The American Center for Law and Justice litigates at all levels in state and federal courts across the nation. Many of the issues that we are involved with at the ACLJ end up at the Supreme Court of the United States. ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow has appeared before the high court on numerous occasions -- conducting oral arguments on some of the most important issues of the day. Below is a summary of our work at the Supreme Court of the United States.
Pleasant Grove City v. Summum (2007)The Supreme Court granted the ACLJ's Petition for Writ of Certiorari on March 31, 2008 - clearing the way for the high court to hear this case in the fall of 2008. ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow will present oral arguments before the high court on behalf of Pleasant Grove City, Utah. This case centers on a crucial distinction between government speech and private speech. A three-judge federal appeals court panel ruled in favor of a group called Summum to erect its own monument of "Seven Aphorisms" in a city park in Pleasant Grove, the site of a long-standing display of the Ten Commandments donated to the city decades ago. The full appeals court split 6-6 and decided not to rehear the case. The ACLJ asked the high court to take the case and overturn the lower court decision. The flawed ruling said private parties have a First Amendment right to put up the monuments of their choosing in a city park, unless the city takes away all other donated monuments - a ruling that runs counter to well-established precedent that the government has to be neutral toward private speech, but it does not have to be neutral in its own sp eech. As the ACLJ petition states: "In short, accepting a Statue of Liberty does not compel a government to accept a Statue of Tyranny." If left unchecked, the Tenth Circuit ruling would ultimately force local governments to remove long-standing and well established patriotic, religious and historical displays. Oral arguments will take place in the fall of 2008. The case is
Pleasant Grove City v. Summum (No. 07-665).Duchesne City v. Summum (2007)This case mirrors the First Amendment issues raised in
Pleasant Grove City v. Summum. And when the Supreme Court agreed to hear the
Pleasant Grove case, it apparently decided to hold this companion case from Utah involving Duchesne City. The ACLJ represents both Pleasant Grove City and Duchesne City in the Supreme Court cases. And, ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow will present oral arguments to the high court next fall in this landmark First Amendment case. Like the Pleasant Grove case, the Tenth Circuit decision cleared the way for Summum to erect its own monument in a city-owned park which contains a long-standing display of the Ten Commandments. The ACLJ contends that the appellate court ruling conflicts with decisions of other circuits, badly distorts First Amendment jurisprudence and will impose severe practical burdens on government entities. The appellate court decision in the Duchesne and Pleasant Grove cases will have ramifications well beyond Utah. With its decision to take the Pleasant Grove case, the Supreme Court has an important opportunity to step in and bring an end to a dangerous interpretation of free speech and equal access. The ACLJ asked the high court to take the Duchesne and hold it until it makes a decision in the Pleasant Grove case. The companion case is
Duchesne City v. Summum (No. 07-690).
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. (2007)The Supreme Court is considering a case to determine whether the Federal Communications Commission acted appropriately after the regulatory agency declared as indecent the broadcast of expletives from a nationally-televised awards show. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled against the FCC saying it's decision was wrong and it overstepped its authority. The FCC has asked the high court to overturn the lower court decision. The ACLJ represents itself and 18 members of Congress with its amicus brief filed at the high court. The brief supports the FCC position and contends that the indecency policy affords children greater protection from the harm associated by exposure to indecent material without infringing on the constitutional rights of adults. The case is
FCC v. Fox (No. 07-582) and the high court will consider the case when its next term begins in the fall of 2008.
U.S. v. Williams (2007)By a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the PROTECT Act of 2003 - federal legislation that provides prosecutors with another tool to combat the pandering or promotion of child pornography. On May 19, 2008, in the case of
United States v. Williams (06-694), Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the statute “raises no constitutional problems whatever” and rejected arguments that the PROTECT Act violates the First Amendment. Justice Scalia wrote: “In sum, we hold that offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography are categorically excluded from the First Amendment.” The high court decision overturns a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which declared a provision of the Act unconstitutional. ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow called the Supreme Court decision "a very sound and reasoned decision that is long overdue." The ACLJ filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Supreme Court representing itself and 18 members of Congress - including several co-sponsors of the Act. The ACLJ amicus brief supported the government's position and urged the high court to uphold the constitutionality of the measure.
