This case was a Second Amendment challenge to the federal ban on firearm purchases from gun dealers by adults who are 18-20 years old.
Moose v. MacDonald involved a challenge to Virginia’s “crimes against nature” statute. A federal district judge found that the statute violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that this law had been invalidated by the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas. The state of Virginia sought Supreme Court review.
Woollard is a Second Amendment case challenging Maryland’s “good and substantial reason” requirement for obtaining a license to carry a concealed weapon. The district court held that the “core” of the Second Amendment applies only inside the home, and thus applied only an “intermediate scrutiny” analysis.
The Windsor case involved the federal Defense of Marriage Act — a federal law defining marriage as between one man and one woman for purposes of federal law. The case also addressed the standing of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group — representing the House of Representatives — to defend that statute in federal court after the Obama administration refused to do so.
This case involves a challenge to California Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment which defined “marriage” as between one man and one woman and was approved by a majority of voters in California. California’s government (led first by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and then by Governor Jerry Brown) refused to defend the amendment enacted directly by the people of California, and so the proponents of the amendment stepped in to defend it.
CLDEF’s amicus curiae brief argued that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”) of 1965, as amended in 2006, exceeds the powers vested in Congress by either the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment, including the enforcement provisions of those amendments. Under the 2006 amendments, the purpose of the preclearance is to “protect the ability of [minority] citizens to elect their preferred candidate of choice” and is no longer concerned with preventing voting law changes that mask racial discrimination denying or abridging the right to vote. Further, Sections 4(b) and 5 of the VRA as amended in 2006 put Alabama on an unequal footing, in violation of the statute admitting Alabama to the union and the Tenth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that Section 4’s coverage formula is unconstitutional in light of current conditions and can no longer be used as a basis for the preclearance requirement.
This case involved a challenge, by attorneys sometimes representing foreign persons, to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Amendments of 2008, involving the government spying on U.S. citizens without a warrant. The lower court dismissed the case, finding the plaintiffs lacked standing, but the Second Circuit reversed. The Government sought U.S. Supreme Court review.
A ballot initiative was proposed in Oklahoma to amend the state constitution to define “person” as “any human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being to natural death.” The proposal was challenged in state court, and the Supreme Court of Oklahoma blocked the proposed initiative from going forward to the voters on the ballot. In doing so, the state supreme court misused the Supreme Court’s decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey to deprive the people of Oklahoma of a power reserved them by the Tenth Amendment. The proponents of the initiative filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.
On April 16, 2012 an amicus brief was filed on behalf of CLDEF in the case of Christopher Hedges v. Barack Obama, et al. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in support of plaintiffs. This lawsuit challenges the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012’s illegal detention provision.
The state of Louisiana filed an original action in the Supreme Court against the Secretary of Commerce of the United States, encompassing the United States Census Bureau, whose responsibility includes conducting the decennial census used for apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives among the States. Louisiana claimed it lost a seat in the House because illegal aliens were included in the population and used for apportionment. States with large numbers of illegal aliens gained a total of five seats, while other states lost five seats.