The American Civil Rights Union, Protecting the civil rights of all Americans

In Re Rachel, L.

The ACLU joins other organizations supporting homeschooling to file this brief in a California state appellate court arguing for a constitutional right for parents to choose homeschooling for their children. The argument is based on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech, relying in particular on precedents holding that parents have a constitutional right to choose private rather than public schools for their children, and that Amish parents can choose the alternative of working at home within the Amish culture rather than attending public high schools.
Brief

Heller v. DC

Gun control laws in the District of Columbia effectively ban the use of handguns, or other guns, for self-defense within the home. Heller is a Federal security guard charged with helping to protect the Federal judiciary at the Federal Judicial Center in Washington DC. In that capacity, he is armed with a handgun for his work during the day. Heller wants to keep a handgun within his home in Washington DC for self-defense during the evening. He applied for a permit for such a gun but was denied, as required under DC law since 1976. He sued the city claiming that the DC gun control laws effectively denied his right to keep and bear arms within the home for self-defense under the Second Amendment, and, therefore, were unconstitutional.

The District Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not provide for an individual right to keep and bear arms. But in an historic precedent, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the Amendment did, indeed, provide for such an individual right. The Court consequently struck down the DC gun control statutes as unconstitutional.

We have filed amicus briefs at every stage of this litigation, going all the way back to the District Court. In 2007, we first filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court supporting Heller's request for a writ of certiorari for a definitive ruling on the issues. The Court did grant certiorari.

Heller v. DC
Cover Page | Application | Amicus Argument

Parker v. DC
Cover Page | Application | Amicus Argument | Read Brief

Indiana Voting Rights
In 2005, the Indiana General Assembly passed legislation, signed by the Governor, to counter voter fraud by generally requiring those voting in person at the polls to identify themselves with a government issued photo ID, such as a driver's license or a passport. The Indiana state Democratic Party, the Marion County Democratic Party, two elected Democrat officials, and several political interest groups filed suit alleging that this Indiana Voter ID law is unconstitutional because requiring such an ID imposes a severe burden on the right to vote.
Cover Page | Application | Amicus Argument

Rederford & Christy v. Hicks
This case presents increasingly urgent questions of law regarding the free speech rights of politically disfavored local minorities. The facts of this case reveal discriminatory prejudice against Christian employees by the City of Oakland reflected in viewpoint discrimination regarding their freedom of speech.
Cover Page | Application | Amicus Argument

Benitez v. North Coast
On March 29, 2007, ACRU filed a brief in the California Supreme Court on behalf of the defendant, North Coast Womens' Care Medical Group. This case tests the Freedom of Religion Clause of the California Constitution on the issue of whether a physician has a constitutional right to refuse on religious grounds to perform a medical procedure for a patient because of the patient's sexual orientation. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff but the decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District.
Cover Page | Application | Amicus Argument

Barnes-Wallace v. BSA, City of San Diego and BSA Desert Pacific Council
This case involves whether use by the Scouts of Balboa Park and Fiesta Island in San Diego under a long term lease with the city amounts to an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The District Court ruled it did. Oral arguments were heard on the case in February of 2006, before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth District, in California.

On December 22, 2006 the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to decide whether San Diego's leasing of the parkland to the Boy Scouts violates the California state constitution.

In considering the appeal in this case, the Ninth Circuit previously issued a ruling certifying to the California Supreme Court certain questions of law regarding aid to religion and freedom of religion under the California Constitution. The Boy Scouts moved for a rehearing on that ruling. The Ninth Circuit has now ruled on that motion for rehearing by issuing a new ruling on June 11, 2008 certifying revised questions of law and a statement of facts to the California Supreme Court once again. The Boy Scouts are continuing to administer the facilities in San Diego pending final decisions in this case.
Read Brief

Boy Scouts of America and Connecticut Rivers Council, BSA v. Wyman et al
In this case the Boy Scouts sued because the state of Connecticut excluded them from the combined charitable campaign for state employees on the grounds that the Scouts were a discriminatory organization. ACRU and other groups petitioned the United States Supreme Court to hear this case after the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided against the ACRU position. On March 8, 2004, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.
Read Brief