District of Columbia v. Heller (2007)With a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court on June 26, 2008 upheld the rights of gun owners in a Second Amendment case. The case involved a ban on handguns by the District of Columbia. In overturning that ban, the majority opinion was written by Justice Antonin Scalia. Examining the words of the Second Amendment, the Court concluded that "we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." The ACLJ filed an amicus brief in the case asking the high court to uphold the lower court ruling that declared the DC gun ban unconstitutional. The ACLJ urged the high court to overturn the ban saying "the Second Amendment expressly secures the right of individual citizens of the United States to keep and bear arms for private purposes." The case is
District of Columbia v. Heller (No. 07-290).
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (No. 06-969) (2007)
McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life (No. 06-970) (2007)In a 5-4 decision issued June 25, 2007, the Supreme Court loosened limits on election advertising saying a pro-life group should have been permitted to air ads in the final months leading up to a 2004 election. In the consolidated cases of
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (No. 06-969) and
McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life (No. 06-970), the high court concluded that a key provision of a campaign finance law violated the group's First Amendment rights and unreasonably limits speech. In an amicus brief filed with the high court on behalf of itself and Focus on the Family, a non-profit religious corporation committed to strengthening the family, the ACLJ urged the high court remove the prohibition of grassroots lobbying organization from taking part in issue advertising leading up to an election. In his opinion, Chief Justice Roberts cited the Brief of the American Center for Law & Justice in support of the issue advocacy ads being allowed to air with in the 30 and 60 day periods. While the Justices stopped short of overturning the troubling provision, it did acknowledge that the pro-life speech in this case was wrongfully censored.
Morse v. Frederick (2007)The Supreme Court said an Alaska school acted properly when it disciplined a student for displaying what school officials contend was a pro-drug banner at a public event. In a decision issued June 25, 2007, the high court concluded that school officials did not violate the student's First Amendment rights. While the ACLJ strongly disagrees with the student's message, it filed an amicus brief in the case urging the high court to uphold the free speech rights of the student arguing that a decision in favor of the school district would empower school districts across the country to ban future student speech they considered offensive - including speech advocating Christian beliefs.
Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation (2006)The Supreme Court turned away a federal lawsuit by church-state separationists challenging the use of taxpayer dollars to fund a program of President Bush's faith-based initiative. The Court ruled that the separationists had no legal standing to bring the suit. In a 5-4 decision, the high court issued its decision on June 25, 2007 in the case of
Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation (U.S. No. 06-157). The ACLJ filed an amicus brief with the high court in support of the federal government’s position which prevailed. The ACLJ said the decision represents a significant victory that sends a powerful message that atheists and others antagonistic to religion do not get an automatic free pass to bring Establishment Clause lawsuits.
Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood (2006)On April 18, 2007, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the national ban on partial-birth abortions with a 5-4 decision. This was the second case involving the ban on partial-birth abortion that the high court has agreed to hear. As you may recall, Congress approved a national ban on the procedure. The law was challenged in three separate cases in the federal court system in Nebraska, New York, and California. In all cases, the ban was declared unconstitutional. The high court first agreed to hear the case out of Nebraska. The ACLJ, which has been involved in defending the national ban since its passage by Congress, supported the government's position defending the ban and represented members of Congress in an amicus brief filed with the high court. This case was decided on April 18, 2007, with the Supreme Court upholding the federal ban on partial-birth abortion. The case is Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, 05-1382.
Bush v. Schiavo, (2004)The American Center for Law and Justice represents the parents of Terri Schiavo in a legal battle to keep their daughter alive. The ACLJ on behalf of Mary and Robert Schindler asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take the Florida case in which the Florida Supreme Court declared unconstitutional "Terri's Law" – a state law enabling Florida Governor Jeb Bush to save Terri from starvation and dehydration. The ACLJ filed an amicus brief in support of a petition filed by Governor Bush asking the high court to take the case. In January 2005, the Supreme Court refused to take the Schiavo case.
