Menu
Close
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
In this brief, we argued that granting qualified immunity to prison officials who subjected a prisoner to extreme cold while denying clothing and bedding conflicts with Supreme Court precedent and weakens Eighth Amendment protections. The lower court acknowledged that the conduct plausibly violated the Constitution but still barred the claim because no prior case involved nearly identical facts. Requiring such exact precedent allows obvious constitutional violations to escape accountability and prevents juries from evaluating serious government misconduct.
Filed with the Cato Institute, American Association for Justice, and Public Justice.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
Perverse state and federal forfeiture laws enable law enforcement agencies to pursue and disproportionately target the assets of low income individuals and communities of color. In this brief, we argue that the proper application of the Excessive Fine Clause’s protections requires consideration of a defendant’s ability to pay in determining whether a fine is unconstitutionally excessive. Because the Supreme Court has already held that forfeitures can be “fines” under the Eighth Amendment, such analysis is necessary to maintain the Constitution’s protections and to curtail abusive seizures of property under the guise of law enforcement and asset forfeiture.
Filed with Drug Policy Alliance, the NAACP, the Law Enforcement Action Partnership, the Independence Institute, and Libertas Institute.
Petition for certiorari denied on January 10, 2022.
We thank Vincent Levy, Daniel Sullivan, Gregory Dubinsky, and Timothy W. Grinsell of Holwell Shuster & Goldberg LLP for their pro bono work on this issue.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
TOPICS: cruel + unusual punishment
In this amicus brief, we argue the application of Miller should extend to young adults who have passed the age of 18. Under Miller v. Alabama, a person under the age of 18 is not eligible for a sentence of mandatory life without parole. However, current science and the principle that “youth matters” suggest 18, 19, and 20 year olds lack fully matured decision-making and often have mitigating circumstances. Sentencing young adults to life without parole violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments.
Petition for certiorari denied April 19, 2021.
We thank Catherine S. Simonsen and Gordon-Alexander Wille of White & Case for their pro bono work on this case.
Amicus Brief in Support of Petitioner
U.S. Supreme Court
TOPICS: civil asset forfeiture; excessive fines + fees; incorporation
This case centered around the civil forfeiture of the plaintiff’s $42,000 vehicle for a crime that had a maximum $10,000 criminal fine. Filed September 11, 2018 with Cato Institute, DKT Liberty Project, Federal Bar Association Civil Rights Section, Goldwater Institute, and Texas Public Policy Foundation.
OUTCOME: The Supreme Court agreed with us and ruled 9-0 in favor of plaintiff Timbs, holding that the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment is incorporated to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Read the opinion here.
Amicus Brief in Support Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
TOPICS: appellate waiver; excessive fines + fees
Due Process Institute’s Shana O’Toole authored this brief raising concerns over appellate plea waivers and also the unreasonable fines, fees, forfeitures, and restitution awards that are endemic in American’s criminal justice system. Filed Oct. 5, 2018.
OUTCOME: Unfortunately, the petition for certiorari denied on January 7, 2019.