Learn how you can help ensure that the principle of due process endures this crisis
Learn how you can help ensure that the principle of due process endures this crisis
Brief in Support of Petitioner
Supreme Court of Florida
Our sixth amicus brief in a series challenging Florida's prosecution of people with felony convictions who unwittingly registered to vote and voted while ineligible to do so. These prosecutions violate fundamental principles of fairness and due process.
We thank David M. Gossett, Matthew R. Tuchman, MaryAnn Almeida, and Rachel R. Goldberg of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP for their amicus support on this issue.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
This case offers the Court an opportunity to clarify decades of confusion on a critical Sixth Amendment question: how to assess prejudice when the government unjustifiably intercepts a defendant’s confidential attorney-client communications. The Tenth Circuit’s en banc decision requires defendants to show discrete, trial-specific prejudice, even where prosecutors have intentionally and unjustifiably intruded on the defense’s attorney-client confidences. That burden will be impossible for defendants to meet in most cases, which is why other Circuits have refused to adopt this rule.
We thank Douglas E. Litvack, Anand Viswanathan, Charles Corbett, and Hoyeon Kelley Lew of Jenner & Block LLP for their pro bono work on this case.
Brief in Support of Petitioner
U.S. Supreme Court
Michael Bowe is legally innocent of the charge of discharging a firearm during the commission of a “crime of violence.” Nonetheless, the Eleventh Circuit is denying him the right to demonstrate this through the atextual application of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) to his claims. Congress enacted section 2244(b)(1) to preclude only state prisoners from filing successive petitions for habeas corpus. Mr. Bowe is a federal prisoner to whom section 2244(b)(1), by its terms, does not apply. This Court should exercise its jurisdiction and reverse the Eleventh Circuit’s decision.
Filed with the Civil Rights Clinic at the University of Virginia School of Law, Rights Behind Bars, Legal Aid Justice Center, and Fair and Just Prosecution.
We thank Juan O. Perla, T. Barry Kingham, Robert Garcia, and Joseph Muschitiello of Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP for their pro bono support on this case.
Brief in Support of Petitioner
4th Circuit Court of Appeals
In this amicus brief, we argue the Bureau of Prisons improperly interprets the First Step Act to deny thousands of prisoners credits earned through rehabilitation programs, unlawfully extending their imprisonment, and frustrating Congress’s intent to reduce federal prison costs. Furthermore, because the statute is ambiguous about whether “serving a sentence for a conviction” applies to entire prison terms or individual sentences, the rule of lenity should resolve it in the petitioner's favor and make him eligible to earn time credits under the First Step Act.
Filed with NACDL.
We thank Timothy Grinsell of Hoppin Grinsell LLP for his pro bono work on this issue.
Brief in Support of Appellee
Florida Second District Court of Appeal
Our fifth amicus brief in a series challenging Florida's prosecution of people with felony convictions who unwittingly registered to vote and voted while ineligible to do so. These prosecutions violate fundamental principles of fairness and due process.
We thank Matthew R. Tuchman of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP for their amicus support on this issue.
Brief in Support of Petitioners
U.S. Supreme Court
We argue defendants who were originally sentenced before the effective date of the First Step Act should still benefit from resentencing. This can make a tremendous difference in the life of a defendant. For example, applying the First Step Act at resentencing for the petitioner would result in an 80- year reduction in his mandatory minimum, from 105 years to 25 and the impact in other cases would be similarly stark.
Filed with Cato Institute, ACLU, ACLU of Texas, FAMM, and NACDL.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled defendants who were originally sentenced before the effective date of the First Step Act should still benefit from resentencing. You can read the opinion here.
We thank Kevin Poloncarz, Julia Barrero, and Jared Gilmour of Covington & Burling LLP for their pro bono work on this case.
