Can the government detain someone for their political views and force them to wait months—or years—for courts to review whether their rights were violated? That's the question at the heart of the Mahmoud Khalil case. Despite warnings from multiple federal judges that the ruling threatens free speech, habeas corpus, and judicial oversight, the Third Circuit has refused to rehear the case.

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a challenge to Florida’s use of six-person criminal juries—a dangerous erosion of the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. Civil liberties advocates argue that the Constitution’s original understanding of a jury requires twelve members—not six—and that shrinking juries weakens one of the last safeguards standing between individuals and unchecked government power.

In an amicus brief filed with the Court in Chatrie v. United States, The Rutherford Institute warns that geofence warrants represent a modern version of the general warrants that sparked the American Revolution. Rather than requiring law enforcement to identify a suspect and establish probable cause before conducting a search, these warrants reverse the constitutional order—authorizing the government to search first and decide later who might be suspicious.

After more than a year of escalating efforts by the Trump administration to blacklist critics, censor dissent, and punish those who challenge its policies, a coalition of civil liberties organizations is urging a federal appeals court to draw a constitutional line against what it calls a sweeping and unconstitutional campaign to silence legal opposition.

A broad coalition of civil liberties organizations is urging the Third Circuit to rehear the case of Mahmoud Khalil, warning that a recent ruling allows the government to detain individuals for protected political speech while delaying judicial review. The case raises urgent questions about free speech, due process, and the government’s growing power to punish dissent—especially in times of war.

The First Amendment doesn’t allow the government to pick and choose which speech is acceptable—or which voices get heard. But that’s exactly what happens when laws are enforced selectively. In a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court pushed back, clearing the way for Americans to challenge speech-restricting laws—even after being punished under them. This isn’t just about one street preacher. It’s about anyone who speaks out—and whether the government gets to decide who gets heard.

The U.S. Supreme Court has paved the way for police to enter homes without a warrant under the pretext of emergency aid. Civil liberties advocates warn the ruling could open the door to more warrantless home entries—and escalate dangerous encounters during welfare checks and mental health crises. 

An executive order by President Trump has laid the groundwork for armed federal agents to raid sacred spaces during worship services under the pretext of immigration enforcement operations.  When people of faith must weigh the menace of the police state against their desire to worship, religious liberty is under attack.

In a major rebuke of presidential power, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that President Trump cannot impose billions of dollars in tariffs on the American people by declaring a national emergency. At stake was a key constitutional question: Who has the power to tax — Congress or the president?

Two back-to-back rulings have rebuffed efforts by the Trump administration to retaliate against military veterans for exercising their First Amendment rights and reaffirming that military service members’ oath is to the Constitution.

If you carried a cell phone past the wrong street corner at the wrong moment, police could already have your movements, your digital trail, and your identity—without your even having committed a crime. That is the reality of geofence warrants, a powerful surveillance tool whose use by police is now being challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a decision that makes it easier for political candidates to challenge election-related harms while leaving ordinary Americans without similar recourse, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that candidates may challenge state laws governing the counting of votes in their own races but declined to base that on broader standing principles applicable for all citizens harmed by unlawful government action.

One year after the U.S. Supreme Court opened the door to warrantless home searches by police, ICE is now claiming the power to forcibly enter homes without a judge’s warrant. A newly revealed ICE memo—and real-world raids targeting even U.S. citizens—signal a dangerous escalation in Constitution-free policing that threatens the Fourth Amendment rights of every homeowner.

The Rutherford Institute is raising the alarm over efforts by the Trump Administration to retaliate against military veterans for exercising their free speech rights and reaffirming their oath to protect and defend the Constitution. 

Pushing back on President Trump’s claim that “I have the right to do anything I want to do,” the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to lift a lower court order preventing the President from deploying National Guard troops against civilians in Chicago, allowing the block on the deployment to remain in place.

The Rutherford Institute's 2025 Annual Report documents an unprecedented assault by the government on constitutional freedoms—and how TRI fought back in the courts, in Congress, and in the public square.

As the Trump administration proclaims that it has “saved Christmas,” The Rutherford Institute is warning that the federal government is doing the opposite—weaponizing the holiday as a propaganda tool to promote fear, punishment, and mass deportation, in direct contradiction to the core values Christmas is meant to represent.

In a ruling that leaves thousands of military servicemembers and their families without a path to justice, the Supreme Court has allowed a two-tiered system to stand—one that bars servicemembers from suing the government for non-combat injuries, even when a civilian could bring the very same claim.

In yet another ruling that contributes to the steady normalization of police overreach, the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to rein in police K-9 drug-sniff searches during traffic stops.

President Trump’s claim that he can “do anything I want” faces a constitutional challenge: civil liberties groups urge the Supreme Court to rein in the president’s repeated efforts to create a de facto standing army and block his efforts to deploy National Guard troops against civilians in Chicago.