ACRU Amicus Briefs Archives

United States v. O'Donnell

By ACRU Staff|2009-11-23T09:29:27-05:00November 23rd, 2009|

Pierce O’Donnell was charged with a criminal violation of federal campaign finance laws. The District Court granted his motion to dismiss most of the Indictment on the grounds that his conduct was not prohibited by the plain language of the statute under which he was charged. The Justice Department appealed to the 9th Circuit supported by several amici arguing that the statute should nevertheless be held to prohibit his conduct based on public policy arguments. On November 16, the ACRU filed a brief amicus curiae in support of O’Donnell arguing that stretching criminal statutes beyond their plain terms to railroad defendants into prison terms […]

Citizens United v. FEC

By ACRU Staff|2009-08-02T09:56:34-04:00August 2nd, 2009|

The American Civil Rights Union filed an amicus curiae brief on July 31 with the United States Supreme Court in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, urging the Court to overrule Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, and the relevant portions of McConnell v. FEC, which upheld the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. Citizens United involves a feature length, documentary film produced in 2007 by Citizens United, an ideological conservative non-profit, named Hillary: The Movie. Because the movie was about a candidate for President, the Federal Elections Commission ruled that it was subject to federal campaign finance laws. Consequently, the movie was […]

NRA v. City of Chicago and Village of Oak Park

By ACRU Staff|2020-04-23T21:54:07-04:00July 8th, 2009|

Last year’s watershed Second Amendment case of District of Columbia v. Heller was just the beginning of the fight over the meaning of the right to keep and bear arms. The most significant question now is whether the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government (because D.C. is directly under federal law) or whether it also applies to states and cities under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. This question of whether the Second Amendment is “incorporated” by the Fourteenth Amendment is now being offered to the Supreme Court. The city of Chicago has a law banning handguns similar to the law struck down last year […]

Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America, Inc., Steve Trunk, et al. v. City of San Diego, et al.

By ACRU Staff|2009-03-22T14:30:39-04:00March 22nd, 2009|

The 29 foot high Latin cross atop Mt. Soledad in the San Diego suburbs has been under attack by the ACLU for 21 years now. But the cross still stands. The ACRU has joined in defense of the cross for the last 11 years. In 2005, the Congress took the cross and the land surrounding it by eminent domain, and registered it as an official federal veterans’ memorial. The ACLU sued again claiming that crosses even on federal veterans memorials are unconstitutional establishments of religion. The district court dismissed the suit, which has now been appealed to the 9th Circuit. On March 20, 2009, the ACRU filed […]

Ricci v. DeStefano

By ACRU Staff|2009-03-02T09:02:59-05:00March 2nd, 2009|

On February 26, the ACRU filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court arguing that the Court should reverse the decisions below and hold that New Haven discriminated against Petitioners solely because of their race.

In 2003 the city of New Haven conducted a job-related, race-neutral promotion examination for firefighters, and then refused to promote the firefighters who ranked on top because they were all white or hispanic. The decision to not promote the firefighters was reached after an African-American political ally of the mayor threatened to sue under Title VII. The ACRU is arguing that the city of New Haven […]

Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board

By ACRU Staff|2009-02-10T09:24:11-05:00February 10th, 2009|

On February 9, 2009, the ACRU filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court arguing that the Court should review the decisions of the courts below upholding this arrangement.

In response to the scandals at Enron and elsewhere, Congress passed the Sarbanes Oxley Act in 2002, imposing costly, unnecessary regulatory burdens on business. The Act also created the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board to oversee and regulate accounting practices, and enforce its regulations through even criminal penalties. The PCAOB even has the power to finance itself through its own tax. But the President has no appointment, removal, supervisory or oversight authority […]

Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission

By ACRU Staff|2009-01-16T00:07:27-05:00January 16th, 2009|

On January 14, 2009, the American Civil Rights Union filed an amicus curiae brief with the United States Supreme Court in favor of Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, arguing that prohibiting broadcast of the movie “Hillary: The Movie” violated the fundamental right of freedom of speech, not only for Citizens United and the individuals who contributed to produce the movie to advance their ideological viewpoint, but also for the viewers who would choose to watch the movie. The ACRU brief argues that these viewers “hold their own constitutionally protected, freedom of speech rights to watch and to listen to the movie and its speech.”

Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission

By ACRU Staff|2020-04-23T21:53:04-04:00September 18th, 2008|

On September 16, 2008, the American Civil Rights Union filed an amicus curiae brief with the United States Supreme Court urging the Court to take on appeal the case of Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission. This case involves a feature length, documentary film produced by Citizens United named Hillary: The Movie. Because the movie was about a candidate for President, the Federal Elections Commission ruled that it was subject to federal campaign finance laws. Consequently, the movie was prohibited from screening or broadcast during the 2008 election season while Hillary Clinton was still a candidate. The ACRU argued in its brief that this was a gross […]

Heller v. DC

By ACRU Staff|2008-03-23T20:43:38-04:00March 23rd, 2008|

Gun control laws in the District of Columbia effectively ban the use of handguns, or other guns, for self-defense within the home. Heller is a Federal security guard charged with helping to protect the Federal judiciary at the Federal Judicial Center in Washington DC. In that capacity, he is armed with a handgun for his work during the day. Heller wants to keep a handgun within his home in Washington DC for self-defense during the evening. He applied for a permit for such a gun but was denied, as required under DC law since 1976. He sued the city claiming that the DC gun control laws effectively […]

ACRU Files Amicus Brief on DC v. Heller

By ACRU Staff|2008-02-11T14:26:04-05:00February 11th, 2008|

Today, the ACRU filed an amicus brief on DC v. Heller, known as the DC Gun Ban Case.

Peter Ferrara, General Counsel for the ACRU, said this,

The Courts cannot treat the Second Amendment as a politically incorrect, disfavored stepchild of the Bill of Rights. Fidelity to the Constitution requires that courts give it the same zealous protection as every other right stated in our founding document. The Amendment is not being read broadly to protect the rights and liberties of the people if it is somehow interpreted to allow the government to adopt a complete ban on handguns and the use of other firearms […]