McDonald v. City of Chicago
The case McDonald v. City of Chicago presents to the Supreme Court the issue of whether the Second Amendment right to bear arms is applicable to state and local governments, or instead is only a right that Americans have against the actions of the federal government. Specifically, the question is whether the right to bear arms applies (or is "incorporated") to the states through either the Privileges or Immunities Clause or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
On November 23, the ACRU, joined by three other organizations, argued that the Second Amendment should be incorporated to the states through the Privileges or Immunities Clause, and that this should be done without overruling the Slaughter-House Cases. The Privileges or Immunities Clause could be used as a source for judicial activism unlike anything America has ever seen. The best safeguard against that possibility is the Slaughter-House Cases, which severely restricts the scope of that clause to only incorporate rights that are inherent in federal citizenship and that are grounded in the text of the Constitution. Since it is possible to incorporate the right to bear arms through Privileges or Immunities without overruling Slaughter-House, that becomes the safest way to extend this right against the states, while not opening the door to unintended consequences.
United States v. O'Donnell
Pierce O'Donnell was charged with a criminal violation of federal campaign finance laws. The District Court granted his motion to dismiss most of the Indictment on the grounds that his conduct was not prohibited by the plain language of the statute under which he was charged. The Justice Department appealed to the 9th Circuit supported by several amici arguing that the statute should nevertheless be held to prohibit his conduct based on public policy arguments. On November 16, the ACRU filed a brief amicus curiae in support of O'Donnell arguing that stretching criminal statutes beyond their plain terms to railroad defendants into prison terms based on policy arguments would violate the basic rule of law and threaten the basic liberty of American citizens, as in authoritarian regimes.
Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection
In this case, the homeowner petitioners owned oceanfront property with private beaches. State and local entities in Florida conducted a beach nourishment project on their properties which involved adding tons of sand at the waterline. As part of this project, the government unilaterally redefined their property lines away from the water and added a 75 foot public beach at the waterline. As a result, they lost all of the littoral property rights which belong to those who own property at the waterline. The homeowners sued arguing that the beach nourishment project involved an unconstitutional taking of property rights without compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. On August 20, the ACRU filed this brief in the Supreme Court in support of the homeowners.
Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
Congress created the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) to enforce the Sarbanes Oxley law. But Congress provided for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), not the President, to appoint the members of the PCAOB. The President also has no powers of oversight or removal regarding the board members. Yet the PCAOB has the power to establish standards of criminal misconduct, and to decide on their prosecution and punishment. It also has the power to impose taxes on publicly traded companies, and to set its own budget, again independent of the President.
The Free Enterprise Fund brought suit challenging the constitutionality of this arrangement, arguing that it violated the Separation of Powers Doctrine and the Appointments Clause that requires top Executive Branch officials to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Supreme Court granted a Writ of Certiorari to hear the case, with the ACRU filing a brief urging that action. On August 3rd, the ACRU then filed this brief on the merits urging the Court to strike down the PCAOB and the Sarbanes Oxley law as unconstitutional on these grounds.
Citizens United v. FEC
The American Civil Rights Union filed an amicus curiae brief on July 31 with the United States Supreme Court in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, urging the Court to overrule Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, and the relevant portions of McConnell v. FEC, which upheld the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. Citizens United involves a feature length, documentary film produced in 2007 by Citizens United, an ideological conservative non-profit, named Hillary: The Movie. Because the movie was about a candidate for President, the Federal Elections Commission ruled that it was subject to federal campaign finance laws. Consequently, the movie was prohibited from screening or broadcast during the 2008 election season while Hillary Clinton was still a candidate. The ACRU previously filed a brief in this case urging the Court to grant a Writ of Certiorari to hear it, and then filed a brief supporting Citizens United on the merits after certiorari was granted. But the Supreme Court asked for supplemental briefs addressing the issue of whether Austin and the relevant portions of McConnell should be overruled. In response, the ACRU filed its third brief before the Supreme Court supporting Citizens United.
NRA v. City of Chicago and Village of Oak Park
Last year's watershed Second Amendment case of District of Columbia v. Heller was just the beginning of the fight over the meaning of the right to keep and bear arms. The most significant question now is whether the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government (because D.C. is directly under federal law) or whether it also applies to states and cities under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. This question of whether the Second Amendment is "incorporated" by the Fourteenth Amendment is now being offered to the Supreme Court. The city of Chicago has a law banning handguns similar to the law struck down last year in Heller. The NRA filed suit against this law, and lost both in the federal district court and also before the Seventh Circuit. Now the NRA has petitioned for certiorari, requesting the Supreme Court to decide the matter. On July 6, the ACRU filed an amicus brief supporting the NRA's petition. The Court should decide by early October whether to take the case. If granted certiorari, NRA v. Chicago will be a historic case and important as the Heller decision itself.
Salazar v. Buono
Salazar v. Buono is the latest case arising from the battle of militant atheists against people of faith. In the Mojave Desert National Preserve there is a memorial in the form of a cross dedicated to World War I soldiers. The plaintiff, Buono, brought suit with the backing and legal support of the ACLU to have the cross removed, arguing that having a cross on public land was unconstitutional. After years of litigation, the federal government took the extraordinary step of passing a law that would allow the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) to take the plot of land with the cross, in exchange for the VFW donating land of equal value to the National Park Service. Committed to seeing the cross removed, Buono obtained a court order to prevent the land exchange from being completed. The Ninth Circuit federal appeals court affirmed this order. The Supreme Court has taken the case to determine if the plaintiff even has legal standing to continue this case. On June 8, 2009, the ACRU filed an amicus brief in favor of the preserving the cross.
