YouTubeXLinkedInFacebookTelegramTelegramRumbleRumbleInstagram

ACRU Mentioned in Several Articles

By |2008-08-21T10:19:51-04:00August 21st, 2008|

On August 18th, the California Supreme Court ruled on Benitez v. North Coast. This case tests the Freedom of Religion Clause of the California Constitution on the issue of whether a physician has a constitutional right to refuse on religious grounds to perform a medical procedure for a patient because of the patient’s sexual orientation.

The American Civil Rights Union filed an amicus brief supporting North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group.

Unfortunately, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of Benitez, with Justice Joyce Kennard writing,

“A religious objector has no federal constitutional right to an exemption from a neutral and valid law of […]

Religous Freedom Case Heard in California

By |2008-05-27T20:02:31-04:00May 27th, 2008|

On May 27th, the California Supreme Court heard a case which could have a drastic effect on religious freedom in that state.

From the San Diego Union Tribune:

The issue is whether fertility physicians at North Coast Women’s Care in Vista discriminated against a lesbian couple from Oceanside when they cited religious beliefs in refusing to perform artificial insemination….

…That group says this is a “potentially landmark, historic case” that will decide the scope of religious freedom in the state constitution.

The ACRU filed an amicus brief on this case, arguing that a doctor has the right to refuse […]

In Re Rachel, L.

By |2008-05-26T13:41:05-04:00May 26th, 2008|

The ACRU joins other organizations supporting homeschooling to file this brief in a California state appellate court arguing for a constitutional right for parents to choose homeschooling for their children. The argument is based on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech, relying in particular on precedents holding that parents have a constitutional right to choose private rather than public schools for their children, and that Amish parents can choose the alternative of working at home within the Amish culture rather than attending public high schools.

On August 8, 2008 the Second Appellate District in a 3-0 decision, ruled that homeschooling is a legitimate form of […]

Heller v. DC

By |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 […]

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board

By |2008-03-22T20:44:30-04:00March 22nd, 2008|

In 2005, the Indiana General Assembly passed legislation, signed by the Governor, to counter voter fraud by generally requiring those voting in person at the polls to identify themselves with a government issued photo ID, such as a driver’s license or a passport. The Indiana state Democratic Party, the Marion County Democratic Party, two elected Democrat officials, and several political interest groups filed suit alleging that this Indiana Voter ID law is unconstitutional because requiring such an ID imposes a severe burden on the right to vote.

Read the Brief

Rederford & Christy v. Hicks

By |2008-03-21T20:45:04-04:00March 21st, 2008|

This case presents increasingly urgent questions of law regarding the free speech rights of politically disfavored local minorities. The facts of this case reveal discriminatory prejudice against Christian employees by the City of Oakland reflected in viewpoint discrimination regarding their freedom of speech.

Read the Brief

Benitez v. North Coast

By |2008-03-19T20:45:44-04:00March 19th, 2008|

On March 29, 2007, ACRU filed a brief in the California Supreme Court on behalf of the defendant, North Coast Womens’ Care Medical Group. This case tests the Freedom of Religion Clause of the California Constitution on the issue of whether a physician has a constitutional right to refuse on religious grounds to perform a medical procedure for a patient because of the patient’s sexual orientation. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff but the decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District.

Read the Brief

Evans v. City of Berkeley

By |2008-03-13T20:49:20-04:00March 13th, 2008|

Denial of the Sea Scouts’ right to free berthing of its vessels as accorded other non-profit groups. Decided by California State Supreme Court on March 9, 2006, against ACRU’s position. Plaintiffs and the ACRU petitioned the United States Supreme Court to take the case. On October 16, 2006, the Supreme Court denied the petition to hear the appeal of the California State’s Supreme Court decision.

Cover page | Table of Contents | Brief

McConnell v. FEC

By |2020-04-23T21:53:05-04:00March 12th, 2008|

McConnell v. FEC concerned the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance "Reform" Act. The ACRU filed a brief arguing that restrictions on citizen advertising before primary and general elections were a gross and facial violation of the First Amendment. On DATE, the US Supreme Court upheld those restrictions in a bitterly divided, 5-4 decision, rejecting the ACRU position.

Read the Brief

Paulson v. City of San Diego

By |2008-03-11T23:02:10-04:00March 11th, 2008|

ACRU filed a brief in support of the City of San Diego in California state appellate court on appeal from a state judge’s order prohibiting the City from transferring the Mt. Soledad Memorial and its cross to the Federal government, as approved in a city referendum with 76% in support. The Federal government intervened to safeguard the monument by its powers of eminent domain; plaintiff Paulson is recently deceased. ACLU may file another suit challenging the Federal action.

On January 12, 2007, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the lawsuit to remove the memorial as moot and said a district court order to remove the […]

Go to Top