Taking issue with the manner in which state governments have subjected churches to more strident COVID-19 restrictions while allowing exceptions for big-box shopping stores, liquor stores, and guns shops, The Rutherford Institute is asking a federal court to ensure that churches are not being unfairly discriminated against in their efforts to worship in accordance with their religious beliefs. In a First Amendment lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for Delaware, Rutherford Institute attorneys argue that Gov. John Carney’s state of emergency orders restricting indoor gatherings deprive Delaware churches of the equal protection of the law. The lawsuit, Rev. Dr. Christopher Allen Bullock v. Gov. John C. Carney, was filed on behalf of Rev. Bullock, the founder and pastor for Canaan Baptist Church near New Castle, Del., who believes the state’s restrictions are too intrusive, overstepping the wall of separation between church and state.

The Rutherford Institute has warned that it will consider filing a First Amendment lawsuit if police continue to threaten a New York church with prosecution and $1000 fines for holding drive-in worship services that adhere to social distancing guidelines. In a legal letter to the Chief of Police for the Town of Massena, NY, Rutherford Institute attorneys point out that while federal and state governments have adopted specific restrictive measures in an effort to decelerate the spread of the COVID-19 virus, the current public health situation has not resulted in the suspension of fundamental constitutional rights such as religious freedom, freedom of speech and the right of assembly. Institute attorneys also pointed out that such a ban is an overbroad restriction on First Amendment rights as long as other similar drive-in activities are allowed. For example, the state’s restrictions allow for gathering in convenience stores, beverage stores, hardware stores, and drive-thru restaurant lines. 

In refusing to strike down an overly broad law criminalizing pro-immigration speech, the U.S. Supreme Court has paved the way for the government to punish anyone engaging in so-called “anti-government” speech that encourages resistance to tyranny through civil disobedience. Elevating judicial technicalities and procedure over fundamental rights, the Court unanimously ruled in United States v. Sineneng-Smith that the lower court had overstepped its authority when it, and not the defendant, noticed that the federal statute which makes it a crime to “encourage” undocumented aliens to remain in the country was overbroad in violation of the First Amendment. The Rutherford Institute, in conjunction with the ACLU and the Service Employees International Union, filed an amicus brief in the case arguing that the statute is overbroad and could serve as a model for laws used to punish anyone who urges resistance to government tyranny.  

The Rutherford Institute is warning government officials not to weaponize the COVID-19 health crisis in order to justify carrying out surveillance on and retaliating against persons who exercise their First Amendment rights to publicly protest government misconduct in a manner consistent with “social distancing” guidelines. The Institute issued its warning after officials reportedly threatened a Maryland family with up to a year in jail and a $5000 fine if they attempt to publicly assemble and protest the murder of 21-year-old Duncan Lemp, a software engineer and Second Amendment advocate, who was gunned down in his bedroom during an early morning, no-knock SWAT team raid on his house.

In a 6-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has declared that states must abide by the Sixth Amendment’s requirement of unanimous jury verdicts for convictions in criminal cases involving “serious offenses.” Pushing back against the idea that the application of fundamental constitutional rights is dependent on what state you live in, The Rutherford Institute had filed an amicus brief in Ramos v. Louisiana, asking the Supreme Court to prevent the states from “watering down” the rights of criminal defendants and arguing that the right to a unanimous jury in criminal cases—a right dating back to the Magna Carta—should be uniform throughout the United States. 

The Rutherford Institute is pushing back against an effort by police to chill constitutionally-protected civil rights protests through the use of retaliatory lawsuits. In filing an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Mckesson v. Doe, Rutherford Institute attorneys are challenging a ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that allows law enforcement officials to hold protest organizers financially liable when officers get hurt (accidental or otherwise) while carrying out their duties at a constitutionally-protected demonstration, even when the organizers themselves did nothing to cause the injury. Incredibly, the lower court reasoned that organizers of a protest should be held responsible for engaging in activity that merely has the potential to involve police or require their presence, thereby exposing them to possible injuries. The case arose after a police officer, positioned near a group that was protesting police brutality in front of police headquarters, was hit by a projectile thrown by an unknown, unidentified individual. The injured officer sued one of the event organizers, DeRay Mckesson, for more than $75,000, despite the fact that Mckesson engaged in no acts of violence and did not incite or condone violence by others.

