state_code": "RI",
   "law_name": "Surplus from tax sale without foreclosure; unclaimed after 5 years becomes municipal property",
   "citation": "R.I. Gen. Laws § 44-9-37",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment (Takings)",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Owner gets surplus but only if claimed within 5 years; then it becomes municipal property.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://webserver.rilegislature.gov/Statutes/TITLE44/44-9/44-9-37.htm"
   ],
   "notes": "Per fetch summary only: treasurer holds surplus for owner; 5-year claim period; multi-parcel sales split by assessed value (a measure other than FMV). Covers sale without foreclosure only; the foreclosure path has no surplus provision found. Tyler left room for reasonable procedures, so a 5-year window may survive. TIA/comity: § 1983 damages claims for takings of surplus equity were litigated in federal court in Tyler itself; injunctive/declaratory attacks on the tax-collection scheme face 28 U.S.C. § 1341 and Fair Assessment v. McNary comity, though surplus-after-sale claims are generally not 'assessment/collection' of tax. Search budget was exhausted mid-task, so post-2024 litigation was not exhaustively checked.",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "level": "state",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "taxsale_east.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "ri-rhode-island-surplus-from-tax-sale-without-foreclosure-unclaimed-after-5-year",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 248
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Alabama",
   "state_code": "AL",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Civil forfeiture (drug) procedure",
   "citation": "Ala. Code § 20-2-93",
   "subject_area": "forfeiture_fines",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fourteenth Amendment due process; Eighth Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Culley v. Marshall, 601 U.S. 377 (2024)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Culley (an Alabama case) rejected a separate preliminary-hearing requirement; remaining theories are as-applied",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Culley v. Marshall",
     "court": "S. Ct.",
     "number": "No. 22-585",
     "date": "2024-05-09",
     "outcome": "Affirmed 11th Cir.; no separate preliminary-hearing right",
     "why": "Timeliness of the forfeiture hearing is governed by Barker v. Wingo, not Mathews (recollection; unverified)"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-585_d18f.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Culley outcome from memory and unfetched; Alabama statute section unverified; any later Alabama challenge unchecked.",
   "_file": "states_southeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Eighth Amendment",
   "id": "al-alabama-civil-forfeiture-drug-procedure",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 249
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Alabama",
   "state_code": "AL",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Tax sale excess proceeds: release-and-waiver condition (Act 2024-261)",
   "citation": "Ala. Code § 40-10-28 (as amended by Act 2024-261, eff. Oct. 1, 2024); related redemption, Ala. Code §§ 40-10-82, -83",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings (surplus equity); Fourteenth Amendment due process",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Surplus is held for the owner and now claimable without redeeming, but only after recording a release and waiver of all interest and redemption rights; this is a possible unconstitutional-condition gap, weakened by Pung's sale-price measure.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://ltaal.org/2024-case-law-and-legislation-update/",
    "https://www.taxsaleresources.com/blog/alabama-2024-legislative-changes-tax-sale-investors",
    "https://www.stanley-law.com/post/alabama-s-tax-lien-system-stands-strong-against-supreme-court-scrutiny"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Could not read statute text (Justia and similar returned 403) and did not review the enrolled act; relied on a Dec. 2024 LTAA summary and a tax-sale investor blog. Pre-2024 an owner could reach surplus only by redeeming. Remaining gaps to test: waiver requirement forces forfeiture of the home to get the surplus; claim window and escheat period unverified (null); whether surplus is measured by sale price where the state bids in. No known AL Tyler suit found; search budget was exhausted, so absence is not confirmed. A Stanley Law piece claims the Alabama Supreme Court recognized owner's right to surplus equity but names no case; an NNPA article mentions an Ala. Sup. Ct. ruling limited to pre-Aug. 1, 2013 sales; both unverified. Jones v. Flowers notice: not researched for AL. Pung v. Isabella County (U.S. June 23, 2026) per Holland & Knight alert (docket/U.S. cite not retrieved): when the sale is fairly conducted, compensation is the sale surplus, not FMV; fairness of the auction remains open. TIA/comity: 28 U.S.C. 1341 and Fair Assessment in Real Estate Ass'n v. McNary bar federal damages/injunction suits that attack state tax administration where a plain, speedy, efficient state remedy exists; courts split on whether a Tyler surplus claim (a takings claim for proceeds after the tax is paid) escapes the bar, so plan on a state-court or Williamson-free forum analysis. Plemons v. Gale, 396 F.3d 569 (4th Cir. 2005): private tax-lien purchaser not a state actor for mere purchase; foreclosure-stage conduct invoking state process is the stronger hook. ",
   "_file": "taxsale_east.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "al-alabama-tax-sale-excess-proceeds-release-and-waiver-condition-act-2024-261",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 250
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Alabama",
   "state_code": "AL",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Tax lien sale and lien-holder foreclosure (no-bid/state-held liens, private lienholder foreclosure)",
   "citation": "Ala. Code § 40-10-120 et seq. (tax lien sales and foreclosure; Acts 2024-261, 2024-324)",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fourteenth Amendment due process (notice); Fifth Amendment Takings",
   "key_precedent": "Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006); Tyler v. Hennepin County (2023); Plemons v. Gale, 396 F.3d 569 (4th Cir. 2005)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "2024 acts lengthened the wait from 3 to 4 years and require written notice 30-180 days before foreclosure suit to owner, mortgagee and others, which largely cures notice; surplus after private foreclosure sale still depends on process details not verified.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://ltaal.org/2024-case-law-and-legislation-update/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Statute text not read; details from LTAA summary only. Act 2024-324 (eff. June 1, 2024) adds a $45 admin fee, recoverable title-report fees, and bars lienholder entry before title. Strongest residual angles: private lienholder as state actor at foreclosure stage (Plemons is 4th Cir. and adverse on bare purchase), fees added to redemption amount, and surplus handling on credit-bid. No known challenge. Pung v. Isabella County (U.S. June 23, 2026) per Holland & Knight alert (docket/U.S. cite not retrieved): when the sale is fairly conducted, compensation is the sale surplus, not FMV; fairness of the auction remains open. TIA/comity: 28 U.S.C. 1341 and Fair Assessment in Real Estate Ass'n v. McNary bar federal damages/injunction suits that attack state tax administration where a plain, speedy, efficient state remedy exists; courts split on whether a Tyler surplus claim (a takings claim for proceeds after the tax is paid) escapes the bar, so plan on a state-court or Williamson-free forum analysis. Plemons v. Gale, 396 F.3d 569 (4th Cir. 2005): private tax-lien purchaser not a state actor for mere purchase; foreclosure-stage conduct invoking state process is the stronger hook. ",
   "_file": "taxsale_east.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "al-alabama-tax-lien-sale-and-lien-holder-foreclosure-no-bid-state-held-liens-pri",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 251
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Arizona",
   "state_code": "AZ",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Tax lien judicial foreclosure and excess-proceeds sale",
   "citation": "A.R.S. §§ 42-18201 et seq., 42-18204, 42-18236 (S.B. 1431, 2024)",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause (via 14th Amendment)",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026) (decided 2026-06-23; sale-price baseline for just compensation after a fairly conducted tax sale; FMV theory and Excessive Fines theory rejected; procedural-unfairness claims left open on remand)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "2024 act allows owner-requested public sale with excess proceeds; judicial foreclosure of certificates of purchase.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://impactforequity.org/report/liening-on-the-wrong-side-of-the-law-a-multi-state-comparative-analysis-of-property-tax-sale-reform-in-response-to-tyler-v-hennepin/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Excess-proceeds sale reasonable only where price likely exceeds amounts owed by more than $2,500; owner loses surplus right if unclaimed; three-year redemption. Small-equity parcels fall outside the remedy. Private purchaser state action: Plemons v. Gale, 396 F.3d 569 (4th Cir. 2005) supports state action for private tax-lien purchasers; Nebraska Supreme Court (Fair/Nieveen, 2024) treated private purchaser as liable for taking under state privilege. TIA/comity: 28 U.S.C. 1341 and Fair Assessment v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100 (1981) may be raised against federal suits over county tax enforcement; former-owner surplus takings claims are usually framed as challenging post-collection retention, not tax assessment/collection, but this is not uniformly settled; check circuit law. After Pung, FMV-based damages theories are weak; viable claims target no-sale transfers to government/purchaser, forfeiture of unclaimed surplus, unfair procedure, and pre-cure deeds.",
   "_file": "taxsale_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "az-arizona-tax-lien-judicial-foreclosure-and-excess-proceeds-sale",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 252
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Arkansas",
   "state_code": "AR",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Act 372 of 2025: criminal liability for furnishing 'harmful' material to minors; library policy mandates",
   "citation": "Ark. Acts 2025, Act 372, §§ 1, 5 (codified section not verified)",
   "subject_area": "other_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (overbreadth); due process (vagueness)",
   "key_precedent": "Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n, 564 U.S. 786 (2011)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "District court enjoined §§ 1 and 5, but the Eighth Circuit reversed on vagueness/standing; weak absent a new plaintiff with standing.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Fayetteville Public Library v. Crawford County (Murray)",
     "court": "8th Cir. (rev'g W.D. Ark.)",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2026-07-30",
     "outcome": "Injunction reversed",
     "why": "Panel held plaintiffs lacked standing on one section and had not shown the other unconstitutionally vague; rejected overbreadth. Date per AG release; one outlet says early August."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://reason.com/volokh/2026/08/03/eighth-circuit-panel-rejects-overbreadth-challenge-to-arkansas-law-barring-libraries-from-making-obscene-as-to-minors-material-available-to-minors/",
    "https://arkansasag.gov/news-release/attorney-general-griffin-praises-court-decision-clearing-way-for-enforcement-of-arkansas-library-law/",
    "https://www.kuaf.com/show/ozarks-at-large/2026-08-04/fayetteville-library-weighs-options-after-court-revives-act-372"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Plaintiffs may seek en banc or cert; as-applied suit after an enforcement threat is the likely path. Included as failed-challenge record.",
   "_file": "states_southcentral_mountain.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "ar-arkansas-act-372-of-2025-criminal-liability-for-furnishing-harmful-material-t",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 253
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Colorado",
   "state_code": "CO",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Tax lien sale, treasurer's deed (H.B. 24-1056)",
   "citation": "C.R.S. §§ 39-11-129, 39-11.5-102, -108, -109; H.B. 24-1056 (eff. May 2024)",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause (via 14th Amendment); Colo. Const. art. II, § 15",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Colo. AG Formal Op. 23-01 (July 27, 2023)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "HB 24-1056 requires public auction after certificate holder application with excess to prior owner; AG had called prior scheme likely unconstitutional.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://impactforequity.org/report/liening-on-the-wrong-side-of-the-law-a-multi-state-comparative-analysis-of-property-tax-sale-reform-in-response-to-tyler-v-hennepin/",
    "https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024A/bills/2024a_1056_enr.pdf",
    "https://coag.gov/app/uploads/2023/07/AG-Formal-Opinion-No-23-01.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Unclaimed surplus to state after six months to one year (short window gap); a 2026 technical follow-up bill was reported (not verified). Pre-HB 24-1056 treasurer's deeds exposed. Colorado AG filed amicus for county in Pung. Private purchaser state action: Plemons v. Gale, 396 F.3d 569 (4th Cir. 2005) supports state action for private tax-lien purchasers; Nebraska Supreme Court (Fair/Nieveen, 2024) treated private purchaser as liable for taking under state privilege. TIA/comity: 28 U.S.C. 1341 and Fair Assessment v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100 (1981) may be raised against federal suits over county tax enforcement; former-owner surplus takings claims are usually framed as challenging post-collection retention, not tax assessment/collection, but this is not uniformly settled; check circuit law. After Pung, FMV-based damages theories are weak; viable claims target no-sale transfers to government/purchaser, forfeiture of unclaimed surplus, unfair procedure, and pre-cure deeds.",
   "_file": "taxsale_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "co-colorado-tax-lien-sale-treasurer-s-deed-h-b-24-1056",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 254
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), OH",
   "state_code": "OH",
   "level": "county",
   "law_name": "Cuyahoga County tax foreclosure and direct transfer of nonproductive property to the land bank",
   "citation": "Ohio R.C. 323.65 to 323.79 (Board of Revision foreclosure); R.C. ch. 5722 / 1724 land bank provisions",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment (Takings); due process",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Ohio Supreme Court held direct transfers are not takings because the statutory process gives remedies; 6th Cir. read Michigan's similar process the same way.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "State ex rel. US Bank Trust, N.A. v. Cuyahoga County",
     "court": "Ohio Supreme Court",
     "number": "unknown (2023 WL 2762497)",
     "date": "2023-04-04",
     "outcome": "No taking from direct transfers",
     "why": "Ohio statutory process provides adequate protections and remedies, so no taking arises in the first place."
    },
    {
     "case": "Howard v. Macomb County (Michigan counterpart, reasoning analogous)",
     "court": "6th Cir.",
     "number": "unknown (2025 WL 941511)",
     "date": "2025-03-28",
     "outcome": "Affirmed dismissal of takings claim",
     "why": "Owners who skip the statutory surplus-claim steps forfeit surplus; process prevents a taking."