Boy Scouts of America and Monmouth Council, BSA v. Dale
Decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 28, 2000, in favor of ACRU’s position. This case involved the landmark ruling by the Supreme Court holding that the Scouts could not be forced to retain openly gay adult scout leaders under antidiscrimination laws. The Scouts have a right of freedom of expressive association to appoint adult leaders who do not contradict the message and doctrines of the Scouts.
Read Brief

Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board
Bush v. Gore, concerning the all-important Florida vote fo r President in 2000, came up on an accelerated basis from the Florida Supreme Court. Only 14 counsel filed briefs in the case. On DATE, the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled as the ACRU brief, and only that brief, recommended. It struck the Florida Supreme Court decision, requiring that court to rethink and rewrite its decision. When the Florida Supreme Court failed to get the message, the US Supreme Court took the case, and seven Justices ruled that the Florida court had violated the US Constitution.
Read Brief

Evans v. City of Berkeley
Denial of the Sea Scouts’ right to free berthing of its vessels as accorded other non-profit groups. Decided by California State Supreme Court on March 9, 2006, against ACRU’s position. Plaintiffs and the ACRU petitioned the United States Supreme Court to take the case. On October 16, 2006, the Supreme Court denied the petition to hear the appeal of the California State's Supreme Court decision.
Cover page | Table of Contents | Brief

McConnell v. FEC
McConnell v. FEC concerned the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance "Reform" Act. The ACRU filed a brief arguing that restrictions on citizen advertising before primary and general elections were a gross and facial violation of the First Amendment. On DATE, the US Supreme Court upheld those restrictions in a bitterly divided, 5-4 decision, rejecting the ACRU position.
Read Brief

Paulson v. City of San Diego
ACRU filed a brief in support of the City of San Diego in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on an appeal by Paulson from a Federal judge’s order approving the sale of the Mt. Soledad property including the cross to a private association. The three judge Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the sale as valid, as the ACRU brief urged. But Plaintiff won a rehearing en banc by the entire 9th circuit which reversed and invalidated the sale on the grounds that it amounted to an unconstitutional establishment of religion under the California constitution.
Read Brief

Paulson v. City of San Diego
ACRU filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the private association which had bought the Mt. Soledad property in the sale invalidated by the Ninth circuit. But the Supreme Court denied the petition because the Ninth Circuit had invalidated the sale based on the California state constitution.
Read Brief

Paulson v. City of San Diego
ACRU filed a brief in support of the City of San Diego in California state appellate court on appeal from a state judge’s order prohibiting the City from transferring the Mt. Soledad Memorial and its cross to the Federal government, as approved in a city referendum with 76% in support. The Federal government intervened to safeguard the monument by its powers of eminent domain; plaintiff Paulson is recently deceased. ACLU may file another suit challenging the Federal action.
On January 12, 2007, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the lawsuit to remove the memorial as moot and said a district court order to remove the cross must be vacated.
Read Brief

Rumsfeld vs. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights Decided by the United States Supreme Court on March 6, 2006, in favor of ACRU’s position. In this case the Supreme Court held that the Federal government has the power to condition Federal educational aid on maintenance of equal access to the campus for military recruiters as compared to other recruiters.
Read Brief

United States of America v. American Library Association
Decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on January 23, 2003, in favor of ACRU’s position.
Read Brief

Winkler v. Rumsfeld
This case involves whether use by the Scouts of a military base for their national Jamboree involves an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The District Court held that it does. Oral arguments were heard on the case in April of 2006, before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh District, in Illinois. On April 12, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed the case finding that the ACLU did not have standing..
Read Brief

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris
Case decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 27, 2002 in favor of ACRU’s position. This case held that school voucher programs do not amount to an unconstitutional establishment of religion.
Read Brief