Barnes v. Felix
Brief in Support of Petitioner
U.S. Supreme Court
This amicus brief argues that the Fifth Circuit’s “moment of the threat” doctrine ignores the Supreme Court’s instruction that there is no “easy-to-apply legal test in the Fourth Amendment [excessive force] context.” Further, this brief provides critical historical context of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to demonstrate how far the Fifth Circuit’s approach to excessive force claims has veered from the Congressional purpose of addressing police abuses of force.
Filed with NACDL.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously to reject the moment of threat doctrine. You can read the opinion here.
We thank Douglas E. Litvack, Emanuel Powell III, and Julius J. Mitchell of Jenner & Block LLP for their pro bono work on this case.
Brief in Support of Petitioner
U.S. Supreme Court
In this brief, we argue that the government's attempt to prosecute breaches of state contractual provisions under federal criminal property fraud statutes violates fundamental principles regarding notice and federalism.
The Supreme Court unfortunately ruled against our position and held that a defendant who induces a victim to enter into a transaction under materially false pretenses may be convicted of federal fraud even if the defendant did not seek to cause the victim economic loss. You can read the opinion here.
Due Process Institute thanks John D. Cline for his pro bono work on this case.
Brief in Support of Appellant
9th Circuit Court of Appeals
In this amicus brief, we argue 18 U.S.C. § 1505 incorporates a nexus requirement and that the state must prove an act of obstruction has a relationship in time, causation, or logic with the proceedings alleged to have been corruptly affected. It is vital to read criminal statutes like §1505 with restraint where a broad reading risks criminalizing otherwise “innocuous” conduct.
Unfortunately, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Mr. Sullivan’s jury conviction for obstruction of justice. You can read the opinion here.
Filed with NACDL.
We thank Jeffrey R. Babbin, Nathan J. Guevremont, and Anjali Dalal of Wiggin and Dana LLP for their pro bono work on this issue
Brief in Support of Appellee
Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal
Our third amicus brief in a series challenging Florida's prosecution of people with felony convictions who unwittingly registered to vote and voted while ineligible to do so. These prosecutions violate fundamental principles of fairness and due process.
The Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal ruled the trial court correctly dismissed the information against Washington because the OSP did not have authority to prosecute for the alleged crime of unauthorized voting. You can read the opinion here.
We thank Patricia J. Peña of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP for their pro bono work on this issue.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
In this amicus brief, we highlight the necessity of quid pro quo as the government’s burden of proof in federal bribery prosecutions. Without this requirement, individuals may be prosecuted whenever federal prosecutors merely allege an inferred connection between a campaign contribution and an official act. Such connections are an inherent feature of our campaign finance system in which constituents regularly support politicians who represent and advance their interests in the public arena. Exacerbating this due process concern is the fact that the quid pro quo requirement is not actually spelled out in any of the federal statutes used by prosecutors, so the public is left to look to the inconsistent—and sometimes internally contradictory—decisions of the courts of appeals.
Petition for certiorari denied December 16, 2024.
We thank Anna Skotko of Skotko Law PLLC and Daniel Noble and Vlad Shafran of Krieger Lewin LLP for their pro bono work on this case.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
In this amicus brief, we argue for the Court to restore the term “custody” in the escape statute to its original meaning of physical confinement. Doing so will corral the excessive enforcement discretion that has led to unpredictable outcomes in the Second, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits. The petition by Mr. Gross shows that the use of the term “custody” in other statutes does not apply to persons released to halfway houses and that when the escape statute was enacted, habeas-related law and authorities uniformly understood “custody” to mean physical detention.
Petition for certiorari denied October 21, 2024.
Due Process Institute thanks John Mayfield Rushing, Ryan McCarl, Davit Avagyan, and Drew Musto of Rushing McCarl LLP for their pro bono work on this issue.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
This amicus brief argues that the Fifth Circuit’s “moment of the threat” doctrine ignores the Supreme Court’s instruction that there is no “easy-to-apply legal test in the Fourth Amendment [excessive force] context.” Further, this brief provides critical historical context of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to demonstrate how far the Fifth Circuit’s approach to excessive force claims has veered from the Congressional purpose of addressing police abuses of force.