    },
    {
     "case": "Class action in Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas over lost equity",
     "court": "Cuyahoga C.P.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2024-06 (reported)",
     "outcome": "status unknown",
     "why": "Mentioned in a Community Progress brief via News 5 Cleveland; not verified."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.bricker.com/insights/publications/Land-banking-after-Tyler",
    "https://communityprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/2024-tyler-policy-brief.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Case details from a law-firm summary, not the opinions. Seed mentioned Freed (6th Cir.) cases; I could not verify. Any 1983 suit faces comity/TIA arguments and an Ohio-court win for the county. Pung v. Isabella County (U.S. June 23, 2026) held surplus is measured by the auction/sale price, vacated 6th Cir. (secondary reports; read the opinion before relying on it).",
   "_file": "cities_26_50.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "oh-cuyahoga-county-cleveland-oh-cuyahoga-county-tax-foreclosure-and-direct-trans",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 255
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Denver, CO",
   "state_code": "CO",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Denver ban on assault weapon-type rifles? magazine limits? (Denver Revised Municipal Code § 38-130)",
   "citation": "D.R.M.C. § 38-130 and Denver age-21 purchase/license rules",
   "subject_area": "firearms_hardware",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Bruen (2022); Colorado preemption (C.R.S. 29-11.7-103; SB 21-256)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Colorado law lets localities regulate more strictly than state, so Denver's rules face only constitutional challenge; the AWB/magazine claim is weak in the Tenth Circuit.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Not confirmed Denver actually has an AWB currently; Denver once banned them (1989 ordinance) and later preempted. Verify before using.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "co-denver-co-denver-ban-on-assault-weapon-type-rifles-magazine-limits-denver-rev",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 256
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Florida",
   "state_code": "FL",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Contraband Forfeiture Act",
   "citation": "Fla. Stat. §§ 932.701-.7062",
   "subject_area": "forfeiture_fines",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fourteenth Amendment due process; Eighth Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Culley v. Marshall, 601 U.S. 377 (2024); Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. 146 (2019)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "As-applied excessive-fines and innocent-owner challenges remain after Culley",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [
    "http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0900-0999/0932/0932.html"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "No search done; from memory. Florida requires a probable-cause hearing and fee-shifting, which reduces due-process vulnerability.",
   "_file": "states_southeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Eighth Amendment",
   "id": "fl-florida-contraband-forfeiture-act",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 257
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Fresno, CA",
   "state_code": "CA",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Public camping ban and related encampment ordinances (2024 resolution; amended Dec. 2025)",
   "citation": "Fresno Municipal Code public-camping provisions (sections not verified)",
   "subject_area": "other",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment (seizure/destruction of property, vagueness, selective enforcement); disability discrimination (ADA)",
   "key_precedent": "City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, 603 U.S. 520 (2024) (forecloses Eighth Amendment attack)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Grants Pass removed the Eighth Amendment theory; remaining claims are property-seizure, vagueness and as-applied claims that depend on facts.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "TwoHands & Quinney v. City of Fresno (class action; caption not verified)",
     "court": "federal (district not verified; Magistrate Judge Oberto)",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2025-12-10",
     "outcome": "Pending; preliminary hearing set 2026-03-24; no ruling found",
     "why": "26 claims incl. false arrest, malicious prosecution, property seizure, vagueness"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://gvwire.com/2025/12/11/fresnos-public-camping-crackdown-challenged-by-class-action-lawsuit/"
   ],
   "notes": "Weak target for a new plaintiff. Prior Fresno buffer-zone ordinance against observers of sweeps was enjoined in Martinez v. City of Fresno (E.D. Cal., Drozd, May 2022) and the amendments were reportedly repealed, so it is not listed.",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "cities_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "Fourth Amendment",
   "id": "ca-fresno-ca-public-camping-ban-and-related-encampment-ordinances-2024-resolutio",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 258
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Georgia",
   "state_code": "GA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Civil forfeiture (drug and contraband) procedure",
   "citation": "O.C.G.A. § 16-13-49 (not verified)",
   "subject_area": "forfeiture_fines",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fourteenth Amendment due process; Eighth Amendment (Excessive Fines)",
   "key_precedent": "Culley v. Marshall, 601 U.S. 377 (2024); Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. 146 (2019)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Culley held no separate prompt-hearing right, which narrows due-process claims; excessive-fines as-applied claims remain",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [
    "https://ij.org/issues/private-property/civil-forfeiture/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "From memory; no search done. After Culley, the viable theory is as-applied Excessive Fines or a challenge to the profit incentive (Harmelin / Tumey-type). Fact-heavy.",
   "_file": "states_southeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Eighth Amendment",
   "id": "ga-georgia-civil-forfeiture-drug-and-contraband-procedure",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 259
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Illinois",
   "state_code": "IL",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Drug Asset Forfeiture Procedure Act",
   "citation": "725 ILCS 150/1 et seq.",
   "subject_area": "forfeiture_fines",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fourteenth Amendment due process; Excessive Fines Clause",
   "key_precedent": "Culley v. Marshall, 601 U.S. 377 (2024); Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. 146 (2019)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Illinois reformed the Act in 2018; Culley limits due-process timing claims; excessive-fines as-applied claims remain.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Search returned nothing on Illinois forfeiture challenges; the statute name and cite are from memory and were not confirmed. Low-confidence entry; verify before use.",
   "_file": "states_midwest.json",
   "provision_group": "Eighth Amendment",
   "id": "il-illinois-drug-asset-forfeiture-procedure-act",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 260
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Maryland",
   "state_code": "MD",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Convertible pistol ban (SB 334)",
   "citation": "2025 Md. Laws (SB 334) (handguns readily convertible to automatic fire)",
   "subject_area": "firearms_hardware",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Bruen; Bianchi v. Brown",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Hardware ban in circuit that upheld AR-15 ban; PI denied.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Bathras v. Moore",
     "court": "D. Md.",
     "number": null,
     "date": null,
     "outcome": "PI denied (per seed)",
     "why": "Unverified"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Seed only; nothing found in searches. Statute chapter and effective date unverified. Status may be merely PI-stage; treat as pending if the case continues.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "md-maryland-convertible-pistol-ban-sb-334",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 261
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Massachusetts",
   "state_code": "MA",
   "law_name": "Tax-title foreclosure judgments entered before the 2024 amendment (surplus retained under old c. 60 §§ 64-65, 69)",
   "citation": "Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 60, 64, 64A, 65, 69, 69A (as amended by St. 2024, c. 140, 93-95, 212); pre-amendment text and Kelly v. Boston, 348 Mass. 589 (1965)",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment (Takings)",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Pre-amendment judgments extinguished all equity regardless of surplus; Tyler recognizes the taking, and retroactive relief is unresolved.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Tallage Lincoln, LLC v. Williams, 485 Mass. 449, 151 N.E.3d 344 (2020)",
     "court": "Mass. SJC",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2020-08-19",
     "outcome": "Secondary sources: strict-foreclosure judgment extinguished the owner's equity regardless of the tax amount; one-year finality; assignee tax payments are a lien under c. 60. Opinion text not read.",
     "why": "Pre-Tyler adverse authority on equity retention; Tyler undercut it. Verify holding before use."
    },
    {
     "case": "Town of Tyngsborough v. Recco",
     "court": "Mass. Land Court",
     "number": "18 TL 001223",
     "date": "2023-12 (amicus briefs, on the court's Oct. 13, 2023 invitation)",
     "outcome": "Docket number confirmed from the MMLA amicus brief; the town asked for a sale with surplus paid to the taxpayer; judgment not read.",
     "why": "Post-Tyler Land Court remedy proceeding on surplus equity."
    },
    {
     "case": "Davenport v. Town of Reading",
     "court": "D. Mass. (Stearns, J.)",
     "number": "1:22-cv-12239-RGS",
     "date": "2024-10-15",
     "outcome": "Memorandum and order on cross-motions for summary judgment (Fifth Amendment surplus claim; Eighth Amendment claim); ruling not confirmed. Search excerpts show a $400,000 sale (Jan. 23, 2023), about $150,546 lien, about $219,453 retained by the Town.",
     "why": "Federal Tyler claim for retained surplus on a pre-amendment tax-title sale; holding not read (fetch blocked)."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://gbls.org/sites/default/files/2024-06/In_Mass.-response-to-%E2%80%98Tyler%E2%80%99-on-tax-takings-has-been-slow-in-coming-mlw-5-31-2024.pdf",
    "https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davenport-v-town-of-reading-mad-2024",
    "https://sites.bu.edu/dome/2024/01/26/evaluating-massachusetts-tax-lien-foreclosure-laws-post-tyler-v-hennepin-county/",
    "https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2024/Chapter140",
    "https://www.massmunilaw.org/resources/Documents/Amicus%20Page/Tyngsborough%20v.%20Reco%20_%20Land%20Court.pdf"
   ],
   "notes": "Statute read on malegislature.gov: St. 2024, c. 140 (the FY2025 budget act, an emergency law; effective date not separately confirmed, about Nov. 2024) adds G.L. c. 60 s. 64A and changes related sections. After a final Land Court foreclosure judgment the judgment holder must elect within 14 days to retain or sell; if retained, appraise within 120 days at highest and best use; if sold, list within 180 days, auction at not less than 2/3 of appraisal if unsold after 12 months; excess equity paid to former owners and others holding redemption rights; if the holder cannot identify or find them, notice goes out and claims must be submitted within 18 months of the notice; excess equity unclaimed 19 months after the sale or appraisal is disposed of under c. 200A (unclaimed property); superior court jury-trial jurisdiction over disputes, complaint within 12 months of the accounting notice (64A(d) to (f)). Section 65 period raised to 12 months and 69A vacatur narrowed. St. 2024 c. 140 s. 212 (retroactive window): an owner whose right of redemption was foreclosed by a final judgment entered on or after May 25, 2021 and before the act's effective date may file in superior court for excess equity within 12 months after the effective date; no claim where a judgment entered and was not appealed on or before May 24, 2021. That window has likely closed (about Nov. 2025); judgments before May 25, 2021 are barred by statute. Section 213 creates a study commission. Vulnerability lowered from 4 to 2 for the pre-2024 judgment cohort (narrow, time-barred cohort and constitutional challenge to the cutoff dates is the remaining theory). Case rows: Tallage and Davenport opinions not read; Tyngsborough docket number confirmed only.",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "level": "state",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "taxsale_east.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "ma-massachusetts-tax-title-foreclosure-judgments-entered-before-the-2024-amendme",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 262
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Michigan",
   "state_code": "MI",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Civil forfeiture of vehicles and property (controlled-substances forfeiture)",
   "citation": "Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 333.7521-333.7525",
   "subject_area": "forfeiture_fines",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fourteenth Amendment due process; Excessive Fines Clause (Timbs)",
   "key_precedent": "Culley v. Marshall, 601 U.S. 377 (2024); Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. 146 (2019); Ingram v. Wayne County, 81 F.4th 603 (6th Cir. 2023)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Culley rejected a separate prompt-hearing requirement; remaining theories are excessive fines and county-level delay practices.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Ingram v. Wayne County",
     "court": "6th Cir.",
     "number": "22-1832 (not confirmed)",
     "date": "2023-08-31",
     "outcome": "Sixth Circuit held the county's delay in hearings violated due process (county program, not the statute)",
     "why": "No hearing within two weeks of seizure; Culley (2024) now limits this theory."
    },
    {
     "case": "Reeves v. Wayne County Prosecutor (First/Fourteenth Amendment retaliation; name not confirmed)",
     "court": "State court",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2026-01-01",
     "outcome": "Reported: prosecutor not entitled to immunity on § 1983 retaliation claim",
     "why": "Secondary report only; date not confirmed."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [
    "https://ij.org/ll/6th-circuit-unanimously-rules-against-detroit-forfeiture-program/",
    "https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/culley-v-marshall/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "No statute-level challenge found; sections not read. Treat as a lower-priority candidate. Pending-seizure facts matter for effort.",
   "_file": "states_midwest.json",
   "provision_group": "Eighth Amendment",
   "id": "mi-michigan-civil-forfeiture-of-vehicles-and-property-controlled-substances-forf",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 263
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Minnesota",
   "state_code": "MN",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Tax-forfeited land sale and surplus (post-Tyler amendments)",
   "citation": "Minn. Stat. §§ 279.03, 280.01, 281.17, 281.18, 282.005 (2024 omnibus, H.F. 5247)",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause (via 14th Amendment); Minn. Const. art. I, § 13",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026) (decided 2026-06-23; sale-price baseline for just compensation after a fairly conducted tax sale; FMV theory and Excessive Fines theory rejected; procedural-unfairness claims left open on remand)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Legislature amended in May 2024; auction/market-based minimum bid and surplus remedy cure the core Tyler defect.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Tyler v. Hennepin County",
     "court": "U.S. Supreme Court",
     "number": "22-166",
     "date": "2023-05-25",
     "outcome": "Takings claim stated; 9-0",
     "why": "County kept $25,000 beyond $15,000 debt; 598 U.S. 631"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://impactforequity.org/report/liening-on-the-wrong-side-of-the-law-a-multi-state-comparative-analysis-of-property-tax-sale-reform-in-response-to-tyler-v-hennepin/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Residual gaps reported: minimum bid may equal estimated market value only for first 30 days; unclaimed surplus goes to state/forfeited-tax-sale fund/unclaimed property; three-year redemption. Pre-2024 forfeitures (retroactivity) and claims against other counties besides Hennepin remain the main exposure. A news report mentions a suit against Douglas County, MN over tax-forfeited properties (case/number not verified). Tyler remanded; final disposition not checked. TIA/comity: 28 U.S.C. 1341 and Fair Assessment v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100 (1981) may be raised against federal suits over county tax enforcement; former-owner surplus takings claims are usually framed as challenging post-collection retention, not tax assessment/collection, but this is not uniformly settled; check circuit law. After Pung, FMV-based damages theories are weak; viable claims target no-sale transfers to government/purchaser, forfeiture of unclaimed surplus, unfair procedure, and pre-cure deeds. Re-check 2026-11-12: Minn. Stat. § 282.005 read on the Revisor site: new in 2024 (2024 c 127 art 70 s 4); subd. 5-6 pay auction proceeds above the minimum bid to a claim process (60-day notice, six-month claim window); subd. 9 returns unclaimed surplus to the county forfeited-tax-sale fund. Other cited sections (279.03, 280.01, 281.17, 281.18) not read.",
   "_file": "taxsale_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "mn-minnesota-tax-forfeited-land-sale-and-surplus-post-tyler-amendments",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 264
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Mississippi",
   "state_code": "MS",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Public-education 'DEI' ban (HB 1193)",
   "citation": "2025 Miss. HB 1193 (code section not verified)",
   "subject_area": "other_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment; Fourteenth Amendment vagueness",
   "key_precedent": "Pernell v. Fla. Bd. of Governors (11th Cir. 2026) (persuasive only)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Fifth Circuit vacated Judge Wingate's PI Oct. 22, 2026 for wrong framework and reassigned the case; speech theory depends on new judge",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Challenge by educators, students, parents, ACLU of Mississippi (caption not verified)",
     "court": "S.D. Miss.; 5th Cir.",
     "number": "not verified",
     "date": "2026-10-22",
     "outcome": "PI vacated; reassigned",
     "why": "Court held law does not reach scholarly activity or student groups; plaintiffs may seek rehearing"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.wlox.com/2026/10/23/botch-job-federal-appeals-court-reverses-injunction-reassigns-anti-dei-case/",
    "https://thegrio.com/2026/10/24/mississippi-anti-dei-law-appeals-court-judge/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Fifth Circuit narrowing construction limits facial claims; as-applied claims are better. Law was originally blocked in 2025.",
   "_file": "states_southeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "ms-mississippi-public-education-dei-ban-hb-1193",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 265
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New Jersey",
   "state_code": "NJ",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Handgun purchase permit (permit to purchase)",
   "citation": "N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3",
   "subject_area": "firearms_carry",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Bruen; shall-issue dicta fn. 9",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Shall-issue permit regime; Bruen n.9 blesses objective licensing, though delay/fees could support as-applied claims.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "No challenge found in search. Fact-heavy (delays, fees). Included for completeness.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "nj-new-jersey-handgun-purchase-permit-permit-to-purchase",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 266
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New Orleans, LA",
   "state_code": "LA",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Orleans Parish ad valorem tax sale to private purchaser (excess-value and surplus)",
   "citation": "La. Const. art. VII, § 25 (amended by Amendment 4, Dec. 7, 2024); La. R.S. 47:2101 et seq.",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026), as reported)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Sale to a private bidder at the tax amount (e.g., $6,883 for a home) with a redemption period raises a Tyler excess-equity claim, but the 2024 amendment adds an excess-proceeds procedure and Pung (as reported) measures compensation by fair-sale surplus.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Equity Trust Co. v. Thorrick",
     "court": "La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. (affirming Orleans Parish Civil District Court)",
     "number": null,
     "date": null,
     "outcome": "Affirmed for tax-sale purchaser",
     "why": "Tyler argument raised first on appeal and, per a student note, rejected on the view that surplus going to a non-government buyer is not a taking"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.tulanelawreview.org/pub/volume99/issue5/equity-trust",
    "https://ballotpedia.org/Louisiana_Property_Tax_Sales_Administration_Amendment_(December_2024)",
    "https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2026/08/pung-v-isabella-county-clarifies-the-post-tyler-tax-foreclosure"
   ],
   "notes": "Docket number and decision date for Thorrick not found. I did not read the amendment text, so effective date (proposed Jan. 1, 2026) and the final procedure need verification. Defendants are likely private purchasers, so state action (Plemons) and Tax Injunction Act/comity limits apply, and state-court remedies are probably adequate. Pung was reported by secondary sources only.",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "cities_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "la-new-orleans-la-orleans-parish-ad-valorem-tax-sale-to-private-purchaser-excess",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 267
