This article in the Seattle Times explains that the CLDEF brief was the only one filed supporting President Trump’s travel ban in the 9th Circuit.
The Graham case involves law enforcement’s access of Cell Phone Location Information obtained from a phone company, based on a subpoena — not a warrant — issued by an Article I magistrate — not an Article III judge. We urged the court to re-examine its third-party doctrine which limits the protection of an individual’s records in the hands of a third party, in view of the Supreme Court’s recent Jones and Jardines cases.
Today an amicus brief was filed, on our behalf, in the Tenth Circuit in support of the right of Kansas to require that persons registering to vote under the National Voter Registration Act of 1994 submit documentary proof of citizenship. The brief supported the position taken by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach.
Today, an amicus brief was filed, on behalf of CLDEF, in support of The Independence Institute, in its challenge to certain federal election law and Federal Election Commission regulations governing electioneering communications. Under these regulations, Section 501(c)(3) organizations must report on their broadcast issue ads which mention the name of incumbent Congressmen. The required reports include certain information on donors to the nonprofit organizations. The brief explains why these laws and regulations violate First Amendment principles of anonymity long recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Today, an amicus brief was filed, on behalf of CLDEF, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in support of a challenge to the District of Columbia’s requirement that a person must demonstrate a “good reason” in order to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The brief noted that before Heller, the federal courts perpetuated the charade that the right of “the People” was a collective rather than an individual right. Now, the brief argued, the lower courts are perpetuating a new charade — that rights which “shall not be infringed” can indeed be infringed so long as the government strongly desires to do so, and judges believe the regulations are reasonable. The brief argued that use of such “interest-balancing” tests permits judges to come to whatever result they prefer, as this case uniquely indicates.
Today, an amicus brief was filed on behalf of CLDEF in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit supporting the right of a Maryland resident to purchase and possess firearms despite a prior conviction. Hamilton had been convicted of a non-violent felony in Virginia and served his sentence. Later, Virginia restored his civil rights, and then a Virginia Court specifically restored his firearms rights.
Today an amicus brief was filed on behalf of CLDEF in the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the challenge filed by Texas and 25 other states to the Obama Administration’s DAPA amnesty program. (An earlier amisuc brief was filed in support of Texas in this case in the Fifth Circuit, where Texas prevailed.) The brief explains why the Executive Branch had no authority (through DAPA or otherwise) to grant unilaterally “lawful presence” to approximately 4 million illegal aliens. It also explains that such unilateral Executive Action violates the federal separation of powers. Lastly, it explains why the sovereign States have the right to seek federal judicial review of such unlawful and unconstitutional executive actions as they constitute a constitutional “controversy” that must be decided by federal courts in accordance with Article III, Section 2, and that the traditional rules of standing do not apply.
Today, a third amicus brief was filed on behalf of CLDEF opposing NSA’s program of “Upstream” Internet surveillance of Americans. This brief urges the Fourth Circuit to reverse the decision of the District Court in Maryland which found that neither Wikimedia Foundation — which runs Wikipedia — nor the other plaintiffs in the case, had standing to challenge that surveillance.
Today an amicus brief was filed on behalf of CLDEF in the U.S. Supreme Court urging the High Court to reverse decisions from the Supreme Court of North Dakota and Minnesota which authorized police to force drivers to submit to warrantless blood and breath tests. The brief urges the Court to apply to principles of its prior decisions in United States v. Jones, and Florida v. Jardines, which re-established the property basis of the Fourth Amendment. The brief opposes reliance on the modern notion that the Fourth Amendment only protected a nontextual “expectation of privacy” — a false notion on which the two state supreme courts relied.