The Rutherford Institute is warning against a growing cancel culture mindset within government agencies across the political spectrum that seeks to censor, ostracize and shun those with opposing, disfavored, or politically unpopular viewpoints.

The Rutherford Institute is once again pushing back against the U.S. Census Bureau’s efforts to force Americans to answer highly personal questions as part of its mandatory survey, including whether any members of their household suffer from mental, psychosocial, cognitive, or speech disabilities. 

The Rutherford Institute is sounding a strident warning over allowing the government unbridled authority to override the Constitution in the name of so-called “crisis management,” pointing out that such unrestricted emergency powers could very quickly become a slippery slope to a total lockdown mindset.

Weighing in on a case with far-reaching implications across the political spectrum for the future of free speech and the right to protest, The Rutherford Institute is asking the Supreme Court to ensure that protest organizers who peacefully lead First Amendment protests without intending to incite any violence are not held liable for the actions of others who engage in criminal activities at the protests.

In advance of a holiday season that could see record numbers of ancestry kits given as gifts, The Rutherford Institute is cautioning the public about the significant privacy risks associated with corporations, government agencies and hackers possibly gaining access to one’s familial DNA. 

The Rutherford Institute is sounding a renewed warning against efforts by the government to amass extensive, sensitive private information about individual citizens and their households through its mandatory American Community Survey, including questions about each household member’s sex assigned at birth, current gender (including transgender, nonbinary, or others), and sexual orientation. 

The Rutherford Institute has come to the defense of a decorated Gulf War veteran who, after fighting for freedom abroad, was punished for exercising his right to political free speech in his home state of Florida.

 In an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court in Molina v. Book, The Rutherford Institute attorneys championed the rights of legal observers and citizen-journalists to expose wrongdoing by police, arguing it is clearly established that the First Amendment protects citizens from retaliation for observing or recording police activity in public.

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.

In a blow to due process safeguards that protect Americans against reckless and wrongful arrests by government officials, the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hold police accountable for misidentifying and wrongly arresting an innocent man twice in five years, then jailing him for three days before taking a few minutes to verify his identity.

At a time when growing numbers of unsuspecting Americans are being swept up into a massive digital data dragnet that does not distinguish between those who are innocent of wrongdoing, suspects, or criminals, The Rutherford Institute is sounding the alarm over the threats posed by license plate readers to First and Fourth Amendment rights.

The Rutherford Institute is pushing back against efforts by government officials to use warrantless aerial drone surveillance to snoop on citizens at home and spy on their private property. 

In a 7-4 en banc ruling in Stinnie v. Holcomb, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed that the government should not be able to sidestep accountability and avoid paying plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees when it has violated the Constitution. 

The Rutherford Institute is calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to hold police accountable for misidentifying and wrongly arresting an innocent man twice in five years, then jailing him for three days before taking a few minutes to verify his identity. 

Recognizing that the First Amendment requires the government to treat all religious beliefs equally, a federal appeals court has ruled against a Wisconsin jail for leaving a Muslim prisoner no choice but to pray next to the toilet in his cell while jail officers allowed Christian inmates to gather for Bible studies and prayer in a communal area. 

In a 7-2 ruling that protects anti-government speech, the U.S. Supreme Court has narrowed the scope of a federal law that laid the groundwork for the government to muzzle any nonviolent, political speech that challenges government injustice.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal challenging a modern-day form of highway robbery which empowers police to seize and keep private property (cash, jewelry, cars, homes, and other valuables) they “suspect” may be connected to a crime.

In a 6-3 opinion in Moore v. Harper, the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the rights of citizens to challenge electoral power grabs and gerrymandering in the state courts. 

A unanimous Supreme Court has refused to rein in the government’s power to indiscriminately pick and choose the laws by which it will abide, especially as it relates to the rights of the accused in criminal cases. In a ruling that defies the very safeguards put in place by America’s founders to guard against prosecutorial misconduct, the Court held in Smith v. United States that a defendant who faced trial in the wrong location can simply be prosecuted again in another location without triggering the Double Jeopardy Clause, which prohibits the government from prosecuting someone twice for the same crime.

The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that government employees—in this case, a postal worker requesting Sundays off for religious worship—should not have to choose between their right of conscience and the threat of losing their livelihood when reasonable accommodations for their religious observances can be found.