Filed with Restore The Fourth.
The Supreme Court granted cert. in this case on October 4, 2024.
We thank Douglas E. Litvack, Emanuel Powell III, and Julius J. Mitchell of Jenner & Block LLP for their pro bono work on this case.
Brief in Support of Appellee
Florida Third District Court of Appeal
Our second amicus brief in a series challenging Florida's prosecution of people with felony convictions who unwittingly registered to vote and voted while ineligible to do so. These prosecutions violate fundamental principles of fairness and due process.
The court held that the Office of Statewide Prosecution had authority under section 16.56(1)(a) of the Florida Statutes to bring voting fraud charges against a voter because the offense occurred in two Florida Judicial Circuits. You can read the opinion here.
We thank Matthew R. Tuchman of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP for their pro bono work on this issue.
Hopkins, et al. v. Watson
Brief in Support of Appellees
5th Circuit Court of Appeals
This amicus brief challenges Mississippi's voter disenfranchisement laws. The Fourteenth Amendment authorizes States to restrict citizens’ right to vote “for participation in rebellion, or other crime.” But Mississippi’s system has ventured far beyond the bounds of that limited authority. The state disenfranchises people for life with felony convictions of bribery, perjury, timber larceny, bad checks, etc. This is a clear and arbitrary departure from the States that understand permanent disenfranchisement for what it is—among the most severe penalties our society can inflict.
Filed with Cato Institute.
In a 13-6 rehearing en banc decision, Mississippi's lifetime voting ban was found to not violate the Eighth Amendment. You can read the decision from July 18, 2024 here.
We thank David Weiner, Andrew Tutt, Katie Weng, Kyle Lyons-Burke, Joseph Greenaway Jr, and Avishai Don of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP for their pro bono work on this issue.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
Similar to our amicus brief in Carpenter v. United States, we argue defendants who were originally sentenced before the effective date of the First Step Act should still benefit from resentencing. This can make a tremendous difference in the life of a defendant. For example, applying the First Step Act at resentencing for the petitioner would result in an 80- year reduction in his mandatory minimum, from 105 years to 25 and the impact in other cases would be similarly stark.
Filed with Cato Institute, ACLU, and ACLU of Texas.
The Supreme Court granted cert. in this case on July 2, 2024.
Snyder v. United States
Brief in Support of Petitioner
U.S. Supreme Court
In this brief, we argue for the Court to reject expansive federal prosecutorial theories to maintain fair notice for defendants and keep federalism intact. Amorphous theories of criminal liability should not sway the courts and prosecutors should not be able to convert every local transgression into a federal crime.
Filed with Washington Legal Foundation.
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's ruling in a 6-3 decision and narrowed the scope of federal bribery prosecutions on June 27, 2024. You can read the decision here.
We thank Christopher Man and Abbe David Lowell for their pro bono work on this issue.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
In this brief, we argue that the government's attempt to prosecute breaches of state contractual provisions under federal criminal property fraud statutes violates fundamental principles regarding notice and federalism.
Filed with Cato Institute and NACDL.
The Supreme Court granted cert. in this case on June 17, 2024.
Due Process Institute thanks Lawrence Lustberg, Thomas Valen, and Stephen Marietta of Gibbons P.C. for their amicus support on this issue.
Brief in Support of Appellee
Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal
Our fourth amicus brief in a series challenging Florida's prosecution of people with felony convictions who unwittingly registered to vote and voted while ineligible to do so. These prosecutions violate fundamental principles of fairness and due process.
Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal unfortunately upheld Florida's prosecutions. You can read the decision from July 17, 2024 here.
We thank Matthew R. Tuchman and Rachel R. Goldberg of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP for their amicus support on this issue.
