The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear a challenge to the federal government’s mass surveillance program. In affirming the dismissal of the Wikimedia v. NSA lawsuit, the Supreme Court has allowed the government to assert a state secrets privilege related to its domestic and international Upstream surveillance program, which gives the NSA access to massive amounts of communications data. 

Pointing out that a significant number of police officers across the country fail to understand or recognize the First Amendment rights of citizens, The Rutherford Institute has issued a warning to police not to retaliate against citizens who exercise their constitutional right to peacefully observe and record police officers in the performance of their duties in public.

Delaware officials are doubling down on defending their misguided practice of “evict first, ask questions later” that resulted in constables mistakenly evicting a blind man and his family during a snowstorm, leaving the family homeless.

Once again, The Rutherford Institute has sounded the alarm over the dangers of equipping police with killer robots. In a letter to the San Francisco Police Commission, Rutherford Institute attorneys have urged the Commissioners to reject a renewed push by police for remotely-controlled, armed robots that can be directed to use deadly force against the citizenry.

In the wake of a spate of incidents involving the use of excessive force by police against unarmed individuals, including the brutal killing of Tyre Nichols by members of a Memphis SCORPION police unit, The Rutherford Institute has called on the U.S. Supreme Court to stop police from using excessive force against individuals who have already surrendered or complied with police orders. 

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case challenging part of Colorado’s stalking law to determine what constitutes a true threat. The Court’s decision in Counterman v. Colorado could affect whether such a law could be used to criminalize non-threatening political speech that may be merely annoying, embarrassing, or unpleasant. 

Pointing out that the First Amendment requires the government to treat all religious beliefs equally, The Rutherford Institute is calling out 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 case that pits the right of conscience against the threat of losing one’s livelihood, the U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to protect a postal worker’s right to not have to work on Sundays delivering Amazon packages, which would cause him to miss attending his Sunday church worship. 

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to determine whether the government is circumventing critical constitutional safeguards against being tried in an improper location and Double Jeopardy, which prohibits the government from prosecuting someone twice for the same crime.

Sounding the alarm over the government’s ongoing attempts to criminalize what should be protected speech, The Rutherford Institute is challenging a Texas electronic harassment law that is so vague and overreaching as to make it illegal for a parent to repeatedly text a teen child about neglected chores. Individuals found guilty of violating the Texas statute can be punished by up to 180 days in jail and a $2,000 fine for a first offense. 

The Rutherford Institute has voiced its opposition to a proposal that would give San Francisco police the power to kill using armed robots. 

The U.S. 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 Sixth Amendment rights of the accused in criminal cases.

The Rutherford Institute has called on the U.S. Supreme Court to safeguard the rights of the citizenry and the power of state courts against electoral power grabs and gerrymandering. In an amicus brief in Moore v. Harper, attorneys urge the Supreme Court to stay true to the Framers’ intent regarding federalism, which limits government by creating two sovereign and opposing powers (the national government and state governments) in order to act as a restraint on overreach by centralized powers and preserve the right of the people to choose their elected representatives.

Recognizing that the challenge before churches and other religious institutions today is in reconciling a moral calling to speak out on issues of the day, especially as they intersect with contemporary politics, with the need to maintain their tax-exempt nonprofit status, which limits their involvement in political campaigning or substantial lobbying, The Rutherford Institute has issued a public policy paper on “A Legacy of Faith, Activism and Revolution: Balancing the First Amendment Rights of Religious Ministries with 501(c)(3) Restrictions on Political Engagement.”

The Rutherford Institute has weighed in before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of an Ohio man who was arrested, jailed, had his apartment searched, and his phone and laptop seized by police in retaliation for mocking the police department on a parody Facebook page. In an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to hear the case of Novak v. City of Parma, Rutherford Institute attorneys argue that government officials should not be permitted to retaliate against citizens for exercising their First Amendment rights, nor should they be granted qualified immunity as a means of shielding them from accountability. 

The Rutherford Institute has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent the government from criminalizing non-threatening political speech that may be annoying, embarrassing, or unpleasant. In an amicus brief filed in Counterman v. Colorado, Rutherford Institute attorneys warned against the ramifications of allowing the government to use overly broad stalking laws to treat expressive activities on social media as threats without having to prove that the messages are both reasonably understood as threatening an illegal act and intended by the speaker as a threat.

The U.S. Supreme Court has given a green light to police officers to use deadly force against drivers if police suspect they might pose a danger to others with their car. 

The Rutherford Institute has issued a public comment opposing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ proposed rule on “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities,” which seeks to force healthcare workers to provide abortion and gender transition services, among other things. Institute attorneys warn that any attempt by the government to compel healthcare workers to provide services against their professional judgement, religious convictions, and conscience is unconstitutional.

In a First Amendment victory for political free speech, a state circuit court has overturned fines totaling $3000 against two protesters for displaying “F@#k Biden” and other political signs in violation of a Florida city’s ban on “indecent” speech, which the court found to be unconstitutional. 

Warning that misguided school zero-tolerance policies can have disastrous ramifications for students’ future academic prospects, The Rutherford Institute has come to the defense of a North Carolina student who was denied admission to a charter school based on an improper and unlawful suspension in his records arising from an incident two years earlier.The incident arose in 2020 after the sixth grader was suspended from school and reported to police for possessing a look-alike weapon and making a threat after he briefly displayed a toy gun during a virtual Zoom class as part of a Halloween game when instructed by his teacher to look “scary.” Although school officials subsequently agreed to remove the unlawful suspension from the student’s record, they shared details of the incident two years later with a charter school to which the child was admitted. In once again coming to the student’s defense, Rutherford Institute attorneys warned that negligently distributing false information which causes harm to a student’s standing and reputation could constitute defamation.