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. 

The Rutherford Institute has come to the defense of the First Amendment rights of a women’s college basketball coach who has come under fire for citing God in response to a reporter’s question, posting Bible verses to her social media account, and leading gameday devotionals. 

The Rutherford Institute is challenging unconstitutional attempts by city officials in Oregon to criminalize homelessness by prohibiting sleeping and camping in public through the use of excessive fines and criminal trespass charges. 

The Rutherford Institute is warning that Florida’s “no go zone” law, which would criminalize approaching or remaining within 25 feet of a police officer or other first responder after having been warned not to approach, fails to strike that necessary yet delicate balance between liberty and safety.

The U.S. District Court for Delaware has refused to hold government officials accountable for knowingly enforcing an eviction order against the wrong person: a blind man, who was then left homeless with his daughters during a snowstorm.

The Rutherford Institute is challenging attempts by the government to sidestep accountability and avoid having to make financial restitution for violating the citizenry’s First Amendment right to political expression, including the right to criticize Presidents Biden and Trump.

By declining to hear an appeal in Molina v. Book, the U.S. Supreme Court has failed to protect citizens from retaliation for observing or recording police activity in public. 

The Rutherford Institute is challenging the government’s efforts to censor lawful First Amendment expression by pressuring social media companies to block, ban, remove, de-platform, de-boost, restrict, or otherwise deny equal access or visibility to users.

The U.S. Supreme Court has given government officials the green light to obstruct citizens from voting at polling places based on the content of speech displayed on their clothing. Conceivably, just the act of wearing a MAGA hat, a Taylor Swift t-shirt, or other apparel that could be perceived by a poll worker as sending a political message could get one criminally prosecuted or prevented from voting in some states.