Mission Statement About the ACRU Policy Board Hon. Edwin Meese, III Professor James Q. Wilson Hon. William Bradford Reynolds Amb. Curtin Winsor, Jr. Dean J. Clayburn LaForce, Jr. Professor Walter E. Williams Dean Kenneth W. Starr Our Issues In the Courts ACRU Courtwatch In the News ACLU Outrages Support the ACRU Search the Site Contact Us Other Resources Home	ACRU Amicus Brief Library In Re Rachel, L. The ACLU joins other organizations supporting homeschooling to file this brief in a California state appellate court arguing for a constitutional right for parents to choose homeschooling for their children. The argument is based on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech, relying in particular on precedents holding that parents have a constitutional right to choose private rather than public schools for their children, and that Amish parents can choose the alternative of working at home within the Amish culture rather than attending public high schools. Brief Heller v. DC Gun control laws in the District of Columbia effectively ban the use of handguns, or other guns, for self-defense within the home. Heller is a Federal security guard charged with helping to protect the Federal judiciary at the Federal Judicial Center in Washington DC. In that capacity, he is armed with a handgun for his work during the day. Heller wants to keep a handgun within his home in Washington DC for self-defense during the evening. He applied for a permit for such a gun but was denied, as required under DC law since 1976. He sued the city claiming that the DC gun control laws effectively denied his right to keep and bear arms within the home for self-defense under the Second Amendment, and, therefore, were unconstitutional. The District Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not provide for an individual right to keep and bear arms. But in an historic precedent, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the Amendment did, indeed, provide for such an individual right. The Court consequently struck down the DC gun control statutes as unconstitutional. We have filed amicus briefs at every stage of this litigation, going all the way back to the District Court. In 2007, we first filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court supporting Heller's request for a writ of certiorari for a definitive ruling on the issues. The Court did grant certiorari. Heller v. DC Cover Page \| Application \| Amicus Argument Parker v. DC Cover Page \| Application \| Amicus Argument \| Read Brief Indiana Voting Rights In 2005, the Indiana General Assembly passed legislation, signed by the Governor, to counter voter fraud by generally requiring those voting in person at the polls to identify themselves with a government issued photo ID, such as a driver's license or a passport. The Indiana state Democratic Party, the Marion County Democratic Party, two elected Democrat officials, and several political interest groups filed suit alleging that this Indiana Voter ID law is unconstitutional because requiring such an ID imposes a severe burden on the right to vote. Cover Page \| Application \| Amicus Argument Rederford & Christy v. Hicks This case presents increasingly urgent questions of law regarding the free speech rights of politically disfavored local minorities. The facts of this case reveal discriminatory prejudice against Christian employees by the City of Oakland reflected in viewpoint discrimination regarding their freedom of speech. Cover Page \| Application \| Amicus Argument Benitez v. North Coast On March 29, 2007, ACRU filed a brief in the California Supreme Court on behalf of the defendant, North Coast Womens' Care Medical Group. This case tests the Freedom of Religion Clause of the California Constitution on the issue of whether a physician has a constitutional right to refuse on religious grounds to perform a medical procedure for a patient because of the patient's sexual orientation. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff but the decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District. Cover Page \| Application \| Amicus Argument Barnes-Wallace v. BSA, City of San Diego and BSA Desert Pacific Council This case involves whether use by the Scouts of Balboa Park and Fiesta Island in San Diego under a long term lease with the city amounts to an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The District Court ruled it did. Oral arguments were heard on the case in February of 2006, before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth District, in California. On December 22, 2006 the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to decide whether San Diego's leasing of the parkland to the Boy Scouts violates the California state constitution. In considering the appeal in this case, the Ninth Circuit previously issued a ruling certifying to the California Supreme Court certain questions of law regarding aid to religion and freedom of religion under the California Constitution. The Boy Scouts moved for a rehearing on that ruling. The Ninth Circuit has now ruled on that motion for rehearing by issuing a new ruling on June 11, 2008 certifying revised questions of law and a statement of facts to the California Supreme Court once again. The Boy Scouts are continuing to administer the facilities in San Diego pending final decisions in this case. Read Brief Boy Scouts of America and Connecticut Rivers Council, BSA v. Wyman et al In this case the Boy Scouts sued because the state of Connecticut excluded them from the combined charitable campaign for state employees on the grounds that the Scouts were a discriminatory organization. ACRU and other groups petitioned the United States Supreme Court to hear this case after the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided against the ACRU position. On March 8, 2004, the *Supreme Court refused to hear the case. Read Brief Boy Scouts of America and Monmouth Council, BSA v. Dale* Decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 28, 2000, *in favor of ACRU’s position.