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New Orleans, LA",
   "state_code": "LA",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "2023-2024 short-term rental licensing and platform data ordinances",
   "citation": "New Orleans Ord. Nos. 29381 M.C.S., 29382 M.C.S., 30074 M.C.S.",
   "subject_area": "takings",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment (taking); Fourth Amendment (data demands); First Amendment (association); Fourteenth Amendment (due process)",
   "key_precedent": "Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. 139 (2021); City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 576 U.S. 409 (2015)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Platform-data demands without precompliance review draw Patel arguments, but the district court dismissed most counts.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Bodin v. City of New Orleans",
     "court": "E.D. La.; appeal to 5th Cir. No. 25-30524",
     "number": "2:25-cv-00329",
     "date": "2025-02-14",
     "outcome": "District court dismissed most of 11-count suit; Fifth Circuit opinion issued 2026-08-05 (disposition not read)",
     "why": "Mostly sided with the city; reasons not verified"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.laed.272307/gov.uscourts.laed.272307.1.0.pdf",
    "https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20260805081"
   ],
   "notes": "I read the complaint (ordinance numbers and claims confirmed) but not the district or Fifth Circuit rulings. Read the Aug. 5, 2026 opinion before using. Poor target given the Fifth Circuit ruling.",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "cities_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "la-new-orleans-la-2023-2024-short-term-rental-licensing-and-platform-data-ordina",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 268
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New York",
   "state_code": "NY",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Stop Hiding Hate Act (social media content-moderation reporting)",
   "citation": "N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 394-ccc",
   "subject_area": "other_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (compelled speech)",
   "key_precedent": "Moody v. NetChoice (2024); Zauderer",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "District court dismissed X Corp.'s challenge on Zauderer reasoning; compelled factual disclosure treated as uncontroversial.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "X Corp. v. James",
     "court": "S.D.N.Y.",
     "number": "25-cv-05068",
     "date": "2026-08-26",
     "outcome": "Dismissed with prejudice (Judge Cronan)",
     "why": "Purely factual, uncontroversial disclosure reasonably related to state interest; Section 230 preemption rejected"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2026/08/27/883047.htm"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Appeal status not found. Citation not verified. Related Hateful Conduct Law is not covered by this ruling.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "ny-new-york-stop-hiding-hate-act-social-media-content-moderation-reporting",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 269
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New York",
   "state_code": "NY",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Ammunition background check and seller licensing",
   "citation": "N.Y. Penal Law § 400.03; N.Y. Exec. Law § 228",
   "subject_area": "firearms_carry",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Bruen; Rahimi",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Background checks are likely presumptively lawful; fees and delays are the exposed part.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Citation from memory. Challenges to NY ammunition rules exist but not verified here.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "ny-new-york-ammunition-background-check-and-seller-licensing",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 270
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New York",
   "state_code": "NY",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "RPTL Article 11, Title 3 tax foreclosure as amended by L. 2024, ch. 55, pt. BB (surplus claims; 45-day surplus determination; retroactive to May 25, 2023)",
   "citation": "N.Y. Real Prop. Tax Law art. 11, tit. 3 (L. 2024, ch. 55, pt. BB, signed Apr. 23, 2024)",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause; Fourteenth Amendment due process; Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Cavaluzzi v. County of Sullivan (S.D.N.Y. 2026); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026)) (fairly conducted sale: compensation is sale surplus, not FMV; fairness challenges preserved); Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Legislature created a surplus claim and made it retroactive to Tyler's date; remaining gaps (sale price conclusive as value, three-year then abandonment to the tax district, no right to particularized notice of surplus rights, district-held title with no sale) are largely consistent with Pung.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "In re Foreclosure of Tax Liens (Seelbach)",
     "court": "N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dutchess County",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2024",
     "outcome": "Rejected owner's Takings argument against pending foreclosure",
     "why": "Per Phillips Lytle summary: a pending foreclosure does not create takings risk; no constitutional or statutory right to particularized notice of surplus rights. Exact date and index number not retrieved."
    },
    {
     "case": "Matter of Foreclosure of Certain Tax Liens (County of Schoharie)",
     "court": "N.Y. Sup. Ct. (2025 NY Slip Op 25269)",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2025-11",
     "outcome": "unknown",
     "why": "Cited for the 45-day post-auction surplus calculation; holding and challengers not read (site returned 403)."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://phillipslytle.com/a-review-of-new-yorks-response-to-tyler-v-hennepin-county/",
    "https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2025/2025_25269.shtml"
   ],
   "notes": "Per Phillips Lytle: surplus claim may be filed any time before confirmation of the report of sale; for residential property the proceeding stays open at least three years after confirmation; unclaimed surplus is then deemed abandoned and paid to the tax district (not the Comptroller) to reduce the levy; in public sales the price paid is accepted as full value and no claim may argue the price was below fair value; a taxing district may offer reconveyance on payment; the court may authorize a deed to a third party. Strongest residual angles: (a) abandoned-surplus forfeiture to the district after three years (Tyler left unclaimed-surplus questions open); (b) price-is-value bar where bidding was restricted or notice defective (Pung reserves fairness); (c) district takes title with no auction. TIA/comity: not discussed in Cavaluzzi; a 'federal claim for equity beyond the debt' fits Edmondson's reasoning. Unverified: any Nassau County challenge (none found) and the reported 2024 class action against Saratoga County (Times Union headline only).",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "_file": "taxsale_east.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "ny-new-york-rptl-article-11-title-3-tax-foreclosure-as-amended-by-l-2024-ch-55-p",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 271
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "North Carolina",
   "state_code": "NC",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Stalking statute with 'knows or should know' standard",
   "citation": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-277.3A; cyberstalking § 14-196.3",
   "subject_area": "harassment_threats",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (true threats)",
   "key_precedent": "Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "objective 'should know' standard; Counterman requires recklessness for speech-based liability",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-277.3A.html"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Recollection of text; not fetched. Related precedent: State v. Bishop, 368 N.C. 869 (2016) struck NC cyberbullying statute (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-458.1(a)(1)(d)) — that provision was struck, separate from this entry. Conduct-based defense and Younger/standing limits apply.",
   "_file": "states_southeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "nc-north-carolina-stalking-statute-with-knows-or-should-know-standard",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 272
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Oklahoma",
   "state_code": "OK",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "HB 1775 (2021): K-12 limits on teaching race and sex concepts",
   "citation": "Okla. Stat. tit. 70, § 24-157",
   "subject_area": "other_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (right to receive information); Fourteenth Amendment (vagueness)",
   "key_precedent": "Counterman/Grayned-line vagueness cases",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Tenth Circuit vacated the vagueness injunction 2-1 (Sept. 2026); right-to-receive claims not reached for lack of appellate jurisdiction.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "(plaintiffs' caption not captured) v. Drummond",
     "court": "10th Cir. (vacating W.D. Okla.)",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2026-09",
     "outcome": "Preliminary injunction vacated; remanded",
     "why": "Panel found abuse of discretion on vagueness; declined jurisdiction over First Amendment claims."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://minnlawyer.com/2026/09/16/10th-circuit-upholds-oklahoma-law-race-gender-teaching/",
    "https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/courts-lets-a-state-law-limiting-race-gender-classroom-discussions-take-effect/2026/09"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Remand to W.D. Okla. continues; right-to-receive claim still live. Citation from memory.",
   "_file": "states_southcentral_mountain.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "ok-oklahoma-hb-1775-2021-k-12-limits-on-teaching-race-and-sex-concepts",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 273
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Oregon",
   "state_code": "OR",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "County foreclosure, broker sale, auction, surplus claim (H.B. 4056 / H.B. 2089)",
   "citation": "ORS ch. 312 (§§ 312.120, 312.200), ORS 98.392; H.B. 4056 (2024); H.B. 2089 (2025)",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause (via 14th Amendment); Or. Const. art. I, § 18",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026) (decided 2026-06-23; sale-price baseline for just compensation after a fairly conducted tax sale; FMV theory and Excessive Fines theory rejected; procedural-unfairness claims left open on remand)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "2024-25 acts require broker listing at FMV then auction with surplus accounting; cure is substantial.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://impactforequity.org/report/liening-on-the-wrong-side-of-the-law-a-multi-state-comparative-analysis-of-property-tax-sale-reform-in-response-to-tyler-v-hennepin/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "If the property does not sell at auction the county may forgive the debt and retain it for public use or transfer to a nonprofit (no-sale transfer gap); owners must file with State Treasurer to claim surplus; two-year redemption. TIA/comity: 28 U.S.C. 1341 and Fair Assessment v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100 (1981) may be raised against federal suits over county tax enforcement; former-owner surplus takings claims are usually framed as challenging post-collection retention, not tax assessment/collection, but this is not uniformly settled; check circuit law. After Pung, FMV-based damages theories are weak; viable claims target no-sale transfers to government/purchaser, forfeiture of unclaimed surplus, unfair procedure, and pre-cure deeds.",
   "_file": "taxsale_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "or-oregon-county-foreclosure-broker-sale-auction-surplus-claim-h-b-4056-h-b-2089",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 274
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Pennsylvania",
   "state_code": "PA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Real Estate Tax Sale Law (upset sale, judicial sale, repository sale; no redemption after actual sale)",
   "citation": "72 P.S. § 5860.101 et seq., esp. §§ 5860.205(d)(5), 5860.501(c), 5860.601 et seq.",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause; Fourteenth Amendment due process (notice)",
   "key_precedent": "Hartley v. Delaware County, No. 25-3196 (3d Cir. Apr. 3, 2026) (nonprecedential); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026)) (fairly conducted sale: compensation is sale surplus, not FMV; fairness challenges preserved); Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Statute returns excess above taxes, claims and liens to the owner, and the Third Circuit read Tyler as satisfied; residual risk is upset sales at near-debt prices with thin bidding (Pung's 'fair auction' reservation) and short or ineffective notice.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Hartley v. Delaware County",
     "court": "E.D. Pa.",
     "number": "2:25-cv-03078-JDW",
     "date": "2025-10-23",
     "outcome": "Dismissed (Rooker-Feldman)",
     "why": "Owner lost a state-court petition to set aside the upset sale and did not appeal; federal claims barred by Rooker-Feldman and res judicata. Date from Supreme Court appendix index (secondary)."
    },
    {
     "case": "Hartley v. Delaware County",
     "court": "3d Cir.",
     "number": "25-3196",
     "date": "2026-04-03",
     "outcome": "Affirmed, per curiam, non-precedential (Krause, Restrepo, Porter)",
     "why": "Rooker-Feldman/res judicata; alternatively meritless: no due process violation because RETSL bars redemption after actual sale (72 P.S. § 5860.501(c)), and no Tyler taking because 72 P.S. § 5860.205(d)(5) returns excess funds to the owner. Rehearing denied 2026-07-14 (secondary). Cert. docketed as No. 26-5827; disposition not verified."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/253196np.pdf",
    "https://parealtors.org/blog/a-recent-us-supreme-court-ruling-and-its-effect-on-tax-sales",
    "https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26-5827/429474/20261015151424764_20261015-150303-00002577-00006664.pdf"
   ],
   "notes": "Third Circuit read the statute, not the sale price: Hartley's $2,728 debt vs $220,000 value was held 'foreclosed by Tyler' because excess goes to the owner. The statute's real gap is that an upset-price sale with one bidder yields little 'excess,' so Pung's sale-proceeds baseline defeats a FMV claim unless the sale was unfair (restricted bidding, defective notice). Notice: PA Commonwealth Court regularly sets aside upset sales for failed notice (e.g., Delaware County matter, 26 C.D. 2024, July 8, 2025, affirmed denial of petition per Bloomberg Tax headline; outcome in each case varies); state-law notice is the main remedy. Rooker-Feldman/res judicata and the need to exhaust the state-court petition to set aside sale are the main federal obstacles; TIA/comity not reached in Hartley. Act 27 of 2026 (HB 96, enacted July 2026 per LegiScan) amends the RETSL for an older-adult delinquency notification system; text not verified. HB 2732 (2026) senior hardship bill pending, status unverified. No PA legislative response to Tyler found.",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "_file": "taxsale_east.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "pa-pennsylvania-real-estate-tax-sale-law-upset-sale-judicial-sale-repository-sal",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 275
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Rhode Island",
   "state_code": "RI",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Carry licensing and location restrictions",
   "citation": "R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-47-11, § 11-47-60 et seq.",
   "subject_area": "firearms_carry",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Bruen; Wolford v. Lopez, 609 U.S. 185 (2026)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "A district judge upheld the permit system; First Circuit hostile; Wolford reaches only private-property default rules.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "RI carry-permit challenge (per RIPBS report; case name not captured)",
     "court": "D.R.I.",
     "number": null,
     "date": null,
     "outcome": "Judge ruled permit system does not violate Second Amendment",
     "why": "Not verified; see source."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.ripbs.org/news-and-culture/judge-rules-that-rhode-islands-gun-permit-system-does-not-violate-second-amendment"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Weak target; listed for completeness. Citation from memory; case name and number need lookup.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "ri-rhode-island-carry-licensing-and-location-restrictions",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 276
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Tennessee",
   "state_code": "TN",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Stalking statute with 'knows or should know' standard",
   "citation": "Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-315",
   "subject_area": "harassment_threats",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (true threats)",
   "key_precedent": "Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "objective knowledge standard for speech-based stalking",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [
    "https://law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/title-39/chapter-17/part-3/section-39-17-315/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "From memory; not fetched. Conduct/speech mix and Younger limit pre-enforcement relief.",
   "_file": "states_southeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "tn-tennessee-stalking-statute-with-knows-or-should-know-standard",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 277
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Tennessee",
   "state_code": "TN",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Delinquent property tax sale via chancery suit, redemption, surplus distribution",
   "citation": "Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-2501 et seq. (delinquent tax suits); § 67-5-2702 (sale proceeds/surplus, per assignment)",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings; Fourteenth Amendment due process (notice)",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County (2023); Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Court-supervised sale with proceeds paid to the clerk for owners is the model Tyler endorsed; residual issues are claim windows, tax-lien-certificate timing, and post-sale redemption.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://communityprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/2024-tyler-policy-brief.pdf",
    "https://law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/2021/title-67/chapter-5/part-27/section-67-5-2702",
    "https://blounttn.gov/2175/Excess-Proceeds"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Could not retrieve statute text (403) or confirm any 2024-25 amendment or federal suit. The Community Progress brief says tax lien sales followed by transfer one to two years later (Indiana, Tennessee named) may leave owners a claim that the earlier sale price bears little relation to current value. Section 67-5-2702 content taken from assignment, not verified. No Tennessee Tyler suit confirmed; search budget exhausted before a targeted Tennessee search. Pung v. Isabella County (U.S. June 23, 2026) per Holland & Knight alert (docket/U.S. cite not retrieved): when the sale is fairly conducted, compensation is the sale surplus, not FMV; fairness of the auction remains open. TIA/comity: 28 U.S.C. 1341 and Fair Assessment in Real Estate Ass'n v. McNary bar federal damages/injunction suits that attack state tax administration where a plain, speedy, efficient state remedy exists; courts split on whether a Tyler surplus claim (a takings claim for proceeds after the tax is paid) escapes the bar, so plan on a state-court or Williamson-free forum analysis. Plemons v. Gale, 396 F.3d 569 (4th Cir. 2005): private tax-lien purchaser not a state actor for mere purchase; foreclosure-stage conduct invoking state process is the stronger hook. Re-check 2026-11-12 (secondary only; Justia and counselstack were blocked): 67-5-2702 lets a person with an ownership or lien interest at the time of the tax sale claim excess proceeds by motion in the chancery court, recording proof of ownership; the clerk and master holds the overage (an AG opinion ties the holding period to the one-year redemption period); Hamilton County v. Tax Year 2018 Delinquent Taxpayers (Tenn. Ct. App.) addressed priority between heirs and a judgment creditor under subsection (c)(2). Claim deadline and forfeiture of unclaimed excess not confirmed. No Tyler suit found.",
   "_file": "taxsale_east.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "tn-tennessee-delinquent-property-tax-sale-via-chancery-suit-redemption-surplus-d",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 278
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Texas",
   "state_code": "TX",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Harassment by repeated electronic communications (reasonably likely to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend)",
   "citation": "Tex. Penal Code § 42.07(a)(7)",
   "subject_area": "harassment_threats",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (overbreadth; vagueness; mens rea)",
   "key_precedent": "Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023); Ex parte Barton, 662 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Tex. Crim. App. held the subsection regulates non-speech conduct, so state courts of last resort are closed; only a federal cert route or Counterman-based as-applied claims remain.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Ex parte Barton",
     "court": "Tex. Crim. App.",
     "number": "PD-1123-19",
     "date": "2022-04-06",
     "outcome": "Reversed court of appeals; held (a)(7) does not implicate First Amendment speech protections",
     "why": "Treated as conduct regulation akin to telephone-harassment statute (Scott v. State)."
