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. 

The U.S. Supreme Court has provided greater protections on speech by ruling in Counterman v. Colorado that when the government seeks to punish what it considers to be threatening speech, it must prove a defendant had some understanding of his statements’ character and acted recklessly by disregarding the risk his words would be viewed as threatening violence. 

Responding to a report suggesting that the University of Virginia should consider tracking the religious and political affiliations/ideologies of students and faculty, The Rutherford Institute has warned that such a program would raise significant constitutional concerns, especially as it pertains to the right of citizens to associate anonymously without being compelled by the government to disclose their political or religious beliefs.

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. The City of Punta Gorda, Fla., was found to have acted unconstitutionally when it fined two protesters a total of $3000 for displaying political messages stating “F@#k Biden,” “F@#k Trump,” and “F@#k Policing 4 Profit” in violation of the city’s sign ordinance.

In a unanimous opinion in Polselli v. IRS, the U.S. Supreme Court is allowing the IRS to go on secret, warrantless fishing expeditions through innocent taxpayers’ bank records in order to identify and collect unpaid taxes from family members and associates who have no legal interest in those bank accounts. 

The U.S. Supreme Court once yet again refused to hold police accountable for using force on unarmed individuals who have already surrendered or complied with police orders. 

Warning against unconstitutional power grabs and overreaches by the IRS, The Rutherford Institute has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to restrict the tax agency’s authority to carry out warrantless searches of innocent taxpayers’ bank accounts and financial records as part of its efforts to identify and pursue the funds of associated family members and friends with delinquent taxes.

In a 6-3 decision in Reed v. Goertz, a case that raises concerns of racial bias and systemic injustice in Texas’ death penalty system, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the need to protect due process rights as it relates to post-conviction DNA testing of crime scene evidence.

Pushing back at attempts by the courts to silence individuals whose religious views may be perceived as intolerant or hateful, The Rutherford Institute is challenging a five-year restraining order against a street preacher who has been threatened with arrest after citing Bible verses on social media to express his moral concerns about a church that endorses same-sex marriage and raising awareness about a public drag queen performance that occurred in front of children.

The Rutherford Institute is pushing back against efforts to roll back First Amendment protections that could result in discriminatory treatment and double standards by public colleges and universities against religious student groups. Without protections in place, religious student groups at more than 1,200 public colleges and universities could face adverse action by administrators inclined to view the groups’ religious beliefs and statements of faith as violating the schools’ non discrimination policies.

The Rutherford Institute is pushing back against 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. Weighing in before the U.S. Supreme Court in Culley v. Marshall, Rutherford Institute attorneys are challenging the government’s use of delaying tactics in asset forfeiture proceedings which make it difficult for individuals innocent of any wrongdoing to timely recover their property—especially cars and cash—seized by police.

Government officials used cell phone data and geofence surveillance to track the number of congregants on church grounds during the COVID-19 lockdowns. In denouncing Santa Clara County’s use of geofence surveillance to spy on church attendees, The Rutherford Institute characterized it as an egregious violation of the congregants’ Fourth Amendment rights and an attempt to undermine protected First Amendment activities relating to the freedom of expression and religious freedom.

The U.S. Supreme Court has given Texas a free pass on its electronic harassment law, which is so vague and overreaching as to make it illegal for a parent to repeatedly text a teen child about neglected chores. In refusing to hear the case of Barton and Sanders v. Texas, the Supreme Court declined to confront the government’s ongoing attempts to criminalize protected speech.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a case that pits the right of conscience against the threat of losing one’s livelihood, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case about the extent to which the government should have to reasonably accommodate religious employees’ requests for time off each week for religious worship. Specifically, Groff v. DeJoy addresses whether a postal employee should be forced to work on Sundays delivering Amazon packages in lieu of attending church worship services.

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear the appeal of an Ohio man who was arrested, jailed, had his apartment searched, and had his phone and laptop seized by police in retaliation for mocking the police department through a parody Facebook page. 

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.