At no time in the history of this nation has the government (federal or state) ever attempted to impose such onerous restrictions on the rights of religious individuals as we are seeing play out in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In an 8-1 ruling that empowers police to carry out dubious traffic stops and paves the way for further abuses of law enforcement’s “blank check policing” privileges, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the police practice of stopping and questioning drivers if their cars are registered to unlicensed owners, in the absence of specific wrongdoing by the driver and whether or not the owners are behind the wheel (such vehicles are often driven by licensed family members and friends). With Justice Sonia Sotomayor as the lone dissenter, the Court justified its decision in Kansas v. Glover on the basis that police can assume that persons whose licenses have been revoked are criminals who will continue to violate the law. The Rutherford Institute filed an amicus brief in the case arguing that allowing police to stop a vehicle whenever the owner is unlicensed violates the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that a stop be supported by specific evidence that a driver engaged in unlawful conduct. In their brief, Rutherford Institute attorneys had asked the Supreme Court to reject the state’s proposed rule that because some drivers disregard license-suspension orders, police are justified in detaining any vehicle owned by a person whose license is suspended.

Pushing back against government efforts to chip away at the privacy and security guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment, The Rutherford Institute has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse a state court decision allowing police to search the homes of probationers without any suspicion or justification.  In an amicus brief filed in Hamm v. State of Tennessee, Institute attorneys have asked the Court to overturn a Tennessee court’s ruling that police have carte blanche to search the residence of probationers, arguing that it violates the Fourth Amendment’s overriding purpose to protect the sanctity and security of a person’s home.

Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have appealed a federal court’s ruling that refused to hold police responsible for brutalizing an African-American man who, despite complying with police orders during an arrest, was subjected to excessive force and brutality, including being thrown to the ground, tasered, and placed in a chokehold that rendered him unconscious and required his hospitalization for three days. In a brief filed in Edwards v. Harmon on behalf of Jeriel Edwards, Institute attorneys are asking the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the dismissal of Edwards’ Fourth Amendment lawsuit and allow a jury to determine whether police used excessive and unreasonable force upon Edwards. The brief argues that, as shown by dash cam video of the arrest, Edwards was not resisting and was subdued at the time he was tased and subjected to a chokehold, making the officers’ actions a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.

In a case before the U.S. Supreme Court that could determine how far the courts may go in shielding police from being held accountable for wrongdoing, The Rutherford Institute is challenging a lower court ruling that prevents victims of police shootings for suing police for violations of their civil rights if the shooting did not result in an immediate arrest. In an amicus brief filed jointly with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) in Torres v. Madrid, Rutherford Institute attorneys argue that lower courts erred in ruling police did not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of a woman who, mistaking police officers for carjackers, fled from police, was pursued and shot twice in the back. The lower courts reasoned that because the woman was not arrested, she had not technically been “seized” by the police and, thus, could not sue police for “unreasonable searches and seizures” in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

In a blow to all persons seeking justice for violations of the Constitution by federal officers, a sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 that a U.S. Border Patrol agent cannot be sued for shooting and killing a young Mexican boy who was playing in a culvert within feet of U.S. territory and posed no threat to anyone. In an amicus brief filed in Hernandez v. Mesa, The Rutherford Institute and a coalition of human rights organization had urged the Supreme Court to reinstate an excessive force lawsuit against a Border Patrol agent (a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil) for shooting across the border at 15-year-old Sergio Hernandez (a Mexican national), who was struck in the head.

Pushing back against government attempts to further extend the surveillance state, The Rutherford Institute is asking the Virginia General Assembly to reject legislation that would authorize state entities to use automated cameras and radar devices to bring speeding charges for which the accused is presumed guilty. In denouncing House Bill 1442, which would allow localities to set up “photo speed monitoring devices” in school crossing and highway work zones, Institute attorneys point out that HB 1442 upends bedrock legal principles that are meant to protect citizens accused of misconduct. The letter also accuses the General Assembly of concealing the existence of HB 1442 as it worked its way through the lawmaking process, robbing citizens of the opportunity to air their views on the use of speed monitoring systems, which have been widely unpopular when proposed in other jurisdictions.