    },
    {
     "case": "Ex parte Barton (remand)",
     "court": "Tex. App.—Fort Worth",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2023",
     "outcome": "Not facially unconstitutional",
     "why": "Following CCA reasoning."
    },
    {
     "case": "Earl cert petition",
     "court": "U.S. Supreme Court",
     "number": "26-178",
     "date": "2026-08-04",
     "outcome": "petition filed; status unconfirmed",
     "why": "Argues CCA wrong on speech coverage; I could not read the petition text (binary PDF)."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/court-of-criminal-appeals/2022/pd-1123-19.html",
    "https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26-178/418089/20260804135051403_Earl%20-%20Cert%20Petition%20FILED.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Pre-2022 court-of-appeals split (Ordonez, Houston: facially unconstitutional) was resolved against challengers. Statute text not read directly. Existing entries cover only Texas online impersonation, not § 42.07.",
   "_file": "categories_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "tx-texas-harassment-by-repeated-electronic-communications-reasonably-likely-to-h",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 279
  },
  {
   "law_name": "Sexually oriented performance restrictions (S.B. 12 (2023), the 'drag law')",
   "citation": "S.B. 12, 88th Leg. (2023) (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code ch. 102; Tex. Penal Code § 43.24 amendments) - section numbers not verified",
   "subject_area": "other_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (overbreadth/vagueness)",
   "key_precedent": "Moody v. NetChoice, 603 U.S. 707 (2024) (facial-challenge framework)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Fifth Circuit vacated the facial injunction and remanded under Moody; statute limited to sexually oriented/erotic performances.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Woodlands Pride, Inc. v. Paxton",
     "court": "5th Cir. No. 23-20480, 168 F.4th 293; S.D. Tex.",
     "number": "23-20480",
     "date": "2026-02-25",
     "outcome": "District injunction vacated; Woodlands Pride and Abilene Pride lacked standing; remanded for Moody analysis; rehearing denied; law took effect 2026-03-18",
     "why": "Wrong facial-challenge framework applied. Remaining plaintiffs Extragrams, 360 Queen Entertainment, Brigitte Bandit; supplemental findings filed in district court 2026-08-25 (not read)."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.aclutx.org/press-releases/fifth-circuit-denies-motion-to-rehear-texas-drag-ban-argument/",
    "https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20260226092",
    "https://www.texaspolicyresearch.com/texas-drag-show-law-sb-12-back-in-effect-after-fifth-circuit-ruling/"
   ],
   "notes": "Citation unverified. As-applied challenge by a performer or venue facing enforcement is the more realistic route.",
   "jurisdiction": "Texas",
   "state_code": "TX",
   "level": "state",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "states_southcentral_mountain.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "tx-texas-sexually-oriented-performance-restrictions-s-b-12-2023-the-drag-law",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 280
  },
  {
   "law_name": "Civil asset forfeiture procedure",
   "citation": "Tex. Code Crim. Proc. ch. 59",
   "subject_area": "forfeiture_fines",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fourteenth Amendment (due process); Eighth Amendment (Excessive Fines)",
   "key_precedent": "Culley v. Marshall, 601 U.S. 377 (2024); Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. 146 (2019)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Culley rejected a separate preliminary-hearing requirement, narrowing due process theories; challenge targets county practice, not the statute.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Woods et al. v. Harris County (Institute for Justice class action)",
     "court": "Texas state court (Harris County)",
     "number": null,
     "date": null,
     "outcome": "IJ reports 'round two' win Feb. 2026; holding not confirmed",
     "why": "Alleges stock-language petitions filed without probable cause; at least 113 petitions since 2016."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://ij.org/ll/victory-texas-couple-wins-round-two-in-forfeiture-fight/",
    "https://ij.org/case/texas-forfeiture-ii/"
   ],
   "notes": "State-court class action; case number unknown. Relief runs against counties/DAs, so § 1983 against county officials is the vehicle.",
   "jurisdiction": "Texas",
   "state_code": "TX",
   "level": "state",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "states_southcentral_mountain.json",
   "provision_group": "Eighth Amendment",
   "id": "tx-texas-civil-asset-forfeiture-procedure",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 281
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Virginia",
   "state_code": "VA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Stalking statute using 'knows or reasonably should know' standard",
   "citation": "Va. Code § 18.2-60.3",
   "subject_area": "harassment_threats",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (true threats)",
   "key_precedent": "Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Counterman requires at least recklessness for speech-based stalking; statute uses a 'should know' objective standard",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/22-138"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "From my recollection of the statute text; I did not fetch it or search for challenges. Conduct-based stalking provisions have a conduct-not-speech defense. Pre-enforcement § 1983 faces Younger and standing limits; criminal defendants usually raise it defensively. Verify text and case law.",
   "_file": "states_southeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "va-virginia-stalking-statute-using-knows-or-reasonably-should-know-standard",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 282
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Washington",
   "state_code": "WA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Felony harassment (threats to kill) statute, formerly applied with an objective 'true threat' standard",
   "citation": "Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.46.020(1)(a)(i), (2)(b)",
   "subject_area": "harassment_threats",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (true threats; mens rea)",
   "key_precedent": "Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "State v. Calloway (Wash. 2026) upheld the statute facially and only requires a recklessness instruction, so remaining claims are as-applied or jury-instruction claims.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "State v. Calloway",
     "court": "Wash. (Supreme Court)",
     "number": "103374-5 (inferred from court URL)",
     "date": "2026-03-19",
     "outcome": "Statute facially constitutional; negligence-based true-threat jury instruction was error; remanded for harmless-error review",
     "why": "Court read Counterman recklessness into the statute rather than striking it; pre-Counterman objective standard (State v. Trey M.) displaced."
    },
    {
     "case": "Calloway v. Washington (cert. petition)",
     "court": "U.S. Supreme Court",
     "number": "26-411",
     "date": "2026-09-21",
     "outcome": "petition filed; status unknown",
     "why": "Pending cert petition per docket PDF; disposition not confirmed."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-calloway-wash-2026",
    "https://www.blairkim.com/blog/2026/march/washington-supreme-court-upholds-felony-harassme/",
    "https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/1033745.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Weak facial target. Best use is as-applied relief for people convicted on negligence instructions pre-Counterman (Heck v. Humphrey bars § 1983 damages while conviction stands). Statute text not read directly. Several 2025 Court of Appeals decisions (e.g., Forsmark) apply the recklessness requirement case by case.",
   "_file": "categories_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "wa-washington-felony-harassment-threats-to-kill-statute-formerly-applied-with-an",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 283
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Wayne County (Detroit), MI",
   "state_code": "MI",
   "level": "county",
   "law_name": "Wayne County tax foreclosure under the General Property Tax Act (surplus claim process)",
   "citation": "Mich. Comp. Laws § 211.78t (post-2020 surplus claim process); Detroit parcels",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment (Takings); due process",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Rafaeli, LLC v. Oakland County, 505 Mich. 429 (2020)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Michigan now pays surplus through a claim process that the 6th Cir. found sufficient; the Supreme Court ruled for Isabella County in Pung.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Howard v. Macomb County",
     "court": "6th Cir.",
     "number": "unknown (2025 WL 941511)",
     "date": "2025-03-28",
     "outcome": "Affirmed dismissal of takings claim",
     "why": "Defined claim procedure; owners who skip it forfeit surplus, no taking."
    },
    {
     "case": "Pung v. Isabella County",
     "court": "U.S. Supreme Court",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2026-06-23",
     "outcome": "Ruled for county, vacated 6th Cir., remanded (per secondary reports)",
     "why": "Auction price controls the surplus; Tyler principle intact."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.bricker.com/insights/publications/Land-banking-after-Tyler",
    "https://www.cpapracticeadvisor.com/2026/06/23/supreme-court-rules-against-michigan-family-that-lost-home-in-tax-sale/185581/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Cites from memory for MCL and Rafaeli; Wayne County-specific suits not researched. Pre-2020 foreclosures (Rafaeli class claims) are the main live pool; state-court forum is common. Notice (Jones v. Flowers) claims for Detroit occupants not checked.",
   "_file": "cities_26_50.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "mi-wayne-county-detroit-mi-wayne-county-tax-foreclosure-under-the-general-proper",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 284
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "California",
   "state_code": "CA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "One-handgun/rifle-a-month purchase limit",
   "citation": "Cal. Penal Code § 27535 (and § 27540(g))",
   "subject_area": "firearms_hardware",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Nguyen v. Bonta, 140 F.4th 1237 (9th Cir. 2025); Bruen",
   "vulnerability": 1,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Struck by Ninth Circuit panel (no historical analogue) with mandate issued Aug. 14, 2025; no longer enforceable absent successor.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 1,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Nguyen v. Bonta",
     "court": "9th Cir.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2025-06-20",
     "outcome": "Law held unconstitutional 3-0; mandate Aug. 14, 2025",
     "why": "No historical twin or cousin"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.swlaw.com/publication/ninth-circuit-strikes-down-californias-one-gun-a-month-law/",
    "https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/californias-one-gun-a-month-law-has-no-historical-twinor-even-cousin-9th-circuit-says-in-striking-it-down"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Included only because Ari listed it; permanently struck, so low value. Watch for a legislative successor.",
   "_file": "states_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "ca-california-one-handgun-rifle-a-month-purchase-limit",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 285
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Maryland",
   "state_code": "MD",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Digital advertising tax pass-through prohibition",
   "citation": "Md. Code, Tax-Gen. § 7.5-102(c) (2021 Md. Laws ch. 37)",
   "subject_area": "other",
   "constitutional_provision": "Internet Tax Freedom Act; First Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Chamber of Commerce v. Lierman, 4th Cir. (2025)",
   "vulnerability": 1,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Pass-through ban already held unlawful.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 1,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. Lierman",
     "court": "4th Cir.",
     "number": "No. 24-1727 (earlier appeal No. 22-2275, decided Jan. 10, 2024)",
     "date": "2025-08-15",
     "outcome": "Reversed: pass-through prohibition unconstitutional 'in all of its applications' under the First Amendment (regulates speech, not conduct); the 2024 opinion had vacated dismissal of that claim and held other claims barred by the Tax Injunction Act",
     "why": "Following BellSouth v. Farris (6th Cir. 2008)"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.venable.com/insights/publications/2025/09/salt-alert-fourth-circuit-pulls-the-plug-on",
    "https://thedailyrecord.com/2025/08/18/4th-circuit-maryland-digital-ad-tax-ruling/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Decision date Aug. 15, 2025 and number 24-1727 per Venable and other secondary summaries; opinion and statute (Tax-Gen. § 7.5-102(c)) not read. Rehearing or cert not checked. Little remaining value.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "md-maryland-digital-advertising-tax-pass-through-prohibition",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 1.0,
   "rank": 286
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Arizona",
   "state_code": "AZ",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Voters' Right to Know Act (Prop 211): campaign-spending donor disclosure",
   "citation": "A.R.S. § 16-971 et seq.",
   "subject_area": "other_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (compelled disclosure / associational privacy)",
   "key_precedent": "Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, 594 U.S. 595 (2021)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Federal and state courts upheld it; only one as-applied claim survives, requiring proof of serious harm.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 5,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Americans for Prosperity v. Meyer",
     "court": "9th Cir.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2026-09-30",
     "outcome": "District dismissal affirmed 2-1 (Bumatay dissenting)",
     "why": "No chilling shown; date from a Leagle URL, unconfirmed."