Brief in Support of Appellee
Florida Third District Court of Appeal
In this amicus brief, we argue the state's prosecution of people with felony convictions who unwittingly registered to vote and voted while ineligible to do so violates fundamental principles of fairness and due process. Voters assume that Florida’s actions—providing voter-information cards, failing to check eligibility in a timely fashion despite systems purportedly designed to do so, and actively permitting ineligible voters to remain on the rolls for years and cast ballots—qualify as the State’s assurance that the voters legally may vote, even if that is not correct. The State is best positioned—and legally required—to determine eligibility, and it should focus its resources on those efforts instead of prosecuting unwittingly ineligible voters.
Florida's Third District Court of Appeal unfortunately upheld Florida's prosecutions. You can read the decision from July 17, 2024 here.
Due Process Institute thanks David Gossett, Matthew R. Tuchman, MaryAnn Almeida, and Rachel R. Goldberg of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP for their amicus support on this issue.
Carpenter v. United States
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
The First Step Act made momentous changes to two federal sentencing schemes—for certain firearm and controlled substances offenses—to end these grossly overlong and disproportionate mandatory sentences. In this amicus brief, we argue defendants who were originally sentenced before the effective date of the Act should still benefit from resentencing. This can make a tremendous difference in the life of a defendant. For example, applying the First Step Act at resentencing for the petitioner would result in an 80- year reduction in his mandatory minimum, from 105 years to 25 and the impact in other cases would be similarly stark.
Filed with ACLU and Cato Institute.
Petition for certiorari denied February 20, 2024.
Brief in Support of Appellees
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth Appellate District
In this amicus brief, we argue the Ohio Parole Board's reliance on secret information violates parole-eligible Ohioans due process rights. Parole-eligible Ohioans currently have no notice of victim statements used in their parole hearings; this violates the due process guarantee “that a party has been heard and understood in a forum free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice.” Furthermore, this lack of fairness has a heavy human toll for the individuals in the parole system where an arbitrary and dishonest process denies them freedom.
Filed with Cincinnati Black United Front, Abolitionist Legal Center, and the Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center.
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth Appellate District ruled the Parole Board’s policy violated constitutional due process rights. You can read the ruling from November 14, 2023 here.
Due Process Institute thanks Alphonse A. Gerhardstein of Freidman, Gilbert, + Gerhardstein for his amicus support on this issue.
Brief in Support of Appellant
3rd Circuit Court of Appeals
In this brief, we argue that the government's attempt to prosecute breaches of state contractual provisions under federal criminal property fraud statutes violates fundamental principles regarding notice and federalism.
Filed with Americans for Prosperity Foundation, Cato Institute, and NACDL.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's forfeiture order and remanded for further proceedings. You can read the decision from September 27, 2023 here.
Due Process Institute thanks Lawrence Lustberg and Thomas Valen of Gibbons P.C. for their amicus support on this issue.
Hopkins v. Hosemann
Brief in Support of Appellees
5th Circuit Court of Appeals
This amicus brief tackles the issue of disenfranchisement of individuals who have been convicted for certain crimes in Mississippi. DPI and amici argue that the broad nature of the state's disenfranchisement practices are a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Filed with Cato Institute and DKT Liberty Project.
The Fifth Circuit ruled Mississippi's disenfranchisement for life law was unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment under the Eight Amendment. You can read the opinion from August 3, 2023 here.
We thank David Weiner, Andrew Tutt, Katie Weng, Kyle Lyons-Burke, and Avishai Don of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP for their pro bono work on this issue.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
The federal courts of appeals currently permit sentencing judges to impose a punishment that is based on criminal charges that the jury actually rejected. In this amicus brief, we argue to end the continuation of this unconstitutional practice, known as acquitted conduct sentencing. SCOTUS has repeatedly directed sentencing courts to adhere to the Sixth Amendment by ensuring any sentence imposed derives from the jury’s verdict and does not functionally exceed what would have been permitted by that verdict.
Petition for certiorari denied June 30, 2023. Justices Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett joined in raising objections to the denial, which you can read here.
Community Success Initiative v. Moore
Brief in Support of Plaintiffs
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This amicus brief analyzes the intersection of the significant increase in the number of acts considered a felony and a practice in North Carolina that bars individuals with any felony record from voting. This brief argues that overcriminalization and the growth of "user-funded" justice in the United States make disenfranchisement look very different from its original intent.