Gonzales v. Carhart (2005)On April 18, 2007 the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the national ban on partial-birth abortions with a 5-4 decision. As you may recall, Congress approved a national ban on the procedure. The law was challenged in three separate cases in the federal court system in Nebraska, New York, and California. In all cases, the ban was declared unconstitutional. The high court will hear the case out of Nebraska. The ACLJ, which has been involved in defending the national ban since its passage by Congress, supported the government's position defending the ban and is represented nearly 80 members of Congress and more than 320,000 Americans in an amicus brief filed with the high court. This case was decided on April 18, 2007, with the Supreme Court upholding the federal ban on partial-birth abortion. The case is Gonzales v. Carhart, 05-380.
Van Orden vs. Perry, (2004)By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court on June 27, 2005 overturned a federal appeals court clearing the way for the constitutional display of thousands of monuments that have been in place across America. The decision came in a case in Texas where the Fraternal Order of Eagles donated a Commandments monument which has been in place outside the state capitol in Austin since 1961. The ACLJ filed an amicus brief at the high court asking the Justices to overturn a lower court decision declaring the monument unconstitutional. In its decision, the high court said the Eagles monument was constitutionally permissible.
McCreary County vs. ACLU, (2004)By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court on June 27, 2005 upheld a lower court decision declaring the posting of copies of the Ten Commandments in the courthouses of two Kentucky counties to be unconstitutional. The ACLJ filed amicus briefs in support of the constitutionality of the displays which were declared unconstitutional by a federal district and federal appeals courts.
Gonzales v. Oregon (2005)In a decision issued January 17, 2006, the Supreme Court upheld Oregon's assisted suicide law. The 6-3 majority decision said the Department of Justice did not have authority to issue a directive prohibiting physicians from prescribing federally controlled drugs to assist patients commit suicide in Oregon. The ACLJ filed a brief in support of the government's position.
Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, (2005)The Supreme Court decided that a federal appeals court went too far in striking down New Hampshire's parental notification law in its entirety and sent the case back down for further consideration. The ACLJ filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Supreme Court in this case in support of the New Hampshire law. The high court issued its unanimous decision on January 18, 2006.
DeWeese v. ACLU of Ohio, (2004)The Supreme Court on June 28, 2005 declined to take the ACLJ case out of Ohio where a poster of the Ten Commandments inside the courtroom of state Judge James DeWeese was declared unconstitutional. The lower court decision declaring the poster unconstitutional stands.
Operation Rescue v. National Organization for Women, et al. (2005)On February 28, 2006, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of pro-life demonstrators and organizations bringing an end to a nearly 20-year-old legal marathon involving a federal racketeering statute used against pro-life demonstrators. The high court ruled that the actions of the pro-life demonstrators fell outside the scope of the federal Hobbs Act, and therefore the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute - a law designed to combat drug dealers and organized crime. In its decision, the high court ordered the federal appeals court to enter a ruling in favor of the pro-life demonstrators and organizations bringing an end to a case that lasted nearly two decades. The ACLJ represented Operation Rescue and served as Counsel of Record in the case.
ACLU of Ohio v. Adams County, (2004)The Supreme Court on June 28, 2005 declined to take the case out of Ohio where the ACLJ represents the Adams County school board which was sued for permitting a local ministerial association to erect monuments on school property which contain the Ten Commandments. After suit was filed, the Board changed the display into a Foundations of American Law and Government display which includes several other influential texts. A federal district court ruled in favor of the ACLU, and that decision was upheld by a federal appeals court. The high court declined to take the case and the lower court decision stands.
Frye v. Tarwater, (2004)The American Center for Law and Justice asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take a case involving pro-life demonstrators whose constitutional rights were violated when they were arrested for expressing their pro-life views on public property in Kansas City, Missouri. The ACLJ, which represents five demonstrators, asked the high court to take the case and overturn an appeals court decision that determined the city acted properly in stifling the free speech of the demonstrators. The ACLJ filed a petition asking the high court to take the case. In March 2005, the Justices declined to take the case, letting the lower court ruling stand.
McConnell v. FEC, (2003)Sekulow served as lead counsel and presented oral arguments on behalf of a group of minors who were prohibited from contributing to political campaigns. The Supreme Court unanimously held that minors cannot be prohibite