    },
    {
     "case": "Center for Arizona Policy v. Arizona Secretary of State",
     "court": "Ariz. Sup. Ct.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2026-06-29",
     "outcome": "Largely upheld, 4-3; one as-applied claim remanded",
     "why": "New two-part test for compelled disclosure; plaintiffs may try to prove actual serious harm."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://ktar.com/arizona-politics-news/election/arizona-supreme-court-political-ads/5884425/",
    "https://courthousenews.com/ninth-circuit-upholds-arizona-dark-money-transparency-law",
    "https://www.leagle.com/decision/inazco20260629000"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Included as failed-challenge record and because AFP may seek cert. Not a good fresh target absent a plaintiff with documented harassment risk.",
   "_file": "states_southcentral_mountain.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "az-arizona-voters-right-to-know-act-prop-211-campaign-spending-donor-disclosure",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.8,
   "rank": 287
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Colorado",
   "state_code": "CO",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Minimum age 21 for firearm purchases",
   "citation": "SB23-169 (C.R.S. 18-12-112 per secondary; verify)",
   "subject_area": "other",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment (age limit)",
   "key_precedent": "Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "10th Cir. upheld it as a presumptively lawful condition on commercial sale; other circuits split on 18-20 limits.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 5,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Polis",
     "court": "10th Cir.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2024-11-05",
     "outcome": "Panel reversed injunction; law upheld (Second Amendment not implicated at step one)",
     "why": "Commercial-sale condition under Heller's presumptively lawful category; binding in 10th Cir. unless en banc/SCOTUS."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/10th-circuit-rocky-mountain-gun-owners-vs-jared-polis-decision.pdf",
    "https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2024/11/litigation-highlight-tenth-circuit-panel-upholds-colorado-minimum-age-to-purchase-law"
   ],
   "notes": "Weak target in the 10th Circuit. Cert/en banc status after 2024 not checked.",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "states_southcentral_mountain.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "co-colorado-minimum-age-21-for-firearm-purchases",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.8,
   "rank": 288
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Florida",
   "state_code": "FL",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Protection of Children Act (adult live performance; 'drag') (SB 1438)",
   "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 827.11 and § 509.261 (2023)",
   "subject_area": "other_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (overbreadth, vagueness)",
   "key_precedent": "Hamburger Mary's Orlando v. Florida (11th Cir. en banc Aug. 4, 2026) (8-5)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "en banc 11th Cir. rejected vagueness and overbreadth and vacated the injunction",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 5,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Hamburger Mary's Orlando LLC v. State of Florida",
     "court": "M.D. Fla.; 11th Cir. (en banc)",
     "number": "not verified",
     "date": "2026-08-04",
     "outcome": "Injunction vacated, 8-5",
     "why": "Terms 'lewd' and child-age element held neither vague nor overbroad; law not aimed at drag"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://floridaphoenix.com/2026/08/04/floridas-no-children-at-drag-shows-law-upheld-by-federal-appeals-court/",
    "https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/florida-drag-show-ban-for-minors-upheld-by-full-eleventh-circuit"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Sources conflict on pre-en-banc history (a March 2026 panel decision is reported by one outlet). Injunction had already been narrowed to one venue after Trump v. CASA. Cert petition possible; statute cites not verified.",
   "_file": "states_southeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "fl-florida-protection-of-children-act-adult-live-performance-drag-sb-1438",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.8,
   "rank": 289
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Illinois",
   "state_code": "IL",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Firearm Concealed Carry Act: ban on carrying on public transit",
   "citation": "430 ILCS 66/65(a)(8)",
   "subject_area": "firearms_carry",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022); Wolford v. Lopez, 609 U.S. 185 (2026) (sensitive-place analysis limited)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Seventh Circuit upheld the ban as a crowded-and-confined sensitive place and the Supreme Court denied review in April 2026.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 5,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Schoenthal v. Raoul",
     "court": "7th Cir. (on appeal from N.D. Ill.)",
     "number": "25-541 (S. Ct.); 7th Cir. number not confirmed",
     "date": "2025-09-02",
     "outcome": "District court granted as-applied relief; Seventh Circuit reversed (Kolar, J.); cert denied April 6, 2026",
     "why": "Transit treated as a sensitive place (crowded and confined); consistent with Second, Fourth and Ninth Circuit decisions."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.isba.org/node/98903",
    "https://www.dailysignal.com/2026/04/06/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-challenge-to-illinois-public-transport-gun-ban/",
    "https://www.ammoland.com/2026/04/scotus-illinois-public-transit-carry-ban-sensitive-places/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Weak target in the Seventh Circuit. Other sensitive-place provisions of 430 ILCS 66/65 were not separately researched (unverified).",
   "_file": "states_midwest.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "il-illinois-firearm-concealed-carry-act-ban-on-carrying-on-public-transit",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 0.8,
   "rank": 290
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Iowa",
   "state_code": "IA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "SF 496 (2023): school library book removal and K-6 gender-identity instruction ban",
   "citation": "2023 Iowa Acts, SF 496 (Iowa Code chs. 256, 279; sections not confirmed)",
   "subject_area": "other_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (right to receive information; vagueness); Equal Protection",
   "key_precedent": "Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982); Eighth Circuit rulings in Penguin Random House v. Robbins and Iowa Safe Schools v. Reynolds",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Eighth Circuit vacated both preliminary injunctions in 2026, holding school-library selection is school-sponsored speech and facial claims unlikely to succeed.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 5,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Penguin Random House LLC v. Robbins",
     "court": "S.D. Iowa / 8th Cir.",
     "number": "8th Cir. 25-2186 (from filename; not confirmed)",
     "date": "2026-04-06",
     "outcome": "PI vacated; en banc rehearing denied May 12, 2026 (reported); case back in district court",
     "why": "Library curation treated as school-sponsored speech under Hazelwood; facial challenge bar not met; government-speech theory rejected."
    },
    {
     "case": "Iowa Safe Schools v. Reynolds",
     "court": "S.D. Iowa / 8th Cir.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2026-04-06",
     "outcome": "PI vacated by same panel (reported)",
     "why": "Not a merits ruling; litigation continues."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.ahlerslaw.com/client-alerts/us-court-of-appeals-for-the-eighth-circuit-again-vacates-preliminary-injunctions-of-iowa-senate-fi",
    "https://authorsguild.org/news/partial-victory-in-iowa-book-ban-case-a-step-forward-for-first-amendment-rights/",
    "https://www.ala.org/news/2026/05/aasl-issues-statement-injunction-senate-file-496"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Weak target now. Procedural history is complicated (an earlier 2024 Eighth Circuit ruling also favored challengers on one First Amendment issue); verify against opinions. Iowa also amended gender identity to gender theory in 2025 (reported).",
   "_file": "states_midwest.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "ia-iowa-sf-496-2023-school-library-book-removal-and-k-6-gender-identity-instruct",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.8,
   "rank": 291
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Rhode Island",
   "state_code": "RI",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Assault weapons sales/manufacture/transfer ban (2025)",
   "citation": "2025 R.I. Pub. Laws (signed June 26, 2025); R.I. Gen. Laws ch. 11-47 section unverified",
   "subject_area": "firearms_hardware",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Bruen; Capen v. Campbell, 134 F.4th 660 (1st Cir. 2025) (binding on analogous issue)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "First Circuit law (Capen; Ocean State Tactical) is adverse; the law is sales-only, with no possession ban.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 5,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/rhode-island-assault-weapon-ban-took-more-than-10-years/3759629/?amp=1",
    "https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2025/06/an-update-on-challenges-to-state-assault-weapon-and-magazine-bans"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "July 2025 AP said a suit was expected; I found no filed case as of search. One report says effective date may be delayed to 2027; unconfirmed. Sellers (FFLs) are the better plaintiffs.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "ri-rhode-island-assault-weapons-sales-manufacture-transfer-ban-2025",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.8,
   "rank": 292
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Vermont",
   "state_code": "VT",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Large-capacity magazine limit (10 rounds long gun / 15 handgun)",
   "citation": "13 V.S.A. § 4021",
   "subject_area": "firearms_hardware",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Bruen; pending Viramontes / Grant; Second Circuit law (NY Ass'n v. James line)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Second Circuit has upheld similar bans; claim stayed in district court pending other cases.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 5,
   "challenge_status": "pending",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs v. Birmingham (LCM claim)",
     "court": "D. Vt.",
     "number": "2:23-cv-00710",
     "date": "2023-12-15",
     "outcome": "Magazine claim on hold per plaintiffs' Aug. 25, 2026 status update",
     "why": "Awaiting developments in related cases."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://assets.nationbuilder.com/csbvtfsc/pages/1/attachments/original/1787858926/Lawsuit_Status_8_25_2026.pdf",
    "https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2023/12/19/vermont-lawsuit-n78540"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Status from advocacy group document only.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "vt-vermont-large-capacity-magazine-limit-10-rounds-long-gun-15-handgun",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.8,
   "rank": 293
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Hawaii",
   "state_code": "HI",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "County real property tax lien enforcement and sale",
   "citation": "Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 246 and county ordinances",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause (via 14th Amendment); Haw. Const. art. I, § 20",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026) (decided 2026-06-23; sale-price baseline for just compensation after a fairly conducted tax sale; FMV theory and Excessive Fines theory rejected; procedural-unfairness claims left open on remand)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Sale with surplus remedy unverified; Hawaii AG joined amicus for county in Pung.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "No known challenge. TIA/comity: 28 U.S.C. 1341 and Fair Assessment v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100 (1981) may be raised against federal suits over county tax enforcement; former-owner surplus takings claims are usually framed as challenging post-collection retention, not tax assessment/collection, but this is not uniformly settled; check circuit law. After Pung, FMV-based damages theories are weak; viable claims target no-sale transfers to government/purchaser, forfeiture of unclaimed surplus, unfair procedure, and pre-cure deeds. Not verified against current statute text or dockets (web search budget exhausted during this survey); section cites and amendment status come from secondary reports or memory and must be checked before reliance. Re-check 2026-11-12: capitol.hawaii.gov returned a Cloudflare block; statute text still not read. Chapter citation (HRS ch. 246) and county ordinance coverage remain unconfirmed.",
   "_file": "taxsale_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "hi-hawaii-county-real-property-tax-lien-enforcement-and-sale",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 0.75,
   "rank": 294
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New Jersey",
   "state_code": "NJ",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "In Rem Tax Foreclosure Act (municipal foreclosure of tax liens, incl. abandoned property)",
   "citation": "N.J.S.A. 54:5-104.29 et seq.",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause; Fourteenth Amendment due process",
   "key_precedent": "Roberto, n.4 (reserving in rem/abandoned-property issue, citing Texaco, Inc. v. Short, 454 U.S. 516 (1982)); Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 3,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Municipality can take title and keep equity in vacant/abandoned property; the NJ Supreme Court expressly left that question and the 'who pays' question open.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2025/a_29_23.pdf"
   ],
   "notes": "Citation to the Act is from memory/consistent with NJ practice, not read here. Texaco v. Short (abandonment-based lapse) and the AG's argument that the foreclosing entity pays make this fact-heavy; 'abandoned' status defeats the owner's equity theory only if properly established. Whether the 2024 amendments changed the In Rem Act was not confirmed (Riker summary says the 2024 law amended both the TSL and the In Rem Tax Foreclosure Act).",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "_file": "taxsale_east.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "nj-new-jersey-in-rem-tax-foreclosure-act-municipal-foreclosure-of-tax-liens-incl",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.75,
   "rank": 295
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Chicago, IL",
   "state_code": "IL",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Chicago panhandling and aggressive solicitation ordinance",
   "citation": "Chicago Municipal Code § 8-4-025",
   "subject_area": "other_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Content-based solicitation limits get strict scrutiny after Reed, but several circuits distinguish narrow aggressive-panhandling rules; Seventh Circuit upheld similar Illinois/city rules.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "From memory; text not reviewed. Weak filler candidate; included because Reed bears directly.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "il-chicago-il-chicago-panhandling-and-aggressive-solicitation-ordinance",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.67,
   "rank": 296
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "El Paso, TX",
   "state_code": "TX",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "El Paso sidewalk-vendor and panhandling ordinances",
   "citation": "El Paso Municipal Code tit. 9? (verify)",
   "subject_area": "other_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Reed v. Gilbert (2015)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Content-based categories drawn after Reed.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Weak, unverified.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "tx-el-paso-tx-el-paso-sidewalk-vendor-and-panhandling-ordinances",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.67,
   "rank": 297
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Nashville-Davidson County, TN",
   "state_code": "TN",
   "level": "county",
   "law_name": "Metro Nashville tax-sale surplus (delinquent property tax)",
   "citation": "Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 67-5-2501 et seq.; excess proceeds § 67-5-2702",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Takings",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Tennessee returns surplus to former owner on claim; weaker.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://chanceryclerkandmaster.nashville.gov/wp-content/uploads/excess-sale-proceeds-information-sheet-revised08242017-a.pdf",
    "https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/delinquenttaxpayersv.metrogovernment.opn_.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Davidson County uses the Clerk and Master's excess sale proceeds process under Tenn. Code 67-5-2702 (a Metro information sheet and a Tenn. Ct. App. opinion, Delinquent Taxpayers v. Metro. Gov't, appeared in search results; neither was read). Statute text not read. Weak candidate; unchanged score.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "tn-nashville-davidson-county-tn-metro-nashville-tax-sale-surplus-delinquent-prop",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.67,
   "rank": 298
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Oklahoma City, OK",
   "state_code": "OK",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "OKC public camping and panhandling ordinances",
   "citation": "Oklahoma City Municipal Code § 32-? (panhandling) and § 30-?",
   "subject_area": "other_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Reed v. Gilbert (2015); Grants Pass (2024)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Tenth Circuit has struck loitering rules post-Reed; OKC solicitation ordinance was revised after Reed.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Weak.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "ok-oklahoma-city-ok-okc-public-camping-and-panhandling-ordinances",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.67,
   "rank": 299
  },
  {
   "law_name": "Online impersonation offense",
   "citation": "Tex. Penal Code § 33.07",
   "subject_area": "harassment_threats",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (overbreadth/vagueness); Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023)",
   "key_precedent": "Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Statute requires intent to harm, defraud, intimidate or threaten, which satisfies Counterman for true threats; overbreadth is the remaining theory.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Ex parte Backus",
     "court": "Tex. App.-Dallas",
     "number": "05-16-00517-CR",
     "date": "2016-08-01",
     "outcome": "Facial challenge rejected (memorandum opinion; date approximate)",
     "why": "Harm defined elsewhere in Penal Code; court found no vagueness. A separate reported Texas appellate decision reversed a § 33.07(a)(1) conviction as overbroad/vague (Maddison; court unconfirmed)."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/fifth-court-of-appeals/2016/05-16-00517-cr.html",
    "https://www.womenslaw.org/laws/tx/statutes/3307-online-impersonation"
   ],
   "notes": "No Fifth Circuit Counterman challenge to Texas § 33.07 or § 42.07 found. Weak filler; consider dropping.",
   "jurisdiction": "Texas",
   "state_code": "TX",
   "level": "state",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "states_southcentral_mountain.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "tx-texas-online-impersonation-offense",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.67,
   "rank": 300
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Ohio",
   "state_code": "OH",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Tax foreclosure sale and surplus distribution; forfeited land",
