Arizona enacted a statute, S.B. 1070, authorizing state and local law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration laws. The federal government sued Arizona to enjoin S.B. 1070. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether federal immigration laws preempt Arizona’s statute.
Louisiana v. Bryson
(opposing counting illegal aliens when apportioning House of Representative seats)
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.
Virginia v. Sebelius, Amicus Brief
On November 3, 2011 an amicus brief was filed on behalf of CLDEF in the case of Virginia v. Kathleen Sebelius in the United States Supreme Court in support of petitioner. This petition presents to the Supreme Court a clash between a federal law mandating the individual purchase of its approved healthcare insurance — the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”) — and a state law securing to state residents the freedom to choose whether or not to purchase such insurance — the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act (“VHCFA”).
United States v. Antoine Jones
(opposing police GPS tracking device on vehicle)
This case constitutes a major victory for CLDEF! Jones involved the police attaching a GPS tracking device to Jones’ vehicle without a warrant. The police tracked Jones’ movements for nearly a month. Jones was convicted, but the Court of Appeals overturned the conviction. The government sought U.S. Supreme Court review. The government argued that Jones had no expectation of privacy of his movements on the road.
State of Arizona et al. v. United States, Amicus Brief (on the Petition for Writ of Certiorari)
On September 12, 2011 an amicus brief was filed on behalf of CLDEF in the case of State of Arizona et al. v. United States in the United States Supreme Court in support of petitioners’ petition for a writ of certiorari. Our brief argues that it is the preeminent duty of the Supreme Court to preserve the balance between the federal and state governments struck by the United States Constitution.
United States v. Antoine Jones, Amicus Brief (on the Petition for Writ of Certiorari)
On May 16, 2011 an amicus brief was filed on behalf of CLDEF in the case of United States v. Antoine Jones in the United States Supreme Court. Our amicus brief urges the Supreme Court to grant the petition for writ of certiorari in this case, not for the reasons stated in the government’s petition, but to resolve a split among the circuits on the Fourth Amendment’s relevance and application to covert installations of global positioning systems (“GPS”) on an American citizen’s automobile by restoring the Fourth Amendment to its original text and purpose. Our amicus brief argues that the original objective, property-based text and purpose of the Fourth Amendment should be revived and applied, while the current ad hoc subjective, privacy-based view of the Fourth Amendment should be rejected.
Bond v. U.S., Amicus Brief
On December 10, 2010 an amicus brief was filed on behalf of CLDEF in the case of Carol Ann Bond v. United States in the United States Supreme Court in support of petitioner Bond. This case presents an unusual situation where the government has reconsidered its previous position and embraced the position of the criminal defendant petitioner Bond in seeking to overturn the decision of the court of appeals.
Heller II, Amicus Brief
On July 30, 2010 an amicus brief was filed on behalf of CLDEF in the case of Dick Anthony Heller v. District of Columbia in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Our amicus brief was the only amicus brief filed in support of the challenge by appellant Dick Heller and others to portions of the D.C. Code that (i) require registration of all firearms, (ii) prohibit registration of so-called “assault weapons” and (iii) prohibit possession of so-called “high capacity” magazines.
Committee to Recall Robert Menendez v. Wells, Amicus Brief
On May 10, 2010 an amicus brief was filed on behalf of CLDEF in the case of Committee to Recall Robert Menendez from the Office of U.S. Senator v. Nina Mitchell Wells in the Supreme Court of New Jersey supporting the efforts of the plaintiff, the Committee to Recall Robert Menendez from the Office of U.S. Senator. On November 2, 1993, by an overwhelming majority, the people of New Jersey enacted an amendment to the New Jersey Constitution which allows the people to recall their representatives to the U.S. Congress, and directing the state legislature to promulgate laws to provide for recall elections, which the legislature did in May, 1995.
John Doe #1 v. Sam Reed, Washington Secretary of State
(defending the anonymity of traditional marriage referendum petition signers against possible retaliation by pro-homosexual activists)
Pro-homosexual activists sought to force the public disclosure of the names of those who signed a petition to add Washington State Referendum 71 to the ballot. Proponents of Referendum 71 sought to prevent this disclosure, arguing that signing a petition is an exercise of the signers’ First Amendment rights. CLDEF filed an amicus curiae brief defending the anonymity of the petition signers, who were certain to receive harassment for their support of traditional marriage, as guaranteed by the freedom of the press. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of disclosure of the names of the petition signers.
Otis McDonald v. City of Chicago, Amicus Brief
On November 23, 2009, an amicus brief was filed on behalf of CLDEF in the case of Otis McDonald v. City of Chicago in the United States Supreme Court in support of petitioners’ challenge to an ordinance banning handguns in Chicago. The amicus brief argues that the Chicago handgun ban unconstitutionally abridges petitioners’ right to keep and bear arms, a privilege or immunity belonging to them as United States citizens protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. It also explains that no wholesale change in the Supreme Court’s Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence is required to rule that the Chicago ordinance unconstitutionally abridges petitioners’ right to keep and bear arms. Further, it asserts that incorporation of the right to keep and bear arms into the Due Process Clause would result in weak and potentially transitory protection of that right.