The Rutherford Institute is calling on the Supreme Court to rein in reckless police behavior that not only escalates the level of danger during encounters with members of the public but too often results in the deadly use of force against unarmed citizens. 

The Supreme Court is allowing police to use red tape and technicalities as a means of keeping thousands of dollars in cash seized under asset forfeiture schemes from innocent property owners.

The Rutherford Institute is calling on the courts to hold Delaware officers accountable for violating a blind tenant’s rights through their “evict first, ask questions later” practice.

The Rutherford Institute is calling on the courts to hold the government accountable for its misconduct, especially as it relates to reckless civil asset seizures.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case on whether the government should be able to sidestep accountability and avoid paying plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees when it has violated the Constitution.

Stressing that the First Amendment not only affirms the right to religious freedom for people of all faiths, but it also requires that the government treat all faiths equally and not favoring or disfavoring one over the other, The Rutherford Institute has come to the defense of a Christian ministry’s right to be treated equally with other religious and charitable organizations which provide similar services.

Pointing out that free debate about public affairs is the essence of self-government and at the heart of the First Amendment’s protections, The Rutherford Institute has come to the defense of an attorney who was charged by the State Bar for criticizing his opponent during an electoral campaign for a state prosecutor position. 

In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a lawsuit brought by Children’s Health Defense (“CHD”) against Meta Platforms for restricting CHD’s posts, fundraising, and advertising on Facebook following communications between Meta and federal government officials. 

The U.S. Supreme Court has sidestepped ruling on the merits of First Amendment claims in two cases that challenge whether big tech companies can block, ban, remove, deplatform, demonetize, de-boost, restrict, deny equal access or visibility to, or otherwise discriminate against viewpoints of which they might disapprove on social media. 

The Rutherford Institute is calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to rein in reckless police behavior that not only escalates the level of danger during encounters with members of the public but too often results in the deadly use of force against unarmed citizens. 

In a 6-3 ruling in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson that could have far-reaching ramifications for urban and suburban communities attempting to criminalize homelessness, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment does not prevent Oregon city officials from penalizing sleeping and camping in public.

In a 6-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has sidestepped a challenge to the federal government’s efforts to coerce social media companies into censoring users’ First Amendment expression.  

In a 5-4 ruling, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has vacated a five-year protective order against street preacher Rich Penkoski, who used social media to express his moral concerns about a church that endorsed gay marriage and to expose a public drag queen performance in front of children.

In a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a warning to government officials that the First Amendment prohibits them from indirectly censoring those with opposing, disfavored, or politically unpopular viewpoints by pressuring private parties to censor, ostracize, and shun them. 

After being ordered by school officials to remove religious references from his valedictorian speech, a Florida high school senior was eventually able to give his full, uncensored speech at graduation as a result of The Rutherford Institute’s intervention.

The Rutherford Institute is pushing back against efforts by police to use red tape and technicalities as a means of keeping thousands of dollars in cash seized under asset forfeiture schemes from innocent property owners.

In a ruling on civil forfeiture, which has been likened to a modern-day form of highway robbery, the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed police to get away with using delay tactics while keeping private property (cash, jewelry, cars, and other valuables) they seized and “suspect” may be connected to a crime.

The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled in favor of government officials who used a drone to take aerial surveillance photographs of a couple’s private property without a search warrant in order to cite them for storing excessive, so-called “junk” cars on their secluded five-acre property.

In a case with far-reaching implications across the political spectrum for free speech and the right to protest, the U.S. Supreme Court is allowing a case to move forward that could lay the groundwork for police to chill First Amendment and retaliate against nonviolent protesters.

The Rutherford Institute has come to the defense of a Florida high school valedictorian whose graduation speech was censored by school officials to alter and remove religious content. In coming to Lucas Hudson’s defense, attorneys for The Rutherford Institute warn that the school’s actions violate the rights to freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment, Florida law, and the School District’s policy, and could expose the school to a lawsuit.