   "citation": "Ohio Rev. Code 5721.19 (as amended eff. Apr. 9, 2025, HB 496), 5721.20 (excess proceeds; eff. Apr. 3, 2025, HB 315), 323.78(D), 5723.04",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Takings Clause; Due Process (notice)",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026)) (as reported by sibling workers, unverified here)",
   "vulnerability": 1,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Judicial and board-of-revision sale procedures generally route surplus to the owner; residual gaps in land-bank/forfeiture and no-bid transfers.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-5721.19",
    "https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-5721.20",
    "https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-323.78",
    "https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-5723.04"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Statute text read. R.C. 5721.19(D): sale proceeds pay costs, 5% to collection funds, then taxes due; (A) lets the court order sale at not less than the lesser of FMV-plus-costs or the amount due. R.C. 5721.20 (HB 315, eff. Apr. 3, 2025): on a foreclosure sale, excess over the writ goes to the clerk within 45 days of confirmation; the clerk notifies the owner; unclaimed 90 days after final notice it goes to the county treasury; owner may demand within 3 years, then it is forfeited to the delinquent tax and assessment collection fund or land reutilization corporation fund. R.C. 5721.20 does not cover no-sale transfers under 323.78 'except as provided in (D)'. R.C. 323.78(D) (same 2025 amendment) requires the land bank/subdivision to sell the transferred parcel at auction or sealed bid and deliver proceeds above taxes, costs, and its expenses to the county treasurer for the former owner. R.C. 5723.04 still allows transfer of forfeited land to a land reutilization corporation for no consideration with no surplus to the owner. Post-Tyler amendment verified (2025) so vulnerability lowered 2 to 1; residual exposure is the 3-year forfeiture and 5723.04 no-consideration transfers of forfeited land. No case claimed. Pung limits damages to sale surplus.",
   "_file": "taxsale_east.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "oh-ohio-tax-foreclosure-sale-and-surplus-distribution-forfeited-land",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 0.67,
   "rank": 301
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Maine",
   "state_code": "ME",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "72-hour waiting period for firearm purchases",
   "citation": "25 M.R.S. § 2016",
   "subject_area": "firearms_carry",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment (acquisition of arms)",
   "key_precedent": "Bruen; Ortega v. Grisham (10th Cir.) and Ezell (7th Cir.) in tension with Beckwith v. Frey, 171 F.4th 560 (1st Cir. 2026)",
   "vulnerability": 1,
   "vulnerability_reason": "First Circuit vacated the PI and held acquisition not covered at Bruen step one; SCOTUS denied cert (reported Oct. 19, 2026).",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 5,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Beckwith v. Frey",
     "court": "1st Cir. (appeal from D. Me.)",
     "number": "25-1160",
     "date": "2026-04-03",
     "outcome": "District court PI reversed; cert. denied No. 26-258 (reported 2026-10-19, single source)",
     "why": "Waiting period regulates acquisition, not keeping/bearing; likely constitutional."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20260403067",
    "https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2026/04/first-circuit-upholds-72-hour-waiting-period-law",
    "https://www.ammoland.com/2026/10/supreme-court-maine-gun-waiting-period-beckwith-frey/",
    "https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26-258/420108/20260825161902465_132404-PRT-BECKWITH_Petition.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "District court originally enjoined (docket number not verified, null). Cert denial from one secondary source; verify on SCOTUS docket. Circuit split with 10th (Ortega) noted but cert denied. Maine has no general magazine capacity ban (verified only by absence in searches).",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "me-maine-72-hour-waiting-period-for-firearm-purchases",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.6,
   "rank": 302
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Maryland",
   "state_code": "MD",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Assault weapon ban",
   "citation": "Md. Code, Crim. Law § 4-301 et seq.",
   "subject_area": "firearms_hardware",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Bianchi v. Brown, 111 F.4th 438 (4th Cir. 2024) (en banc); Snope v. Brown (cert. denied 2025)",
   "vulnerability": 1,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Fourth Circuit en banc upheld; cert denied in Snope. Controlling circuit law forecloses a lower-court win.",
   "impact": "high",
   "effort": 5,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Bianchi v. Brown",
     "court": "4th Cir. (en banc)",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2024-08-06",
     "outcome": "Ban upheld",
     "why": "AR-15s held outside Second Amendment protection as military-style arms"
    },
    {
     "case": "Snope v. Brown",
     "court": "U.S.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2025-06-02",
     "outcome": "Cert denied",
     "why": "Kavanaugh statement said Court should take up issue in coming terms"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.supremecourt.gov/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Citation and dates from seed/memory; not re-verified. Viramontes v. Cook County / Grant v. Higgins pending elsewhere could change the picture. Preserve-only value in the Fourth Circuit.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "md-maryland-assault-weapon-ban",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.6,
   "rank": 303
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Arizona",
   "state_code": "AZ",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Election deepfake / digital impersonation law (2024)",
   "citation": "A.R.S. § 16-1023 (from memory; verify)",
   "subject_area": "election_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Kohls v. Bonta (E.D. Cal. 2025); Babylon Bee v. Lopez (D. Haw.)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Disclosure-based with civil remedy, narrower than the California/Hawaii laws struck; commentary says it is likelier to survive.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.holtzmanvogel.com/news-insights/dont-california-my-arizona-why-the-first-amendment-needs-arizonas-playbook-on-ai-political-ads",
    "https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/federal-judge-says-ai-deepfake-election-law-violates-first-amendment"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "No Arizona challenge found. Statute not read; citation from memory. Weak target; listed so the lead can drop it.",
   "_file": "states_southcentral_mountain.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "az-arizona-election-deepfake-digital-impersonation-law-2024",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.5,
   "rank": 304
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Arkansas",
   "state_code": "AR",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "State Land Commissioner tax-delinquent land sale (automatic auction)",
   "citation": "Ark. Code Ann. §§ 26-37-101, -202, -205, -301; H.B. 1263 (2023); H.B. 1121 (2025)",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause (via 14th Amendment)",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026) (decided 2026-06-23; sale-price baseline for just compensation after a fairly conducted tax sale; FMV theory and Excessive Fines theory rejected; procedural-unfairness claims left open on remand)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Two acts require public auction and repeal the loophole allowing transfer to government entities without sale.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://impactforequity.org/report/liening-on-the-wrong-side-of-the-law-a-multi-state-comparative-analysis-of-property-tax-sale-reform-in-response-to-tyler-v-hennepin/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Owners must file an application to receive surplus (claim-form gap); one-year redemption. Pre-2023 forfeitures are the residual exposure. Jones v. Flowers originated in Arkansas notice practice (Ark. Code Ann. 26-37-301 notice cure). TIA/comity: 28 U.S.C. 1341 and Fair Assessment v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100 (1981) may be raised against federal suits over county tax enforcement; former-owner surplus takings claims are usually framed as challenging post-collection retention, not tax assessment/collection, but this is not uniformly settled; check circuit law. After Pung, FMV-based damages theories are weak; viable claims target no-sale transfers to government/purchaser, forfeiture of unclaimed surplus, unfair procedure, and pre-cure deeds.",
   "_file": "taxsale_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "ar-arkansas-state-land-commissioner-tax-delinquent-land-sale-automatic-auction",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 0.5,
   "rank": 305
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Boston, MA",
   "state_code": "MA",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Boston Residential rental inspection and short-term rental ordinance",
   "citation": "Boston Municipal Code ch. 9-14 (short-term rentals)",
   "subject_area": "other",
   "constitutional_provision": "Due Process; First Amendment (listing platform law)",
   "key_precedent": "Airbnb, Inc. v. City of Boston, 386 F. Supp. 3d 113 (D. Mass. 2019)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Platform liability was upheld in part; claims against host rules are weak.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Airbnb, Inc. v. City of Boston",
     "court": "D. Mass.",
     "number": "1:18-cv-12358",
     "date": null,
     "outcome": "Preliminary injunction denied in part (details from memory)",
     "why": "Platform claims did not succeed; unverified"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Citation to case and result from memory; verify.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "ma-boston-ma-boston-residential-rental-inspection-and-short-term-rental-ordinanc",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.5,
   "rank": 306
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Colorado",
   "state_code": "CO",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Stalking (serious emotional distress prong) as applied to speech-based stalking",
   "citation": "Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-602(1)(c)",
   "subject_area": "harassment_threats",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (true threats)",
   "key_precedent": "Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Counterman already vacated the original conviction; Colorado Supreme Court (Crawford, 2025 CO 22) confined the recklessness requirement to speech-content stalking, leaving conduct-based stalking untouched.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "succeeded",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Counterman v. Colorado",
     "court": "U.S. Supreme Court",
     "number": "22-138",
     "date": "2023-06-27",
     "outcome": "Vacated and remanded; State must prove at least recklessness in true-threats prosecutions",
     "why": "Objective reasonable-person standard insufficient."
    },
    {
     "case": "In re People v. Crawford",
     "court": "Colo. (Supreme Court)",
     "number": "24SA226",
     "date": "2025-05-12",
     "outcome": "Counterman applies only where stalking is premised on threatening content of speech",
     "why": "Narrowed the holding; also criticized pattern jury instructions."
    },
    {
     "case": "People v. Morris, 2025 COA 15; People v. Casper, 2025 COA 69",
     "court": "Colo. App.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2025",
     "outcome": "Counterman not applied to non-content-based stalking",
     "why": "Conduct-based theory."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2025-05/24SA226.pdf",
    "https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2025/05/14/colorado-justices-confirm-scotus-stalking-ruling-limited-to-speech-6c61b77e-ff44-473a-8ab0-6448a5fb9a99"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Low-value new target; included because the brief asked which states narrowed. Date of Crawford inferred from May 2025 coverage and the 24SA226 PDF path; verify. Docket 24SA226 inferred from PDF filename.",
   "_file": "categories_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "co-colorado-stalking-serious-emotional-distress-prong-as-applied-to-speech-based",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.5,
   "rank": 307
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Colorado",
   "state_code": "CO",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Sensitive-places carry restrictions (schools, courthouses, polling places, etc.)",
   "citation": "SB24-131 (C.R.S. 18-12-214 per secondary; verify)",
   "subject_area": "firearms_carry",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022); Wolford v. Lopez, 609 U.S. 185 (2026)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Covers mostly public or non-public-facing places; Wolford targeted private-property default rules, which Colorado reportedly lacks.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.cml.org/home/publications-news/article-detail/legal-corner-wolford-v.-lopez-and-beyond-implications-for-colorado-gun-laws"
   ],
   "notes": "No private-property default found in CO law (per CML). Possible narrow targets: local-government carry bans under SB21-256 and any list item that reaches private property open to the public. Denver nonresident-carry suits are city-level and excluded here.",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "states_southcentral_mountain.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "co-colorado-sensitive-places-carry-restrictions-schools-courthouses-polling-plac",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 0.5,
   "rank": 308
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Columbus, OH",
   "state_code": "OH",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Columbus rental registry and inspection",
   "citation": "Columbus City Code ch. 4513?",
   "subject_area": "searches_inspections",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fourth Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967); City of Los Angeles v. Patel (2015)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Warrantless inspection provisions raise Camara issues, but many codes require warrants on refusal.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Weak, unconfirmed.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "Fourth Amendment",
   "id": "oh-columbus-oh-columbus-rental-registry-and-inspection",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.5,
   "rank": 309
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Connecticut",
   "state_code": "CT",
   "law_name": "Foreclosure of municipal tax liens by judicial sale or decree",
   "citation": "Conn. Gen. Stat. 12-157 (sale of real estate for taxes; excess proceeds), 12-181 (foreclosure of tax liens), 12-182 et seq. (summary foreclosure), 12-195h (assignment)",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment (Takings); Fourteenth Amendment (due process)",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Connecticut forecloses like a mortgage with equity protected; commentators say it never permitted surplus retention.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.pullcom.com/for-what-it-may-be-worth/supreme-court-says-no-to-equity-forfeiture-in-tax-foreclosures",
    "https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_204.htm",
    "https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_205.htm"
   ],
   "notes": "Read cga.ct.gov chapters 204 and 205 (annotated, 2026 supplement noted). 12-157: tax-collector sale; deed held unrecorded for six months; after the redemption period the collector pays the escrowed amount left after taxes, interest, fees, and costs to the clerk of the superior court, gives notice within 5 days, and the taxpayer, mortgagee, lienholder, or encumbrancer may apply to the court for the proceeds within 90 days after the payment (annotations cite this as subsec. (i)); the court determines the equity. So surplus is returned, but the 90-day application window is short, and the text read does not say what happens to funds unclaimed after it. 12-181: municipal foreclosure suit; the court 'may limit the time for redemption, order the sale of the real estate, ... or pass such other decree as it judges to be equitable', so a strict-foreclosure decree with no surplus is possible in the court's discretion (Tyler cited a 1796 Connecticut law protecting equity). 12-182: summary in rem foreclosure for parcels with fair market value of $100,000 or less and liens plus encumbrances exceeding value; its surplus treatment was not read. Vulnerability raised from 1 to 2 for the short 90-day window and decree discretion. No challenges found.",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "level": "state",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "taxsale_east.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "ct-connecticut-foreclosure-of-municipal-tax-liens-by-judicial-sale-or-decree",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.5,
   "rank": 310
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Detroit, MI",
   "state_code": "MI",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Detroit contracting preference programs (resident and small-business; any racial goals unverified)",
   "citation": "Detroit City Code Ch. 18 (contracting); section not verified",
   "subject_area": "race_preferences",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection",
   "key_precedent": "SFFA, 600 U.S. 181 (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Detroit programs rely mainly on resident and small-business preferences, not racial classifications, so vulnerability may be low; unverified.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Lead only. Check whether any race-based goals remain; Michigan Prop 2 (Mich. Const. art. I, § 26) already bars race preferences in public contracting, which is a state-law route.",
   "_file": "cities_26_50.json",
   "provision_group": "Equal Protection",
   "id": "mi-detroit-mi-detroit-contracting-preference-programs-resident-and-small-busines",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.5,
   "rank": 311
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Florida",
   "state_code": "FL",
   "law_name": "Tax deed sale surplus: 120-day claim window, owner presumed entitled and routed to unclaimed property",
   "citation": "Fla. Stat. 197.582 (amended 2024-140 s.61; 2026-174 s.92); see ch. 197 generally",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment (Takings)",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Surplus goes to governmental lienholders and the owner; if no claims arrive in 120 days the record titleholder is conclusively presumed entitled and funds go to ch. 717 unclaimed property, not to the county, so the main Tyler forfeiture gap is absent.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://m.flsenate.gov/statutes/197.582",
    "https://www.myfloridalegal.com/node/1468"
   ],
   "notes": "Read the statute summary from flsenate.gov. Residual gaps: non-owner claims not filed in 120 days are barred; clerk may keep the whole surplus as service charge if too small (197.582(2)(b)); governmental liens paid first (a 2020 AG opinion, AGO 2020-01, says governmental lienholders do not lose claims after 120 days per the secondary summary); county or certificate-holder purchases at opening bid leave no surplus. I did not read 197.502 or 197.522 notice rules or the 2024 and 2026 amendments, and no Florida Tyler suit surfaced (search budget ran out; absence unconfirmed). 3d DCA Everett Painting Co. v. Gaga Opportunity 2501 NW 79 Street, LLC (2024) addressed who may take the surplus under 197.582(2) (secondary snippet), not a takings claim. TIA/comity: 28 U.S.C. 1341 and comity (Fair Assessment v. McNary; Levin v. Commerce Energy) bar federal suits that would enjoin or reduce tax collection, but a post-sale damages/just-compensation claim for surplus retention seeks no change in the tax assessed and Tyler itself was a class action seeking surplus compensation; defendants will still raise both. Not verified for this circuit in this survey.",