Boy Scouts of America v. Barnes-Wallace
The City of San Diego has long leased two properties to the San Diego unit of the Boy Scouts of America in return for the construction, operation and maintenance of youth recreational facilities. The Scouts have spent millions on the two properties over the years, providing first class recreation operations open to the public on a first-come, first-served basis. Many, many thousands who are not Boy Scouts use these facilities every year. Nevertheless, a lesbian couple with a male child and an agnostic couple with a male child sued the City and the Boy Scouts over the arrangement. The Plaintiffs allege they are "offended" by the traditional moral values espoused by the Boy Scouts, which they find "repulsive," and claim they cannot use the facilities because of the "offensiveness of having to deal with the Boy Scouts" administering the facilities (that the Scouts paid for and built themselves). In other words, the two families argue they are suffering an unconstitutional injury because they feel they must avoid a place because of people there who hold different views. The Scouts have now asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review whether the Plaintiffs have standing under the law to even bring this suit in the first place. On May 4, 2009, the ACRU filed an amicus curaie brief with the Court supporting the Scouts, arguing that under the law merely being offended by the views of others is not sufficient for standing, which requires a concrete injury-in-fact.
Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America, Inc., Steve Trunk, et al. v. City of San Diego, et al.
The 29 foot high Latin cross atop Mt. Soledad in the San Diego suburbs has been under attack by the ACLU for 21 years now. But the cross still stands. The ACRU has joined in defense of the cross for the last 11 years. In 2005, the Congress took the cross and the land surrounding it by eminent domain, and registered it as an official federal veterans' memorial. The ACLU sued again claiming that crosses even on federal veterans memorials are unconstitutional establishments of religion. The district court dismissed the suit, which has now been appealed to the 9th Circuit. On March 20, 2009, the ACRU filed a brief in this appeal in support of the cross, arguing that the text and the history of the Establishment Clause show that it only forbids government policies, practices or actions that involve coercion. Since the cross at the memorial does not involve any form of coercion, it is not unconstitutional.
Ricci v. DeStefano
On February 26, the ACRU filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court arguing that the Court should reverse the decisions below and hold that New Haven discriminated against Petitioners solely because of their race.
In 2003 the city of New Haven conducted a job-related, race-neutral promotion examination for firefighters, and then refused to promote the firefighters who ranked on top because they were all white or hispanic. The decision to not promote the firefighters was reached after an African-American political ally of the mayor threatened to sue under Title VII. The ACRU is arguing that the city of New Haven is engaging in intentional discrimination by refusing to promote Petitioners in order to avoid a potential lawsuit for unintentional discrimination, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
On February 9, 2009, the ACRU filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court arguing that the Court should review the decisions of the courts below upholding this arrangement.
In response to the scandals at Enron and elsewhere, Congress passed the Sarbanes Oxley Act in 2002, imposing costly, unnecessary regulatory burdens on business. The Act also created the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board to oversee and regulate accounting practices, and enforce its regulations through even criminal penalties. The PCAOB even has the power to finance itself through its own tax. But the President has no appointment, removal, supervisory or oversight authority over the PCAOB, with limited oversight granted only to the Securities and Exchange Commission, itself an independent agency from Presidential authority. This case involves a suit arguing that this arrangement is an unconstitutional violation of the Separation of Powers Doctrine, involving an invasion of the President's executive powers granted in the Constitution by Congress.
Citizen's United v. Federal Elections Commission
On January 14, 2009, the American Civil Rights Union filed an amicus curiae brief with the United States Supreme Court in favor of Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, arguing that prohibiting broadcast of the movie "Hillary: The Movie" violated the fundamental right of freedom of speech, not only for Citizens United and the individuals who contributed to produce the movie to advance their ideological viewpoint, but also for the viewers who would choose to watch the movie. The ACRU brief argues that these viewers "hold their own constitutionally protected, freedom of speech rights to watch and to listen to the movie and its speech."
Citizens United V. Federal Elections Commission
On September 16, 2008, the American Civil Rights Union filed an amicus curiae brief with the United States Supreme Court urging the Court to take on appeal the case of Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission. This case involves a feature length, documentary film produced by Citizens United named Hillary: The Movie. Because the movie was about a candidate for President, the Federal Elections Commission ruled that it was subject to federal campaign finance laws. Consequently, the movie was prohibited from screening or broadcast during the 2008 election season while Hillary Clinton was still a candidate. The ACRU argued in its brief that this was a gross violation of Freedom of Speech under the First Amendment, and that the Supreme Court urgently needed to take the case to protect that freedom so critical and fundamental to our democracy.
In Re Rachel, L.
The ACRU 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.
On August 8, 2008 the Second Appellate District in a 3-0 decision, ruled that homeschooling is a legitimate form of education. A lower court had ruled home education is not permissible if a parent does not posses teaching credentials from the state.
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.
On June 26, 2008 the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one's home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession.
Heller v. DC
Read the Brief
Parker v. DC
Read the Supreme Court Brief
Read the DC Circuit 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.
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.
Read the Brief
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.
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. The opinion of the court is pending.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
Parker v. District of Columbia
The American Civil Rights Union filed an amicus curiae brief in the United States Supreme Court on Friday, October 12 in the case of Parker v. District of Columbia urging the Court to grant the requested writ of certiorari on behalf of 5 of the original 6 plaintiffs seeking to strike down the District's gun control laws as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals had found that these 5 plaintiffs did not have standing in the case and dismissed them from the suit.
