Reason Foundation
-
Amicus Brief: Valent v. Commissioner of Social Security
The Supreme Court should take this case to resolve the question of what tools the lower courts must employ in a search for the meaning of a statute.
-
Amicus Brief: Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue
The Supreme Court should act to protect religiously neutral student-aid programs from lower court rulings and state government actions that run afoul of the federal constitution.
-
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.
-
Study: How to Accelerate the Pace of Exploration and Economic Development of Space
A plan to reorganize U.S. space policy to generate significant improvements to communication and navigation systems, clean energy, manufacturing, research, and more.
-
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.