   "level": "state",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "_file": "taxsale_east.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "fl-florida-tax-deed-sale-surplus-120-day-claim-window-owner-presumed-entitled-an",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 0.5,
   "rank": 312
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Kentucky",
   "state_code": "KY",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Harassing communications statute ('annoy or alarm')",
   "citation": "KRS § 525.080",
   "subject_area": "harassment_threats",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (overbreadth)",
   "key_precedent": "Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Intent-to-annoy/alarm standard reaches protected speech; Counterman reinforces mens rea limits",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [
    "https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=47187"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "From memory, unfetched. Kentucky courts have construed it narrowly in some cases (unverified).",
   "_file": "states_southeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "ky-kentucky-harassing-communications-statute-annoy-or-alarm",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.5,
   "rank": 313
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Marion County, IN",
   "state_code": "IN",
   "level": "county",
   "law_name": "Marion County tax sale surplus fund (overbid only; no claim to equity above bid)",
   "citation": "Ind. Code ch. 6-1.1-24 (surplus fund) and ch. 6-1.1-25",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause; Eighth Amendment (excessive fines, as raised elsewhere)",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026), as reported)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Indiana lets the record owner claim the tax-sale overbid, which tracks the Pung surplus measure, so a Tyler claim looks weak unless the owner is barred from claiming or the bid is below value.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Warrick County tax sale appeal (taking and excessive-fines arguments)",
     "court": "Ind. Ct. App.",
     "number": "25A-TP-2505",
     "date": "2026-08-13",
     "outcome": "Opinion issued; holding not read",
     "why": "Owner argued taking and excessive fines; county argued no property interest beyond sale proceeds"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [
    "https://hallapproved.com/in/cases/appeals/2019/4656306/"
   ],
   "notes": "No Marion County-specific challenge found. Statutory text not read. Indiana mechanics come from a 2019 Indiana Court of Appeals opinion and a search snippet. A state-court remedy is likely adequate, so TIA/comity applies. Read No. 25A-TP-2505 before assigning any vulnerability.",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "cities_fill.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "in-marion-county-in-marion-county-tax-sale-surplus-fund-overbid-only-no-claim-to",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 0.5,
   "rank": 314
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New Hampshire",
   "state_code": "NH",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Deepfake / synthetic media election communications law",
   "citation": "RSA 638:26 (2024; from memory)",
   "subject_area": "election_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech)",
   "key_precedent": "Kohls v. Bonta (E.D. Cal. 2025); Kohls v. Ellison (D. Minn.)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Enacted after Biden robocall incident; limited to deceptive synthetic media with intent to deceive, which is closer to fraud/defamation lines.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [
    "https://ballotpedia.org/Deepfake_policy_in_the_United_States,_2019_-_Present"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Citation not confirmed; low priority. Weak target.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "nh-new-hampshire-deepfake-synthetic-media-election-communications-law",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.5,
   "rank": 315
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New Jersey",
   "state_code": "NJ",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Deepfake criminal/civil statute (L. 2025, deceptive AI media)",
   "citation": "N.J.S.A. 2C:21-17.7 et seq. (codification not verified); signed Apr. 2025",
   "subject_area": "election_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Kohls v. Bonta (E.D. Cal. 2024); Counterman",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "General deepfake law, not election-specific; overbreadth risk is lower than California's.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://route-fifty.com/artificial-intelligence/2025/04/new-jersey-governor-signs-bill-criminalizing-deepfakes/404259"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "No challenge found. Weak target.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "nj-new-jersey-deepfake-criminal-civil-statute-l-2025-deceptive-ai-media",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.5,
   "rank": 316
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New Mexico",
   "state_code": "NM",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Property Tax Code sale of delinquent real property",
   "citation": "N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 7-38-65 to 7-38-71 (surplus: § 7-38-71)",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause (via 14th Amendment)",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026) (decided 2026-06-23; sale-price baseline for just compensation after a fairly conducted tax sale; FMV theory and Excessive Fines theory rejected; procedural-unfairness claims left open on remand)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Sale to highest bidder with surplus to owner; NM AG joined amicus for county in Pung.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2019/chapter-7/article-38/section-7-38-71/",
    "https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/oag/opinions/ag-opinions/2025/A.G.%20Opinion%202025-10%202025%20OK%20AG%2010.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Checked 2026-11-12 by secondary summaries only (Justia 2019 text via search results; Justia would not load). Section 7-38-71: after the state's sale the balance goes to the former owner on proof of status (claim period two years per Okla. AG Op. 2025-10 n.5 citing 7-38-71(C)); if no former owner claims, the balance is abandoned property deposited under the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act, so it is not forfeited. A secondary source says Laws 2026, ch. 31 (H.B. 291) reorders distribution effective July 1, 2026, putting the former owner after certain tax debts; not verified against the enrolled bill. Low exposure; no Tyler suit found. TIA/comity (28 U.S.C. 1341; Fair Assessment v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100 (1981)) may be raised against federal suits; surplus claims are usually framed as post-collection retention, not assessment or collection, but circuit law should be checked. After Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026), damages are limited to the sale surplus.",
   "_file": "taxsale_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "nm-new-mexico-property-tax-code-sale-of-delinquent-real-property",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 0.5,
   "rank": 317
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "North Carolina",
   "state_code": "NC",
   "law_name": "County/municipal tax foreclosure (mortgage-style and in rem): surplus to clerk; taxing-unit purchase and later resale",
   "citation": "N.C. Gen. Stat. 105-374 (esp. (q)(6), (m1), (o), (r)); 105-375 (in rem; surplus via 1-339.70(c)); 105-376 (taxing unit purchase/resale); 105-374 amended S.L. 2024-44 s.3",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment (Takings); Due Process (notice)",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026); Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Surplus goes to the clerk for persons entitled and the taxing unit never keeps unclaimed surplus; residual gaps are no statutory notice to former owners of the surplus and no duty to share equity when a taxing unit buys at the debt-level bid and resells for more.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_105/GS_105-374.html",
    "https://www.sog.unc.edu/node/374866"
   ],
   "notes": "Statute summary from fetch of ncleg.gov and a UNC School of Government post (which says NC satisfies Tyler, identifies the two gaps above, and says clerks sometimes send unclaimed surplus to the state escheats fund; author concludes later government resale is not a Tyler taking because the government is selling its own property). That conclusion is the author's view, not a holding; Pung (2026) leaves open fairness of the sale, which a low government credit bid with no competing bidders could implicate. Content of S.L. 2024-44 s.3 not read. No NC Tyler lawsuit found; search budget ran out before targeted NC litigation searches, so absence is unconfirmed. Notice: service by Rule 4 summons, publication for unknown parties, sale advertised under Art. 29A; Jones v. Flowers analysis for returned mail not researched. TIA/comity: 28 U.S.C. 1341 and comity (Fair Assessment v. McNary; Levin v. Commerce Energy) bar federal suits that would enjoin or reduce tax collection, but a post-sale damages/just-compensation claim for surplus retention seeks no change in the tax assessed and Tyler itself was a class action seeking surplus compensation; defendants will still raise both. Not verified for this circuit in this survey.",
   "level": "state",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "_file": "taxsale_east.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "nc-north-carolina-county-municipal-tax-foreclosure-mortgage-style-and-in-rem-sur",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 0.5,
   "rank": 318
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Pennsylvania",
   "state_code": "PA",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Municipal Claim and Tax Lien Law (sheriff's sale of liened property, e.g., Philadelphia and third-class cities' tax liens)",
   "citation": "53 P.S. § 7101 et seq.",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause; Fourteenth Amendment due process (notice)",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026)) (fairly conducted sale: compensation is sale surplus, not FMV; fairness challenges preserved); Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Sheriff's sale proceeds are distributed to lienholders and the owner gets any balance, so retention is unlikely; the exposure is notice and sale-process fairness, not retention.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "notes": "No MCTLL-specific source read; distribution of surplus and notice provisions not verified here. No known post-Tyler challenge. Included only so the PA entry set covers both statutes asked about. Re-check 2026-11-12: legis.state.pa.us pages did not render usable MCTLL text; still unverified.",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "_file": "taxsale_east.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "pa-pennsylvania-municipal-claim-and-tax-lien-law-sheriff-s-sale-of-liened-proper",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 0.5,
   "rank": 319
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "San Diego, CA",
   "state_code": "CA",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "San Diego Municipal Code ban on sleeping in vehicles / oversized vehicle ordinance",
   "citation": "San Diego Municipal Code § 86.0137(f) (overnight habitation of vehicles)",
   "subject_area": "other",
   "constitutional_provision": "Due Process vagueness",
   "key_precedent": "Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles, 754 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2014)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Ninth Circuit struck LA's vehicle-dwelling law as vague; San Diego's version was challenged and upheld/narrowed in state court.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Weak; from memory.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "Due Process",
   "id": "ca-san-diego-ca-san-diego-municipal-code-ban-on-sleeping-in-vehicles-oversized-v",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.5,
   "rank": 320
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Seattle, WA",
   "state_code": "WA",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Seattle firearm and ammunition sales tax",
   "citation": "Seattle Municipal Code ch. 5.50 (adopted 2015)",
   "subject_area": "other",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment; Washington preemption",
   "key_precedent": "Bruen (2022)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Tax on firearm/ammo sales was upheld in state court; Bruen revisits by analogy to licensing fees.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Litigation (Second Amendment Foundation v. Seattle) in Washington state courts; outcome from memory. Weak.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "wa-seattle-wa-seattle-firearm-and-ammunition-sales-tax",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.5,
   "rank": 321
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Seattle, WA",
   "state_code": "WA",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Seattle Rental Registration and Inspection Ordinance (RRIO)",
   "citation": "Seattle Municipal Code ch. 22.214",
   "subject_area": "searches_inspections",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fourth Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Camara (1967); Patel (2015); Washington Const. art. I § 7",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Periodic inspections require tenant consent or a warrant; scheme probably built around it.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Weak.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "Fourth Amendment",
   "id": "wa-seattle-wa-seattle-rental-registration-and-inspection-ordinance-rrio",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.5,
   "rank": 322
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "South Carolina",
   "state_code": "SC",
   "law_name": "Mandatory forfeited-land-commission bid at taxes-only amount (no-bidder transfer)",
   "citation": "S.C. Code Ann. 12-51-55",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment (Takings)",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "When no third party bids, the officer must bid the taxes, penalties and costs for the commission, so the government takes the equity; after Pung the sale price is the baseline, so this is only a fairness or resale theory.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t12c051.php"
   ],
   "notes": "Based on a fetch summary of 12-51-55. I did not research how the forfeited land commission resells property or whether any resale proceeds go to the former owner; that is the open question for a Tyler claim. No challenge found. TIA/comity: 28 U.S.C. 1341 and comity (Fair Assessment v. McNary; Levin v. Commerce Energy) bar federal suits that would enjoin or reduce tax collection, but a post-sale damages/just-compensation claim for surplus retention seeks no change in the tax assessed and Tyler itself was a class action seeking surplus compensation; defendants will still raise both. Not verified for this circuit in this survey.",
   "level": "state",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "_file": "taxsale_east.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "sc-south-carolina-mandatory-forfeited-land-commission-bid-at-taxes-only-amount-n",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 0.5,
   "rank": 323
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "South Dakota",
   "state_code": "SD",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "County tax deed / automatic public auction (post-2024)",
   "citation": "S.D. Codified Laws §§ 10-23-8, 10-24-1, 10-25-1 (H.B. 1090, 2024)",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause (via 14th Amendment)",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026) (decided 2026-06-23; sale-price baseline for just compensation after a fairly conducted tax sale; FMV theory and Excessive Fines theory rejected; procedural-unfairness claims left open on remand)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "2024 act requires public auction with surplus to owner; cured on its face.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://impactforequity.org/report/liening-on-the-wrong-side-of-the-law-a-multi-state-comparative-analysis-of-property-tax-sale-reform-in-response-to-tyler-v-hennepin/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Minimum bid is taxes, penalties, interest; unclaimed surplus passes to state/county/unclaimed property after set period; three-year redemption. SD AG Jackley filed amicus for county in Pung (state litigation posture). Pre-2024 tax deeds to counties/purchasers are residual exposure. TIA/comity: 28 U.S.C. 1341 and Fair Assessment v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100 (1981) may be raised against federal suits over county tax enforcement; former-owner surplus takings claims are usually framed as challenging post-collection retention, not tax assessment/collection, but this is not uniformly settled; check circuit law. After Pung, FMV-based damages theories are weak; viable claims target no-sale transfers to government/purchaser, forfeiture of unclaimed surplus, unfair procedure, and pre-cure deeds.",
   "_file": "taxsale_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "sd-south-dakota-county-tax-deed-automatic-public-auction-post-2024",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 0.5,
   "rank": 324
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Utah",
   "state_code": "UT",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "County tax sale of delinquent real property",
   "citation": "Utah Code Ann. §§ 59-2-1351, 59-2-1351.1(7)",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause (via 14th Amendment)",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026) (decided 2026-06-23; sale-price baseline for just compensation after a fairly conducted tax sale; FMV theory and Excessive Fines theory rejected; procedural-unfairness claims left open on remand)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Sale with surplus to owner; Utah AG joined amicus for county in Pung.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title59/Chapter2/C59-2-S1351.1_2018050820180508.html",
    "https://www.utahcounty.gov/Dept/Auditor/TaxAdmin/TaxSale/excessfunds.html"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Checked 2026-11-12. Utah Code 59-2-1351.1(7) (2018 version on le.utah.gov; current version not retrieved) treats sale funds above taxes, penalties, interest and costs as unclaimed property under Title 67, ch. 4a, so the owner is not cut off. Utah County practice: excess funds are held at least 90 days after the commission ratifies the bid, then sent to the State Treasurer's unclaimed property office, with claims through mycash.utah.gov; fee-finder fees are capped at 20 percent. 2023 S.B. 115 amended 59-2-1351 (notice), not shown to change surplus treatment. Low exposure; vulnerability left at 2 pending a read of the current statute. No Tyler suit found. TIA/comity (28 U.S.C. 1341; Fair Assessment v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100 (1981)) may be raised against federal suits; surplus claims are usually framed as post-collection retention, not assessment or collection, but circuit law should be checked. After Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026), damages are limited to the sale surplus.",
   "_file": "taxsale_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "ut-utah-county-tax-sale-of-delinquent-real-property",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 0.5,
   "rank": 325
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Wisconsin",
   "state_code": "WI",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Unclaimed foreclosure surplus transferred to county unclaimed funds after one year",
   "citation": "Wis. Stat. §§ 75.36, 59.66(2) (as amended by 2023 Wis. Act 207)",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause (via 14th Amendment)",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 2,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Act 207 replaced five-year forfeiture with transfer to unclaimed funds after one year; owner keeps a claim, which largely cures the forfeiture gap.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.wicounties.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/2026.08.26-ITB-Prop-Tax-Foreclosure.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Act 207 also removed lien-payoff deduction from surplus due to former owner. Residual gap: sale price rather than FMV and the county-discretion petition for relief from Chapter 75 deadlines. TIA/comity: 28 U.S.C. 1341 and Fair Assessment v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100 (1981) may be raised against federal suits over county tax enforcement; former-owner surplus takings claims are usually framed as challenging post-collection retention, not tax assessment/collection, but this is not uniformly settled; check circuit law. After Pung, FMV-based damages theories are weak; viable claims target no-sale transfers to government/purchaser, forfeiture of unclaimed surplus, unfair procedure, and pre-cure deeds.",
