Citing a lack of evidence, federal prosecutors have dismissed the government’s conspiracy charge against radio shock jock Pete Santilli, a new media journalist who was arrested and charged in connection with his reporting on the 41-day occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Burns, Oregon. The dismissal came on the eve of Santilli’s trial. Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute advised Santilli’s court-appointed attorney, Thomas Coan, on the First Amendment protections for Santilli’s activities as a journalist.

Insisting that the government can dictate where people can engage in religious activity, the Department of Justice is asking a federal court to dismiss a lawsuit, Payden-Travers v. Talkin, filed by attorneys for The Rutherford Institute challenging a 2013 regulation which broadly prohibits expressive activity in the plaza fronting the U.S. Supreme Court’s building.

A federal appeals court has upheld New York City’s program of warrantless and continuous GPS surveillance of taxi drivers, ruling that drivers are not protected by the Fourth Amendment’s bar on unreasonable searches and seizures when on the job. The Rutherford Institute appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of taxi drivers who were being forced by government officials to attach GPS tracking devices to their taxis.

In the first of what will be an ongoing series of Constitutional Q&As, The Rutherford Institute has issued guidelines on the rights, legalities and restrictions of write-in voting for those interested in casting a write-in vote for president this November.

The Rutherford Institute has come to the aid of a pro-life protester who was cited for violating a noise ordinance banning sounds that annoy or disturb. In coming to the defense of activist Toby Harmon, Rutherford Institute attorneys plan to argue that the City of Norman, Oklahoma’s “noise disturbance” ordinance is too vague and overbroad in violation of the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of expression. If convicted, Harmon faces a sentence of 60 days in jail and a $750 fine.

In recognition of The Rutherford Institute’s successful efforts to defend the First Amendment rights of a street musician who was barred from playing at Washington Metro stations, a federal court has ordered government officials to pay more than $50,000 in attorneys’ fees arising from the lawsuit. Although street musician Alex Young did not seek any monetary damages in the lawsuit, the court’s ruling compensates Rutherford Institute attorneys for their work on the case, which was undertaken pro bono.

Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have asked a federal court not to grant immunity from wrongdoing to Virginia police whose so-called “welfare check” on a 58-year-old man resulted in a two-hour, SWAT team-style raid on the man’s truck and a 72-hour mental health hold.

In a 5-3 ruling in Utah v. Strieff, the U.S. Supreme Court has opened the door for police to stop, arrest and search citizens without reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

Weighing in on a controversial “revenge porn” bill before the Rhode Island  General Assembly, The Rutherford Institute has joined with other civil liberties groups in warning legislators that the proposed law, H-7537, is so overly broad and vague that it could do more harm than good by criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activities aimed at holding government officials accountable for wrongdoing. 

Warning against efforts by the FBI and Justice Department to acquire near-limitless power and control over biometric information collected on law-abiding individuals, millions of whom have never been accused of a crime, The Rutherford Institute has denounced an attempt to exempt the government’s massive biometric database from a federal law aimed at protecting Americans’ privacy. 

Spurred on by a lawsuit filed by attorneys for The Rutherford Institute, the Oklahoma State Legislature is poised to enact a law that protects individuals from being forced to violate their religious beliefs by submitting to a biometric photograph as a condition of obtaining a driver’s license.

In a devastating blow to the First Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a 60-year-old ban on expressive activity on the Supreme Court plaza. The Court’s ruling comes in response to an appeal filed by The Rutherford Institute in Hodge v. Talkin, which challenged a federal statute criminalizing expressive First Amendment activity on the Supreme Court plaza.

A federal appeals court has given attorneys for The Rutherford Institute the green light to move forward with a lawsuit against Virginia police officers on behalf of a 37-year-old disabled man who went to a police station to report the theft of his cable services and ended up being strip searched, handcuffed to a table, diagnosed as having “mental health issues,” and involuntarily detained for six days for a mental-health evaluation with no access to family and friends, allegedly because of his slurred speech and unsteady gait.

Rejecting as patently false the Obama administration’s contention that its mass surveillance program has inflicted no harm on American citizens, attorneys for The Rutherford Institute, ACLU, Wikipedia, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers have asked a federal appeals court to reinstate a First and Fourth Amendment lawsuit against the National Security Agency (NSA), the U.S. Department of Justice and their directors.

The Rutherford Institute has denounced a stealth effort by the Department of Justice to give law enforcement and intelligence agencies the power to remotely hack into personal computers and mobile devices, implant malicious software on computers, and rummage through the personal contents of those computers in the absence of criminal activity by the devices’ owners.

The Rutherford Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) have joined forces to continue to push back against the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) use of whole body scanners, which have been likened to virtual strip searches, in the nation’s airports.

A federal judge has given attorneys for The Rutherford Institute the go-ahead to proceed with a lawsuit against Virginia police after a “welfare check” on a 58-year-old man resulted in a two-hour, SWAT team-style raid on the man’s truck and a 72-hour mental health hold. After a hearing in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Judge Glen Conrad refused a request by law enforcement officials to dismiss the lawsuit brought by The Rutherford Institute on behalf of Benjamin Burruss.

In pushing back against a government mindset that seeks to muzzle lawful First Amendment activity by establishing a “cordon of silence” in front of the U.S. Supreme Court plaza, The Rutherford Institute is urging the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case of Hodge v. Talkin and, in doing so, overturn a 60-year-old federal statute criminalizing expressive activity on the plaza. The ban, which was described by a lower court as “repugnant” to the Constitution, extends even to those wearing t-shirts with political messages.

Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute will appear in court today to present arguments opposing an attempt by Virginia police to dismiss a lawsuit against them after a request to carry out a “welfare check” on a 58-year-old man resulted in a two-hour, SWAT team-style raid on the man’s truck, a wrongful arrest, and a 72-hour mental health hold.

Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute are planning to appeal the dismissal of a First Amendment lawsuit involving two street preachers who were charged with trespass and obstruction of justice and arrested for allegedly refusing police orders to cease proselytizing at a Princeton train station.