Warning that the government should not be permitted to use international travel as an excuse to rummage through the digital contents of a person’s life without a warrant, The Rutherford Institute is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to rein in warrantless searches of Americans’ cell phones at the nation’s borders and international airports.

Warning that the government cannot use its regulatory powers to punish or intimidate news organizations for speech it dislikes, The Rutherford Institute has joined a coalition of civil liberties organizations to push back against the Trump Administration’s attempts to undermine the constitutionally protected freedom of the press.

In a victory for religious liberty, a federal appeals court has upheld restrictions on ICE raids at certain houses of worship, recognizing that the threat of immigration enforcement can itself burden religious exercise by driving worshippers away and forcing faith communities to alter their religious practices.

Can the government arrest and threaten to deport a handful of political dissenters in order to frighten everyone else into silence?  The Rutherford Institute has joined civil liberties groups in AAUP v. Rubio and The Stanford Daily v. Rubio to challenge government efforts that threaten to turn immigration enforcement into a weapon for punishing political speech and chilling First Amendment rights.

The First Amendment protects more than spoken and written words. It also protects the right to communicate through signs, flags, crosses, banners, artwork and other expressive displays on private property. While local governments may enforce reasonable, content-neutral safety and land-use regulations, they may not favor approved messages, suppress controversial viewpoints or make protected expression unnecessarily difficult. Drawing on more than four decades of civil liberties advocacy, The Rutherford Institute is urging a practical resolution to a dispute over a proposed cross display in Port St. Joe, Florida, while issuing a new Constitutional Q&A explaining the broader rights of property owners, churches, businesses and community organizations.

Government officials are increasingly passing laws that make it harder for the homeless to survive in public spaces—while regulating, restricting or even penalizing churches, religious charities and nonprofits that attempt to help. Yet churches should not have to choose between answering their religious calling and complying with unnecessary government paperwork before offering someone shelter on a freezing night.

As the Trump administration weakens the few remaining mechanisms for independently investigating government misconduct, a police-shooting case left undisturbed by the U.S. Supreme Court warns that lawful firearm possession could be transformed from a constitutional right into grounds for being shot by police without warning.

In a unanimous decision reaffirming that political speech receives the highest protection under the First Amendment, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot use attorney disciplinary rules to punish a candidate for statements made during an election campaign.

The Supreme Court just pushed back against dragnet cell phone surveillance. In a major Fourth Amendment ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that police conduct a “search” when they obtain cell phone location history data from a technology company through a geofence warrant.

Warning that more Americans are living one crisis away from homelessness in an economy marked by rising housing costs, medical debt, job instability and shrinking safety nets, The Rutherford Institute is warning that Louisiana's HB 211, the “Streets to Success Act,” would make homelessness a gateway into prosecution, probation, court-ordered treatment, debt, and jail—and risks punishing people for the unavoidable realities of poverty and homelessness while making it harder for them to secure the housing, employment, medical stability and community support needed to leave homelessness behind.

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.