   "_file": "taxsale_west.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "wi-wisconsin-unclaimed-foreclosure-surplus-transferred-to-county-unclaimed-funds",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.5,
   "rank": 326
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Austin, TX",
   "state_code": "TX",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Austin camping ban (Prop B, 2021) and sit/lie",
   "citation": "Austin City Code § 9-4-11, § 9-4-14",
   "subject_area": "other",
   "constitutional_provision": "Eighth Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Grants Pass v. Johnson (2024)",
   "vulnerability": 1,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Grants Pass forecloses the Eighth Amendment theory.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 5,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "LOW-VALUE LEAD: Weak; included as a survey lead.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "Eighth Amendment",
   "id": "tx-austin-tx-austin-camping-ban-prop-b-2021-and-sit-lie",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.4,
   "rank": 327
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Florida",
   "state_code": "FL",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Under-21 firearm purchase ban",
   "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 790.065(13)",
   "subject_area": "other",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "NRA v. Glass/Bondi, 133 F.4th 1108 (11th Cir. 2025) (en banc); cert. denied June 30, 2026 (No. 24-1185)",
   "vulnerability": 1,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Binding en banc precedent upheld law; SCOTUS denied cert, no remaining circuit opening",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 5,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "NRA v. Bondi (Glass)",
     "court": "11th Cir. (en banc)",
     "number": "21-12314",
     "date": "2025-03-14",
     "outcome": "Upheld, 8-4",
     "why": "Historical analogues: founding-era infancy rules and age-based regulation; cert. denied June 30, 2026"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1185/370266/20250820150454276_Glass%20Response%20Brief_File%20Ready.pdf",
    "https://www.courthousenews.com/full-11th-circuit-upholds-florida-age-limit-for-gun-buys-rejecting-nra-challenge/"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Listed for the record. Circuit split exists (5th Cir. struck federal handgun-sale ban for 18-20s; 10th upheld). Vote count from a party brief. Open-carry: Fla. Stat. § 790.053 was held unconstitutional in McDaniels v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2025) per my recollection and is not a current target (unverified).",
   "_file": "states_southeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "fl-florida-under-21-firearm-purchase-ban",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.4,
   "rank": 328
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Los Angeles, CA",
   "state_code": "CA",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "LA camping/encampment bans on public property",
   "citation": "Los Angeles Municipal Code § 41.18; § 41.18(d) sleeping/camping",
   "subject_area": "other",
   "constitutional_provision": "Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual); Due Process vagueness",
   "key_precedent": "City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, 603 U.S. 520 (2024)",
   "vulnerability": 1,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Grants Pass held camping bans do not violate the Eighth Amendment; remaining theories are vagueness, state-created danger, or property-seizure claims.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 5,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "City of Grants Pass v. Johnson",
     "court": "U.S. Supreme Court",
     "number": "23-175",
     "date": "2024-06-28",
     "outcome": "Camping ban upheld",
     "why": "Public camping prohibitions are not cruel and unusual punishment"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-175_19m2.pdf"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "LOW-VALUE LEAD: Low-value target, listed because surveyed lead. Property-destruction (Lavan v. City of LA, 693 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2012)) Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment claims remain viable and are a better frame. Details unverified.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "Eighth Amendment",
   "id": "ca-los-angeles-ca-la-camping-encampment-bans-on-public-property",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.4,
   "rank": 329
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Los Angeles, CA",
   "state_code": "CA",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "LA Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO) and tenant protections",
   "citation": "Los Angeles Municipal Code ch. XV, art. 1, § 151.00 et seq.",
   "subject_area": "takings",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings; Contracts Clause",
   "key_precedent": "Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. 139 (2021); Pennell v. City of San Jose (1988)",
   "vulnerability": 1,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Rent control is generally upheld under Penn Central; Cedar Point does not obviously reach it. Listed as a lead only.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 5,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Rent control challenges have repeatedly failed. Include only as a flag.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "ca-los-angeles-ca-la-rent-stabilization-ordinance-rso-and-tenant-protections",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.4,
   "rank": 330
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Maryland",
   "state_code": "MD",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Handgun Qualification License (HQL) requirement",
   "citation": "Md. Code, Pub. Safety § 5-117.1",
   "subject_area": "firearms_carry",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Maryland Shall Issue v. Moore, 116 F.4th 211 (4th Cir. 2024) (en banc); Bruen n.9",
   "vulnerability": 1,
   "vulnerability_reason": "En banc Fourth Circuit upheld as shall-issue licensing; cert denied 2025.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 5,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Maryland Shall Issue, Inc. v. Moore",
     "court": "4th Cir. (en banc)",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2024-09-09",
     "outcome": "HQL upheld",
     "why": "Treated as presumptively lawful shall-issue licensing; cert denied 2025"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Seed item only; reporter cite and dates from memory, unverified. Low value to plaintiffs.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "md-maryland-handgun-qualification-license-hql-requirement",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.4,
   "rank": 331
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "New York",
   "state_code": "NY",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Gun Industry Liability law (public nuisance for firearms industry)",
   "citation": "N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 898-a to 898-e",
   "subject_area": "other",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment; Commerce Clause; PLCAA preemption",
   "key_precedent": "NSSF v. James (2d Cir. 2025); Smith & Wesson v. Mexico, 605 U.S. 280 (2025)",
   "vulnerability": 1,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Second Circuit upheld the law against NSSF's challenge (reported); PLCAA preemption weakened by Smith & Wesson v. Mexico.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 5,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "NSSF v. James",
     "court": "2d Cir. / N.D.N.Y.",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2025-07-01",
     "outcome": "Law upheld (date and number not verified)",
     "why": "Predicate exception to PLCAA; no vagueness or Commerce Clause violation"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Low priority target; listed for completeness. Facts from memory, not verified here.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "ny-new-york-gun-industry-liability-law-public-nuisance-for-firearms-industry",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.4,
   "rank": 332
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Phoenix, AZ",
   "state_code": "AZ",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Phoenix camping / sidewalk obstruction ordinance (2024-2025 enforcement)",
   "citation": "Phoenix City Code § 23-48.01 (unlawful camping on public property)",
   "subject_area": "other",
   "constitutional_provision": "Eighth Amendment; vagueness",
   "key_precedent": "City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (2024)",
   "vulnerability": 1,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Grants Pass defeats the Eighth Amendment claim; Phoenix sweeps litigated in Arizona federal court.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 5,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "LOW-VALUE LEAD: Weak target. Citation from memory.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "Eighth Amendment",
   "id": "az-phoenix-az-phoenix-camping-sidewalk-obstruction-ordinance-2024-2025-enforceme",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.4,
   "rank": 333
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Rhode Island",
   "state_code": "RI",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Large-capacity magazine ban (>10 rounds)",
   "citation": "R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-47.1-2 (2022 R.I. Pub. Laws)",
   "subject_area": "firearms_hardware",
   "constitutional_provision": "Second Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island, 95 F.4th 38 (1st Cir. 2024), cert. denied (2025)",
   "vulnerability": 1,
   "vulnerability_reason": "First Circuit upheld; SCOTUS denied cert in June 2025.",
   "impact": "med",
   "effort": 5,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Ocean State Tactical, LLC v. State of Rhode Island",
     "court": "1st Cir.",
     "number": "23-1072",
     "date": "2024-03-07",
     "outcome": "PI denial affirmed; cert. denied 2025",
     "why": "Magazines not 'arms' in the relevant sense or, alternatively, ban fits historical tradition."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca1/23-1072/23-1072-2024-03-07.html",
    "https://www.riag.ri.gov/press-releases/attorney-general-neronha-ris-large-capacity-magazine-ban-survives-legal-challenge"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Include for completeness; weak target unless SCOTUS grants Viramontes/Grant. Statute section and reporter cite from memory.",
   "_file": "states_northeast.json",
   "provision_group": "Second Amendment",
   "id": "ri-rhode-island-large-capacity-magazine-ban-10-rounds",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.4,
   "rank": 334
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Delaware",
   "state_code": "DE",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Collection of delinquent taxes: monition sale (New Castle sheriff) and sale of land for delinquent taxes in Kent and Sussex Counties",
   "citation": "9 Del. C. 8721-8733 (subch. II, monition sale) and 8771-8779 (subch. IV, sale of lands, esp. 8776 and 8779)",
   "constitutional_provision": "Fifth Amendment Takings Clause; due process (notice)",
   "key_precedent": "Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006); Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026)) (fairly conducted sale: compensation is sale surplus, not FMV; fairness challenges preserved); Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023)",
   "vulnerability": 1,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Statutory treatment of sale surplus was not retrieved; sheriff sale proceeds ordinarily go to creditors with balance to owner, but this is unverified for Delaware's tax regimes.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 3,
   "challenge_status": "none",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "primary",
   "sources": [
    "https://delcode.delaware.gov/title9/c087/sc04/index.html",
    "https://delcode.delaware.gov/title9/c087/index.html"
   ],
   "notes": "Read 9 Del. C. 8771 to 8779. 8776: no sale approved if owner pays taxes, penalty, and costs at court; no deed until 1 year after the sale, during which the owner may redeem by paying costs, the purchase money, 20% interest, and deed expenses. 8779: after taxes and costs, the remaining proceeds 'shall be paid at once to the owner'; if the owner refuses or cannot be found the amount is deposited in a county bank for the owner or in an identifiable fund; no forfeiture to the county. Vulnerability lowered from 2 to 1. Subchapter II (monition, New Castle sheriff sale under 8721 et seq.) disposition of surplus was not read (the page excerpt shows only procedure); the sheriff-sale surplus rules in Title 10 were not checked. No Delaware challenge found.",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "subject_area": "tax_sale",
   "_file": "taxsale_east.json",
   "provision_group": "Takings",
   "id": "de-delaware-collection-of-delinquent-taxes-monition-sale-new-castle-sheriff-and-",
   "precedent_verified": true,
   "priority": 0.33,
   "rank": 335
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Clark County / Las Vegas, NV",
   "state_code": "NV",
   "level": "county",
   "law_name": "Las Vegas and Clark County panhandling and sit/lie restrictions",
   "citation": "Las Vegas Municipal Code § 10.82.010 (camping) ; Clark County Code",
   "subject_area": "other",
   "constitutional_provision": "Eighth Amendment; First Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Grants Pass (2024); Reed v. Gilbert",
   "vulnerability": 1,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Camping ban post-Grants Pass is valid; the 2019 Las Vegas Downtown ban and Clark County rules survive.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "LOW-VALUE LEAD: Weak.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "nv-clark-county-las-vegas-nv-las-vegas-and-clark-county-panhandling-and-sit-lie-",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.25,
   "rank": 336
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "San Francisco, CA",
   "state_code": "CA",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "San Francisco sidewalk vending and sit/lie; Prop B camping",
   "citation": "San Francisco Police Code § 168 (sit/lie); Police Code art. 2 (vending)",
   "subject_area": "other",
   "constitutional_provision": "Eighth Amendment; First Amendment",
   "key_precedent": "Grants Pass (2024); Reed (2015)",
   "vulnerability": 1,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Grants Pass forecloses the camping theory.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 4,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [],
   "verification": "unverified",
   "sources": [],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "LOW-VALUE LEAD: Weak.",
   "_file": "cities_1_25.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "ca-san-francisco-ca-san-francisco-sidewalk-vending-and-sit-lie-prop-b-camping",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.25,
   "rank": 337
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Baltimore, MD",
   "state_code": "MD",
   "level": "city",
   "law_name": "Baltimore sign ordinances (Police Ordinance / zoning limits on A-frame and sidewalk signs)",
   "citation": "Baltimore City Police Ordinance and Zoning Code sign provisions (section numbers not verified)",
   "subject_area": "other_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech)",
   "key_precedent": "Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015); City of Austin v. Reagan Nat'l Advertising, 596 U.S. 61 (2022)",
   "vulnerability": 1,
   "vulnerability_reason": "Challenge to sign placement rules failed on PI and summary judgment; content-neutral treatment accepted.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 5,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Roswell v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore",
     "court": "D. Md.",
     "number": "RDB-22-2587",
     "date": "2023-05-02 (PI denied); SJ for City Jan. 2024 (date unverified)",
     "outcome": "PI denied; summary judgment for City on all counts",
     "why": "District court found ordinances did not violate plaintiff's rights."
    },
    {
     "case": "Roswell v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore",
     "court": "4th Cir.",
     "number": "23-1567",
     "date": "2023-12-19",
     "outcome": "Affirmed PI denial (unpublished per curiam)",
     "why": "Search summaries only; reasoning not read."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/maryland/mddce/1:2022cv02587/521605/35/0.pdf",
    "https://religionclause.blogspot.com/2023/05/sign-permit-did-not-infringe-1st.html?m=0"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "Recorded as a failed challenge. Plaintiff is a sidewalk counselor outside a Planned Parenthood clinic; an as-applied angle may survive. Whether the SJ ruling was appealed was not determined.",
   "_file": "cities_26_50.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "md-baltimore-md-baltimore-sign-ordinances-police-ordinance-zoning-limits-on-a-fr",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.2,
   "rank": 338
  },
  {
   "jurisdiction": "Tennessee",
   "state_code": "TN",
   "level": "state",
   "law_name": "Adult Entertainment Act (drag/adult cabaret in view of minors)",
   "citation": "Tenn. Code Ann. § 7-51-1401 et seq.",
   "subject_area": "other_speech",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (overbreadth, vagueness)",
   "key_precedent": "Friends of George's v. Mulroy, 108 F.4th 431 (6th Cir. 2024)",
   "vulnerability": 1,
   "vulnerability_reason": "6th Cir. reversed the injunction on standing grounds and narrowing construction",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 5,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Friends of George's v. Mulroy",
     "court": "W.D. Tenn.; 6th Cir.",
     "number": "6th Cir. number not verified",
     "date": "2024-07-18",
     "outcome": "Reversed (2-1); injunction vacated",
     "why": "No credible threat of prosecution; narrowing construction"
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://christianpost.com/news/tennessee-law-banning-children-from-drag-shows-upheld.html"
   ],
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "notes": "District court had struck the law as vague and overbroad (2023). A successor as-applied plaintiff who is actually threatened would be needed.",
   "_file": "states_southeast.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "tn-tennessee-adult-entertainment-act-drag-adult-cabaret-in-view-of-minors",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.2,
   "rank": 339
  },
  {
   "law_name": "Adult-content age verification (H.B. 1181)",
   "citation": "Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 129B (H.B. 1181 (2023))",
   "subject_area": "age_verification",
   "constitutional_provision": "First Amendment (speech)",
   "key_precedent": "Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, 606 U.S. ___ (2025)",
   "vulnerability": 1,
   "vulnerability_reason": "SCOTUS upheld the law under intermediate scrutiny in 2025.",
   "impact": "low",
   "effort": 5,
   "challenge_status": "failed",
   "challenges": [
    {
     "case": "Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton",
     "court": "U.S. Supreme Court (from 5th Cir.)",
     "number": null,
     "date": "2025-06-27",
     "outcome": "Law upheld",
     "why": "Intermediate scrutiny applied; incidental burden on adults permissible."
    }
   ],
   "verification": "secondary",
   "sources": [
    "https://www.supremecourt.gov/"
   ],
   "notes": "Listed as a weak target per brief; docket number not captured.",
   "jurisdiction": "Texas",
   "state_code": "TX",
   "level": "state",
   "last_checked": "2026-11-12",
   "_file": "states_southcentral_mountain.json",
   "provision_group": "First Amendment",
   "id": "tx-texas-adult-content-age-verification-h-b-1181",
   "precedent_verified": false,
   "priority": 0.2,
   "rank": 340
  }
 ]
}