Innocent-until-proven-guilty is a hallmark of our criminal justice system. But some Courts of Appeals require victims of unconstitutional conduct to prove their innocence before they can enforce their constitutional rights in a lawsuit. In this amicus brief, we urge the U.S. Supreme Court to reject that rule, which immunizes government officials from accountability for their…

Divinity Rios sued prison officials for their deliberate indifference to her need for protective housing, which resulted in her avoidable sexual assault. Now, the Tenth Circuit will decide whether officers are absolutely immune from this long-established Eighth Amendment violation simply because they work for the federal (instead of state) government. IJ filed an amicus brief…

The Eighth Circuit will decide whether a peaceful, unarmed protester can sue to hold police officers who severely injured him accountable. IJ filed an amicus brief to explain why the dismissal of all charges against the protester (through a pretrial diversion agreement) should not immunize the officers and their employers from liability.

In a friend-of-the-court brief, IJ urged the First Circuit Court of Appeals to reject TSA’s ongoing efforts to immunize the agency from legal and constitutional challenges to its nationwide transportation screening policies and procedures. TSA has raised the same defense in IJ’s class action challenging the agency’s cash seizure policies. Authors A.J. Kritikos & Sarah…

In the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, Congress provided that the government should bear the burden to prove wrongdoing in civil forfeiture cases–overturning earlier cases that placed the burden on property owners. But many courts have failed to honor that reform in the 20 years since it was enacted and, instead, continue to…

In 1873, Jeptha Wade donated 73 acres of land to the City of Cleveland on the express condition that the land be kept “open at all times to the public.” In this brief, we explain that the City’s attempts to disregard that provision violate the Contracts Clause.

Some courts have extended qualified immunity from individuals to local governments. In this brief, we explain why that extension is improper and why the Supreme Court should clarify when municipalities may be liable for violating people’s constitutional rights.

Article III of the U.S. Constitution provides that federal judges–with the protection of life tenure–shall wield the “judicial power of the United States.” But today, many federal cases are litigated before administrative judges who are mere employees of administrative agencies. In this brief, IJ urges the U.S. Supreme Court to reclaim the jurisdiction of the…

The Tenth Circuit will decide whether qualified immunity shields an officer’s violation of a prisoner’s free exercise of religion. The lower court dismissed the case simply because it could not find factually identical precedent. The Tenth Circuit should reject such judicial abdication—especially in cases like this one, where the government’s own policy put the officer…

Dane County, Wisconsin, ordered closed private (and public) schools for grades 3-12. While Dane County allows childcare and educational camps at these facilities, it has completely banned in-person instruction at the behest of private schools’ competitors—teachers’ unions. After Dane County first closed schools in August, a group of families and private schools petitioned the Wisconsin…

Police officers swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution, but can they be held accountable when they blatantly violate that oath? The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will soon consider whether a citizen-journalist in Texas can seek justice after a retaliatory arrest and prosecution. The Institute for Justice (IJ), as part of its recently launched…

In July, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster announced the creation of the Safe Access to Flexible Education (SAFE) Grants program, which will provide one-time, federally funded grants to students to pay for tuition costs at private schools located in South Carolina. Following announcement of the program, a retired South Carolina schoolteacher and a taxpayer filed…

Everyone hates robocalls. But last year, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Congress’s attempt to regulate robocalls—through the Telephone Consumer Protection Act— violated the First Amendment. Instead of banning all robocalls, Congress had banned robocalls on some topics while allowing robocalls that discussed other topics (like certain kinds of debt collection). So…

Every government official should know that stealing is unconstitutional. It goes to the core of the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. In this amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, we explain that the facts of this case are the very reason why the modern-day doctrine of qualified immunity…

Victory! The Supreme Court adopted IJ’s argument in this brief that (1) damages for constitutional violations are important and often necessary, that (2) damages for constitutional violations have a great historic pedigree, and that (3) it is not within this Court’s purview to import policy concerns into its decision-making. This unanimous opinion repudiates the type…

It is essentially impossible to sustain a claim for damages against federal officers when they violate constitutional rights. That’s because courts have shunned the only generally available means for obtaining relief: Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. The decision is considered controversial; many believe it to be a product…

Braider Freedom

We successfully urged the Seventh Circuit to rehear a case against a county whose prison officials sexually assaulted female prisoners.

Read this brief to learn more about the legal test for qualified immunity in the context of a fascinating fact pattern: after a bystander recorded police officers using excessive force in the performance of their official duties, these officers tried to silence the bystander by attempting to delete his recording.

In the defining constitutional debate of our time—whether the individual mandate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is constitutional—only one doctrine will lead the justices to fulfill their mandate to act as a check on congressional power: judicial engagement. Several lower courts that have heard challenges to the individual mandate have opined…

In January 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Sackett v. EPA. The Sacketts are owners of a half-acre residential lot near Priest Lake, Idaho, which they bought to build a single family home. After they were granted a permit by local authorities and began construction, however, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency…

In a tremendous victory for property rights, 73 percent of Mississippians overwhelmingly rejected the infamous U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of New London to become the 44th state to pass stronger protections for property owners against eminent domain abuse. Initiative 31 amends the Mississippi Constitution to prohibit the government from seizing private…

The Institute for Justice urges the Supreme Court to hear City of Milwaukee Post No. 2874 Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States v. Redevelopment Authority of the City of Milwaukee, which concerns the meaning of “just compensation” under the Fifth Amendment. In the state of Wisconsin, courts use the so-called “undivided fee” rule…

In a sweeping regulation of political speech, the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, known as McCain-Feingold, banned so-called “electioneering communications”—corporate or union-funded broadcast ads that mentioned the name of a federal candidate shortly before an election.  Using this law, the Federal Election Commission banned the nonprofit Citizens United from airing Hillary:  The Movie on cable…

If you own a piece of property in New York, you should care deeply about a case about to be argued before the state’s highest court. Goldstein v. New York State Urban Development Corporation—a challenge to New York’s controversial use of eminent domain to hand privately owned businesses and homes in Brooklyn over to private…

In October 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Alvarez v. Smith.  The plaintiffs in Alvarez are Chicago residents whose cars and money were taken by the Chicago Police Department.  While being innocent of any wrongdoing, the plaintiffs have gone for months, and in some cases years, without any way to get…

In 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a jury verdict against Monterey, Calif., for refusing to allow property owners to develop their property.  The Institute co-authored an amicus curiae brief in City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes with the nation’s leading constitutional scholar on such takings—University of Chicago law professor Richard Epstein.