Filed with Cato Institute.
The North Carolina Supreme Court upheld the state's disenfranchisement law on April 28, 2023. You can read the decision here.
Due Process Institute thanks Abraham Rubert-Schewel of Tin, Fulton, Walker & Owen and Tyce R. Walters of Latham & Watkins for their amicus support on this matter.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
In this amicus brief, we argue that the Eleventh Circuit disregarded foundational principles underlying federal habeas review: deference and comity to state courts. And this relitigating of a procedural issue clearly resolved by a state court has produced an unworkable and burdensome approach that will consume the limited resources of the lower courts.
Petition for certiorari denied February 27, 2023.
We thank Keith Bradley, Adam Fox, Kevin Kumar, Nicola Cohen, Robert Devling, and Dara Mann of Squire Patton Boggs LLP for their pro bono work on this issue,
Wikimedia v. National Security Agency, et al.
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 Respondent
Florida Supreme Court
In this amicus brief, we argue that compelling an individual to disclose the passcode to their cellphone, for the express purpose of obtaining incriminating evidence, violates the Fifth Amendment and Florida’s Constitution. By its very nature, passcodes intend to keep matters private and their link to testimonial evidence means individuals should be constitutionally protected from compulsory disclosure and self-incrimination. This brief also addresses the due process and privacy implications of password disclosure in a wide range of contexts within an ever-expanding technological world.
Filed with Independence Institute.
The Florida Supreme Court ruled the Fifth District Court did not have certiorari jurisdiction on this case on October 27, 2022. You can read the opinion here.
We thank Harvey Sepler of Alvarez, Gonzalez & Menezes for his pro bono work on this issue.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
Similar to our other amicus briefs involving Chevron deference and the rule of lenity, the question in this case is when they conflict in the interpretation of an ambiguous statute with both criminal and civil applications, which should prevail? We argue the court should interpret the statute narrowly, in accordance with the rule of lenity, and not give Chevron deference to a federal agency's broader interpretation. Applying the rule of lenity preserves the separation of powers and ensures fair warning to criminal defendants.
Petition for certiorari denied October 3, 2022.
Due Process Institute thanks John Cline for his amicus support on this matter.
Concepcion v. United States
Brief in Support of Petitioner
U.S. Supreme Court
When Congress passed the First Step Act of 2018, they applied the Fair Sentencing Act retroactively to address the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine offenses. In this amicus brief, we argue that resentencing under Section 404(b) of the First Step Act should also include factual and legal developments that postdate the original sentence. By precluding courts from considering these developments, the government’s interpretation of the law handicaps a judge's ability to effectuate Congress’s intent to reduce racial disparities in criminal sentencing and provide the fairest possible outcomes in the resentencing process.
The Supreme Court agreed with Due Process Institute that courts can consider changes in law and/or fact when resentencing under Section 404(b) of the First Step Act. You can read the 5-4 decision here.
Filed with American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Massachusetts, and Southern Poverty Law Center.
We thank Bradley N. Garcia, Kendall Turner, and Bruce Pettig of O’Melveny & Myers for their pro bono work on this case.
Ruan v. United States
Brief in Support of Petitioner
U.S. Supreme Court
In this amicus brief, we argued to curtail the increasing exposure to criminal penalties faced by physicians when they treat patients in good faith. Due to the lack of clear guidelines, prosecutors are left to develop their own standards on unlawful dispensing and physicians are left without adequate notice of what conduct may conceivably subject them to decades of imprisonment.
The Supreme Court agreed with Due Process Institute that the mens rea “knowingly or intentionally” applies to the statute’s “except as authorized” clause. You can read the 9-0 decision here.
We thank Andrew Prins, Cherish Drain, and Joseph Sitzmann of Latham & Watkins for their pro bono work on this issue.
