When the government gets to decide what counts as “real” religion, everyone’s freedoms are at risk. The Rutherford Institute is fighting back in defense of equal protection for all religious expressions.

In a blow to First Amendment freedoms, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hold Facebook/Meta accountable for colluding with the government to silence constitutionally protected speech. Without a clear ruling holding Meta accountable as a state actor, The Rutherford Institute warns that social media companies are likely to once again serve as proxies for government censorship—especially during times of crisis or political pressure.

In a resounding rebuke of executive overreach, a fourth federal judge has struck down a Trump administration executive order aimed at punishing a law firm for the clients it represents and the causes it supports.

In a unanimous opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government can be held accountable for a botched FBI SWAT raid that targeted the wrong home and terrorized an innocent family. 

The Rutherford Institute has joined a broad coalition of civil liberties groups in opposing the Trump administration’s attempts to wage a political war on academic freedom and ideological independence. At the heart of the legal challenge is the Trump administration’s move to strip Harvard University of billions of dollars in federal research funding unless Harvard agrees to change its policies to align with the government’s preferred political ideology. 

In a win for parental and religious rights, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that parents from various religious backgrounds have a right to opt their elementary-aged children out of mandatory public school readings and discussions of books involving LGBTQ sexuality and themes.

In yet another legal setback for the Trump Administration in its efforts to weaponize immigration enforcement in order to punish political dissent, a federal judge has ordered that a former Columbia University graduate student be freed from ICE detention.

Protesting shouldn’t be a deportable offense. But in Trump’s America, where immigration powers are being weaponized against dissent, you can be jailed for your opinions. For example, Mahmoud Khalil was arrested by ICE for criticizing U.S. foreign policy. If the government can do this to him, they can do it to anyone, citizen or not.

More federal judges have struck down Trump’s retaliatory executive orders targeting law firms. The rulings blast the orders as unconstitutional, authoritarian overreach that threatens free speech and the separation of powers.

In a significant First Amendment showdown, the U.S. Supreme Court has deadlocked 4-4 on whether states can ban religious charter schools, leaving unresolved the tension between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The split decision upholds Oklahoma’s ruling against a Catholic virtual school but leaves the national debate far from settled.

In a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a legal doctrine that allowed police to avoid scrutiny for reckless conduct leading up to a deadly shooting. Now, courts must consider the full sequence of events, not just the final moment of perceived threat.

In the wake of a court ruling against its politically motivated detentions and deportations of student protesters, the Trump Administration has signaled it may suspend the writ of habeas corpus—a cornerstone of constitutional liberty that protects against unlawful imprisonment. 

Warning that President Trump’s executive order retaliating against law firms, suppressing opposition and chilling lawful First Amendment activity “is a step in the direction of a totalitarian form of government,” the U.S. District Court for D.C. has ruled in favor of the Perkins Coie law firm.

Warning that the U.S. government is weaponizing immigration enforcement to punish political dissent, The Rutherford Institute has joined a coalition of civil liberties organizations in challenging the arrest and detention of a Tufts PhD student over her pro-Palestinian views. Her case marks a dangerous escalation in the government's use of immigration enforcement to silence dissent.

In the wake of a disturbing incident in which masked, plainclothes federal agents detained two men at the Albemarle County Courthouse without clear identification or warrants, sparking fears of a public kidnapping, The Rutherford Institute is calling on local leaders to protect due process, preserve courthouse access, and ensure the public is informed of their rights when interacting with federal agents.

A broad coalition of legal and civil liberties organizations is once again challenging President Trump’s use of executive orders to retaliate against law firms, suppress opposition and chill lawful First Amendment activity.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could determine whether FBI agents can be held accountable for a botched SWAT raid that terrorized an innocent family in the middle of the night.

A broad-ranging coalition of legal groups across the ideological spectrum is challenging President Trump’s weaponization of executive orders to silence dissent and punish critics. Free speech, due process, and the Constitution are on the line.

If non-citizens can be deported for engaging in lawful, nonviolent political speech, who’s next? The First Amendment protects everyone in the U.S., but this case threatens to undermine that fundamental freedom. 

Should parents have the right to opt their elementary-aged children out of mandatory public school curriculum that promotes alternative ideas about gender and sexuality? The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to affirm the right of parents from various religious backgrounds to be granted a religious exemption to opt their elementary-aged children out of required readings and discussions of books involving LGBTQ sexuality and themes.