You are here

Prior Cases

A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | M | N | O | P | R | S | T | U | V | W | Z

On June 21, 2010, the Supreme Court handed down a sharply divided 5-4 ruling against the plaintiff Antonio Jackson. The decision created a new rule of pleading that makes it difficult for hard-working Americans to seek justice in the federal courts to enforce their federal rights, including the right to be free of racial discrimination in employment.

On August 30, 2013, Constitutional Accountability Center filed an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court in support of the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in David Leon Riley v. State of California, a case with important implications for the scope of the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.  At issue in Riley is whether, and under what circumstances, the police may conduct a warrantless search of a person’s cell phone upon that person’s arrest. 

Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie were cases with important implications for the scope of the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.  They both raised the question whether, and under what circumstances, the police may conduct a warrantless search of a person’s cell phone upon that person’s arrest.

On June 28, 2013, Constitutional Accountability Center filed an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court in support of the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in Edward Roach v. State of Missouri, a case challenging the long-standing dual sovereignty exception to the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause.  Under this judicially-created exception to the Constitution, an individual may be subjected to successive federal and state prosecutions for the same offense.

Robicheaux v. Caldwell was a federal-court challenge to discriminatory marriage laws in Louisiana that prohibited same-sex couples from marrying.

In Rosillo v. Holten, the Supreme Court is being asked to grant review to consider whether the federal courts of appeals have jurisdiction over an appeal when the notice of appeal incorrectly identifies the order to be reviewed, but contains clear contextual indications as to which order is being appealed.