Romeril v. Securities and Exchange Commission
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
In this amicus brief, we challenged the SEC's practice of imposing settlements with a lifetime gag on any speech challenging their allegations. Currently, the SEC can obtain a settlement without hauling a party in front of a neutral adjudicator and proving its own case. Instead, nongovernmental litigants face contracts of adhesion, drafted by the agency, containing provisions like a lifetime ban on speech that a court would never impose under Article III.
This type of agency-imposed settlement violates due process, lacks necessary procedural checks, and is rife with First Amendment concerns.
Petition for certiorari denied June 21, 2022.
Spencer v. Colorado
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
In Cuyler v. Sullivan, the Court held that a defendant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel based on a lawyer’s conflict of interest need not demonstrate outcome-determinative prejudice to obtain relief. Instead, a defendant need only show that an “actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer’s performance.” In this amicus brief, we argue Sullivan should apply when an attorney has a personal conflict of interest, and not just when an attorney is concurrently representing multiple defendants.
Filed with Human Rights Defense Center, Idaho Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and the National Association for Public Defense.
Petition for certiorari denied May 16, 2022.
We thank Douglas E. Litvack, Hope H. Tone-O’Keefe, and Adam M. Caldwell for their pro bono work on this case.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
At issue is the per se rule in antitrust law and its implications for the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to the finding by a jury that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Filed with Cato Institute.
Petition for certiorari denied May 2, 2022.
Due Process Institute thanks Sharon Frase, Martha Boersch, and Matthew Dirkes of Boersch & Illovsky LLP for their pro bono work on this case.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
In this amicus brief, we argue that the court erred in their application of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and defendants should have traditional proceedings for habeas corpus. Furthermore, review is warranted in this case because requiring a certificate of appealability prior to appellate review of a choice of remedy under § 2255(b) would be the functional equivalent of abolishing review altogether.
The court must reconsider its decision or hundreds of thousands of prisoners with meritorious claims cannot receive both the appeal to which they are entitled and the opportunity to be sentenced in full accordance with the law.
Filed with NACDL.
Petition for certiorari denied March 22, 2022.
We thank Collin Wedel, Jeffrey Green, and Gabriel Schonfeld of Sidley Austin LLP for their pro bono work on the issue.
Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga
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
A jury acquitted the defendant of the most serious charges against him, but the judge at sentencing decided to base sentencing calculations and his 20-year sentence on jury-rejected facts. In this amicus brief, we argue sentence enhancements based on jury-rejected facts undermine the jury’s constitutionally-defined role in our criminal system and the protections of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
Petition for certiorari denied February 22, 2022.
We thank Professor Douglas Berman for his pro bono work on this case.
Wynn v. United States
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
Similar to our amicus brief in Tabb v. United States, this brief argues the courts do not owe deference to agency commentary that creates harsher sentences. By applying Stinson deference, courts increase the Sentencing Guidelines range approved by Congress and deny the core constitutional principles of lenity and due process. We urge the court to reconsider its outdated position and protect the rights of defendants.
Filed with the New Civil Liberties Alliance.
Petition for certiorari denied January 18, 2022.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
In this amicus brief, we challenge the sentencing enhancements based on the Fourth Circuit’s misapplication of the categorical approach--the determination of whether a conviction meets the criteria of a certain category of offense. The court's misapplication was expanding the meaning of statute terms like “abusive” and “relating to” and creating a nearly boundless inquiry that flouts the uniformity and notice principles on which the categorical approach is based. This expansion has collateral and far-reaching consequences by enhancing mandatory minimums and increasing the number of inconsistent and unjust sentences.
Filed with NACDL.
Petition for certiorari denied on January 10, 2022.
We thank Jamie Crooks, Alexander Rose, and Eric Chianese of Fairmark Partners, LLP for their pro bono work on this case.
Rosales-Gonzalez v. United States
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.
Campbell v. United States
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
Several courts of appeals, including the Eighth Circuit, authorize district courts to bar cross-examination about the specifics of mandatory minimum sentences. In this amicus brief, we argue this violates a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine a witness; juries should have the opportunity to hear the full extent of a cooperating witness' motive to favor the prosecution.