In a case that will decide whether the government can interfere with the choices of religious institutions regarding who may minister to and lead followers on matters of faith, The Rutherford Institute has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm that the First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty prevents the government from meddling in church decisions involving religious doctrine and who is allowed to teach that doctrine. In an amicus brief filed with the Court in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Agnes Morrisey-Beru and St. James School v. Darryl Biel, Institute attorneys argue that the government has no jurisdiction to second-guess church decisions on who can act and serve as “ministers.”

Taking a stand for environmental justice for minority communities that have historically borne the brunt of the damaging effects of corporate development, The Rutherford Institute has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm a lower court ruling that halted construction of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline on a path that includes crossing the Appalachian Trail and national forests. In an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court in U.S. Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association, Rutherford Institute attorneys point out that the planned pipeline construction would not only permanently deface national natural treasures like the Appalachian Trail but also would have disproportionate adverse environmental and health effects on predominantly African-American communities.

Denouncing government efforts to silence dissent and punish civil disobedience, The Rutherford Institute has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down as unconstitutionally overbroad a federal statute making it a crime to “encourage” undocumented aliens to remain in the country. For example, legal advice given by an immigration attorney or a plea from a grandmother to her grandson not to abandon her could be considered criminal activity under this law. In an amicus curiae brief filed in United States v. Sineneng-Smith in conjunction with the American Civil Liberties Union and the Service Employees International Union, Rutherford Institute attorneys argue that the federal law infringes on the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech and could eventually be used to punish anyone who urges resistance to government tyranny.

The Rutherford Institute has come to the defense of Youth Alive, a high school student club that was ordered to remove its inspirational bulletin board display featuring Post-It notes inscribed with citations to Bible verses over concerns that it might be a violation of the so-called separation of church and state. Warning that the actions by officials at Lewis County High School violate the First Amendment and the Equal Access Act, a federal statute that guarantees religious and political clubs equal rights in public schools, Rutherford Institute attorneys are demanding that Youth Alive be allowed to re-post the inspirational Post-It notes. Included among the self-help topics addressed by the Post-It notes were a selection of Bible verses for those who are feeling broken-hearted, alone, insecure, stressed, confused, needing faith, needing encouragement, and in need of forgiveness.

An Oklahoma federal court has refused to hold police responsible for brutalizing an African-American man who, despite complying with police orders during an arrest, was subjected to excessive force and brutality, including being thrown to the ground, tasered, and placed in a chokehold that rendered him unconscious and required his hospitalization for three days. In granting the police officers’ motion to dismiss a Fourth Amendment lawsuit filed by attorneys for The Rutherford Institute on behalf of Jeriel Edwards, the court ruled that Edwards’ confusion and trouble understanding police directions constituted “resistance” that justified the force used by the four police officers involved in the violent arrest. Institute attorneys argued that, as shown by dash cam video of the arrest, Edwards was peaceful, did not defy police orders, and did nothing to provoke the clearly unreasonable and excessive force employed by the police.

The Rutherford Institute has come to the aid of an elderly Delaware woman who has alleged that Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screeners groped her upper and lower body, including feeling inside the waistband of her pants, during a security screening at Philadelphia’s International Airport (PHL) earlier this year. In a request under Pennsylvania’s Right to Know Law, Rutherford Institute attorneys have demanded copies of any video surveillance footage of the incident, which if confirmed, could support a Fourth Amendment-style lawsuit under a recent federal court ruling authorizing citizens to sue for tortious conduct committed by TSA agents. Institute attorneys point to numerous incidents in which poorly trained TSA agents have subjected elderly travelers to inappropriate touching, excessive searches and aggressive pat downs. For example, TSA employees reportedly ordered a 95-year-old leukemia patient in a wheelchair to remove her adult diaper so that agents could search her. Ninety-year-old Marian Peterson, also confined to a wheelchair, was pulled out of line for a random security check and according to her son, Joe, TSA agents “groped her. All of her body: her crotch, her breasts and everything else.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to review the case of a Hispanic man who was sentenced to death—and subsequently subjected to eight years of solitary confinement for up to 22 hours a day, which is tantamount to physical torture—based on an expert witness’ racist testimony suggesting that Hispanics pose a greater danger to society than other individuals. The Rutherford Institute had asked the Supreme Court to address the many failings of America’s capital punishment system, epitomized by the case of Victor Hugo Saldaño (Saldaño v. Davis), whose death sentence and lengthy solitary confinement in Texas were allegedly the result of racial bias, mental incompetence and systemic injustice.