* This case involved the landmark ruling by the Supreme Court holding that the Scouts could not be forced to retain openly gay adult scout leaders under antidiscrimination laws. The Scouts have a right of freedom of expressive association to appoint adult leaders who do not contradict the message and doctrines of the Scouts. Read Brief Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board Bush v. Gore, concerning the all-important Florida vote fo r President in 2000, came up on an accelerated basis from the Florida Supreme Court. Only 14 counsel filed briefs in the case. On DATE, the *US Supreme Court unanimously ruled as the ACRU brief, and only that brief, recommended.* It struck the Florida Supreme Court decision, requiring that court to rethink and rewrite its decision. When the Florida Supreme Court failed to get the message, the US Supreme Court took the case, and seven Justices ruled that the Florida court had violated the US Constitution. Read Brief Evans v. City of Berkeley Denial of the Sea Scouts’ right to free berthing of its vessels as accorded other non-profit groups. Decided by California State Supreme Court on March 9, 2006, *against ACRU’s position. Plaintiffs and the ACRU petitioned the United States Supreme Court to take the case. On October 16, 2006, the Supreme Court denied the petition* to hear the appeal of the California State's Supreme Court decision. Cover page \| Table of Contents \| Brief McConnell v. FEC McConnell v. FEC concerned the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance "Reform" Act. The ACRU filed a brief arguing that restrictions on citizen advertising before primary and general elections were a gross and facial violation of the First Amendment. On DATE, the US Supreme Court upheld those restrictions in a bitterly divided, 5-4 decision, *rejecting the ACRU position. Read Brief Paulson v. City of San Diego* ACRU filed a brief in support of the City of San Diego in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on an appeal by Paulson from a Federal judge’s order approving the sale of the Mt. Soledad property including the cross to a private association. The three judge Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the sale as valid, as the ACRU brief urged. But Plaintiff won a rehearing en banc by the entire 9th circuit which reversed and invalidated the sale on the grounds that it amounted to an unconstitutional establishment of religion under the California constitution. Read Brief Paulson v. City of San Diego ACRU filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the private association which had bought the Mt. Soledad property in the sale invalidated by the Ninth circuit. But the Supreme Court denied the petition because the Ninth Circuit had invalidated the sale based on the California state constitution. Read Brief Paulson v. City of San Diego ACRU filed a brief in support of the City of San Diego in California state appellate court on appeal from a state judge’s order prohibiting the City from transferring the Mt. Soledad Memorial and its cross to the Federal government, as approved in a city referendum with 76% in support. The Federal government intervened to safeguard the monument by its powers of eminent domain; plaintiff Paulson is recently deceased. ACLU may file another suit challenging the Federal action. On January 12, 2007, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the lawsuit to remove the memorial as moot and said a district court order to remove the cross must be vacated. Read Brief Rumsfeld vs. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights Decided by the United States Supreme Court on March 6, 2006, *in favor of ACRU’s position.* In this case the Supreme Court held that the Federal government has the power to condition Federal educational aid on maintenance of equal access to the campus for military recruiters as compared to other recruiters. Read Brief United States of America v. American Library Association Decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on January 23, 2003, *in favor of ACRU’s position.* Read Brief Winkler v. Rumsfeld This case involves whether use by the Scouts of a military base for their national Jamboree involves an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The District Court held that it does. Oral arguments were heard on the case in April of 2006, before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh District, in Illinois. *On April 12, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed the case finding that the ACLU did not have standing.. Read Brief Zelman v. Simmons-Harris* Case decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 27, 2002 *in favor of ACRU’s position.* This case held that school voucher programs do not amount to an unconstitutional establishment of religion. Read Brief Mission About the ACRU In the Courts ACLU Outrages In the Press Other Resources Contact Us Home The American Civil Rights Union 3213 Duke St., #625 Alexandria, VA 22314 703-807-0242 (877) 730-ACRU (2278) The American Civil Rights Union is a non-partisan 501c(3) tax-exempt organization and receives no federal grants or funding.
Review our most recent IRS Form 990 and financial statements

Copyright 2007 \| American Civil Rights Union

ACRU Amicus Brief Library