-
Amicus Brief: Competitive Enterprise Institute and National Review v. Michael E. Mann
If this were the law anywhere in the country, it would represent a profound danger to free speech and debate.
-
Amicus Brief: US District Court Should Dismiss the Indictment in US v. Lacey, et al
The government may not prosecute a speaker for his or her speech unless and until the government establishes that the speech is not protected.
-
Amicus Brief: Court Ruling ‘Allows Police Officers to Steal From Suspects With Impunity’
By insulating even egregious misconduct from liability whenever there is no prior case specifically on point, the panel’s reasoning extends qualified immunity doctrine to its extreme.
-
Amicus Brief: Supreme Court Should Hear Montana School Choice Case, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue
This court should grant the petition to provide legal clarity for the many states seeking to increase educational opportunities for all children.
-
Amicus Brief: Law Enforcement, Without a Warrant, Strip-Searched and Photographed a Four-Year-Old Girl at Her Preschool
Qualified immunity denies justice to victims of unconstitutional misconduct. It imposes cost-prohibitive burdens on civil-rights litigants. And it harms the very public officials it seeks to protect.
-
Amicus Brief: Mitchell v. Wisconsin
The court should reject Wisconsin’s claim that it can impute consent sufficient to sustain a warrantless search merely from an individual’s choice to drive on the state’s roadways.
-
Amicus Brief: Backpage.com Is Presumptively Protected by the First Amendment
The government’s unconstitutional seizure of assets and proceeds from Backpage.com and weekly newspapers is an attempt to erode the First Amendment’s carefully erected bulwarks around free expression.
-
Amicus Brief: Abbott v. Pastides
The Supreme Court should make clear that public universities violate the First Amendment by subjecting their students to investigations for having exercised their First Amendment rights.
-
Amicus Brief: St. Bernard Parish Government v. United States
This Court should grant the landowners’ petition for certiorari because Judge Dyk’s opinion for the Federal Circuit panel adopted two novel exclusionary rules that are contrary to this Court’s Takings Clause jurisprudence.