Amicus Briefs - Liberty Justice Center

Amicus Briefs

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, March 31,2021
Harvard justifies its discrimination against Asian-American applicants by claiming that it seeks greater socioeconomic diversity in its student body. But the system it defends favors athletes, legacies, “dean’s list” candidates, and children of faculty – who all tend to be overwhelmingly white. Harvard’s hypocrisy invalidates its defense.

Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., March 30, 2021
Can a school punish a student for content, which contains no threat, harassment, or mention of her school, posted on social media off-campus and outside of school hours? Liberty Justice Center says no.

Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, Cert: March 1, 2021
Petition: September 24, 2019
Americans have a right to participate anonymously in the political process. California wants to undermine this right by requiring that Schedule B donor information be filed with the state Attorney General. The Liberty Justice Center argues that, in a free society, the government must prove its need to access private information, rather than requiring that citizens prove that they need privacy.

Clementine Company LLC v. Cuomo, January 8, 2021
Are content-based restrictions on the freedom of speech justified by the pandemic? The Liberty Justice Center argues that they are not.

County of Butler v. Wolf, December 30, 2020
Are content-based restrictions on the freedom of speech justified by the pandemic? The Liberty Justice Center argues that they are not.

F.P Development v. Canton, December 11, 2020
Before a local government can take an exaction without compensation, it must demonstrate that the imposition is roughly proportional to the specific harm the government wishes to mitigate. This requires a site-specific assessment, which a Michigan town failed to even attempt.

Trump v. Biden, December 9, 2020
The Wisconsin Election Commission undermined democratic values when it bypassed the rule-making process in order to issue “memoranda” that have the same effect as rules.

Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, December 7, 2020
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act lacks a clear interpretation, causing protracted legal battles every time a state wishes to make voter fraud harder. The Liberty Justice Center’s amicus brief recounts the most recent such battle in Wisconsin, where district courts ran rampant in the absence of clear guidance from the Supreme Court, before the new election law was ultimately vindicated on appeal.

American Society of Journalists and Authors v. Becerra, December 1, 2020
The California Labor Code impermissibly discriminates against freelance journalists in violation of the First Amendment.

Gymfinity v Dane County, November 26, 2020
A local ordinance delegates too much power to the county executive, who in turn abused this delegation of power during the pandemic.

Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church v. Pritzker, November 24, 2020
Are content-based restrictions on the freedom of speech justified by the pandemic? The Liberty Justice Center argues that they are not.

James v. Heinrich
November 17, 2020
A local ordinance delegates too much power to the county executive, who in turn abused this delegation of power during the pandemic.

Fisher v. Hargett, July 16, 2020
During the 2020 election, several courts took it upon themselves to rewrite state election law, in violation of basic Separation of Powers principles. The Liberty Justice Center filed an amicus brief opposing this behavior in Tennessee, where the court’s conduct was so egregious that it provoked a response from the Tennessee House.

Living Essentials, LLC v. Washington, March 27, 2020
Should commercial speech be afforded the same protection as other forms of speech? Liberty Justice Center says yes.

Fleck v. Wetch
December 19, 2019
The Supreme Court should clarify that the only state interest sufficiently compelling to justify a mandatory bar association is the formal regulation of lawyers’ professional conduct. Otherwise State Bar insiders could use mandatory dues dollars to promote a political agenda.

Speech First v. Killeen, November 5, 2019
So-called “Bias Response Teams” at American universities – deputized not to facilitate dialog, but to limit it – infringe on the freedom of speech.

Tennesseeans for Sensible Election Laws v. TN Bureau of Ethics LJC Amicus Brief, June 18, 2019
Campaign-finance laws that impose different limits on different classes of donors are presumably unconstitutional and subject to strict scrutiny.

Evergreen Freedom Foundation v. Washington, May 13, 2019
Washington’s campaign finance statute is impermissibly vague and conflicts with the confidentiality obligations of public interest organizations and law firms.

1A Auto v. Sullivan, January 09, 2019
The Supreme Court has long held that the government may regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption, or the appearance of corruption. Over the last twenty years, it has insinuated that this is the only justifiable reason to limit contributions, but a 2003 case suggesting otherwise has never been formally overruled. Because that case is inconsistent with subsequent legal developments, the Liberty Justice Center argues that it should be overruled.