Menu
Close
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
Similar to our amicus brief in FBI v. Fazaga, we argue access to the courts through civil litigation is a vital safeguard for the vindication of constitutional rights implicated by foreign intelligence surveillance. Congress originally enacted FISA to provide judicial review of these surveillance efforts. However, experience shows the other avenues—FISC proceedings and suppression efforts in criminal prosecutions—do not function as reliable checks on the government. Without the avenue of civil litigation, there will be few, if any, effective means of checking unconstitutional abuses by foreign intelligence surveillance authorities.
Filed with Clause 40 Foundation, Brennan Center for Justice, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Electronic Privacy Information Center, FreedomWorks Foundation, Project for Privacy and Surveillance Accountability, and TechFreedom.
Petition for certiorari denied February 21, 2023.
We thank David M. Gossett, Chris Swift, and Meenakshi Krishnan of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP for their pro bono work on this case.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
In this amicus brief, we argue the avenue of civil litigation is a critical safeguard for the constitutional rights implicated by foreign intelligence surveillance. Congress originally enacted FISA to provide judicial review of these surveillance efforts. However, experience shows that the judicial review mechanisms established under FISA are largely inadequate—and in this litigation, the government seeks to narrow the scope of judicial review under FISA even further. To assist the Court, this brief focuses on the ways in which FISA’s other judicial review mechanisms have fallen short, thus underscoring the importance of civil litigation to protect an individual’s right to due process.
Filed with the Brennan Center For Justice, Electronic Privacy Information Center, FreedomWorks Foundation, and TechFreedom.
Petition for certiorari denied March 4, 2022.
We thank David M. Gossett and Chris Swift of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP for their pro bono work on this case.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
Similar to our amicus filing in Miller v. United States, we highlight the searches of emails without a warrant by law enforcement. These types of digital media searches using the private-search doctrine violate the Fourth Amendment as individuals do not give the government an implied license to search their emails. The Fourth Amendment protects individuals and their vast amounts of personal information from warrantless searches justified solely on a third-party service provider’s assumption that an email may contain evidence of a crime.
Filed with DKT Liberty Project and Reason Foundation.
Petition for certiorari denied June 21, 2021.
Due Process Institute thanks Jessica Ring Amunson and Caroline Cease of Jenner & Block LLP for their pro bono support in this matter.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
In this amicus brief, we argue the searches of emails collected and sent by a third-party service to law enforcement constituted a trespass. The private-search doctrine used to justify these searches does not appropriately safeguard Fourth Amendment interests when digital mediums are involved. The government cannot maintain an individual, by using an email account, grants them implied license to rifle through their emails.
Filed with DKT Liberty Project and Reason Foundation.
Petition for certiorari denied June 21, 2021.
We thank Jessica Ring Amunson and Caroline Cease of Jenner & Block LLP for their pro bono work on this case.
Amicus Brief in support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
Filed Feb. 7, 2020
TOPIC: lethal force; seizure; police misconduct
The question in this case is if a “seizure” has occurred, in violation of the 4th Amendment, when police attempt to stop a suspect by force but do not immediately succeed in doing so. Our amicus brief argues that there are good public policy reasons for determining that such action is a “seizure” including accountability for police and improving public trust in law enforcement and their actions. Filed with American Association for Justice, Cato Institute, Law Enforcement Action Partnership, R Street Institute, and Reason Foundation.
Update: The Court heard oral argument in this case on Oct. 14, 2020.
Amicus Brief in Support of Certiorari
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Filed Dec. 16, 2019
TOPICS: private search doctrine; digital privacy
This case involved an application of the private search doctrine to digital devices. We argued that greater protection should be given to devices such as cell phones and laptops because the volume and type of material available on those devices is at least, if not more, private than what can be found in one’s home. Filed with DKT Liberty Project and Reason Foundation.
OUTCOME: Unfortunately, this petition for certiorari was denied May 4, 2020.
Amicus Brief in Support of Petitioner in the US Supreme Court
Filed Mar. 4, 2019
TOPIC: implied consent
Is there a 4th Amendment warrant requirement exception for a statute stating that an individual can implicitly consent to a blood draw? Filed wtih DKT Liberty Project and Reason Foundation.
OUTCOME: The Court unfortunately ruled against Mitchell in an opinion dated June 27, 2019 that you can read here.