Graham v. United States

admin Searches and Seizures

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.

Steven Fish v. Kris Kobach

admin Election Law and Campaign Finance, Immigration Law

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.

Independence Institute v. Federal Election Commission

admin Election Law and Campaign Finance

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.

Wrenn v. District of Columbia

admin Firearms Law

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. Read More