Petition for certiorari denied on January 10, 2022.
Due Process Institute thanks John Cline for his pro bono work on this case.
Brief in Support of Plaintiffs
5th Circuit Court of Appeals
In this amicus brief, we argue predetermined, scheduled bail schemes infringe on the due process rights of pretrial detainees. These schemes do not account for the government’s interests in pretrial detention or an individual’s ability to pay, in violation of the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment. Judges are also unable to take a defendant’s individual circumstances into account when setting bail if it is predetermined or scheduled. Furthermore, longstanding jurisprudence underscores the general right to pretrial liberty and is incompatible with the bail practices currently in use by
Dallas County.
Filed with Americans For Prosperity Foundation, Cato Institute, Clause 40 Foundation, and Professor Shon Hopwood.
The Fifth Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs and their suit were allowed to proceed against most of the judges and Dallas County. You can read the decision here.
Walmart v. Department of Justice
Brief in Support of Appellant
5th Circuit Court of Appeals
What happens when the government uses its enforcement powers to threaten companies and individuals with potentially massive liability and then the courts refuse to hear cases unless the litigants are willing to incur the penalty as the price for bringing the challenge? The result is challenges are never brought and the litigants acquiesce to the government’s view of law. In this amicus brief, we examine the implication this has on the separation of powers, the judiciary’s own ability to decide what the law is, and prosecutorial overreach.
Filed with Cato Institute.
The Fifth Circuit ruled that the appellant's case was barred by sovereign immunity. You can read the decision from December 21, 2022 here.
Santana v. Maryland
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
Will our criminal justice system permit convictions obtained through the knowing use of false testimony to stand, simply because the prosecutor has disclosed the falsity of the testimony to defense counsel? In this amicus brief, we argue prosecutors should never be permitted to obtain a conviction through the knowing use of false testimony and the responsibility to correct it should not be shifted to the defense.
By shifting the full burden of combating false testimony to defense counsel, the court would make it more likely that criminal trials and convictions will be tainted with unfairness and characterized by injustice. Exposing such errors is often difficult or impossible for defense counsel due crushing caseloads, extreme underfunding of public defenders, and last-minute disclosures. Furthermore, prosecutors have an ethical obligation to seek justice, not convictions, and maintaining their duty to correct known false testimony will help guarantee the fundamental rights of due process and fairness.
Filed with the National Association for Public Defense, Cato Institute, and Innocence Project.
Petition for certiorari denied November 1, 2021.
Due Process Institute also thanks Timothy O’Toole of Miller & Chevalier for his pro bono work on this case.
Brief in Support of Appellant
5th Circuit Court of Appeals
The question in this case is when Chevron deference and the rule of lenity conflict in the interpretation of an ambiguous statute with both criminal and civil applications, which should prevail? Our amicus brief argues the court should interpret the statute narrowly, in accordance with the rule of lenity, and not give Chevron deference to a federal agency's broader interpretation. Applying the rule of lenity preserves the separation of powers and ensures fair warning to criminal defendants.
The Fifth Circuit' affirmed the lower's interpretation that bump stocks qualify as machine guns. You can read the opinion from December 21, 2022 here.
We thank John Cline for his pro bono work on this case.
Thom v. Barnett
Brief in Support of Defendant
Supreme Court of South Dakota
In this amicus brief, we argue that challenges by state officials against the legalization of adult use marijuana in South Dakota should be rejected. Although federal law prohibits marijuana consumption, South Dakota’s drug law reforms are supported by long-standing precedent. Thirteen other states have legalized adult use of cannabis through ballot initiatives and federal officials have consistently practiced non-intervention in regard to these reforms.
Filed with Cato Institute, DKT Liberty Project, and Reason Foundation.
The Supreme Court of South Dakota ruled that Amendment A, the ballot initiative that legalized adult marijuana use, violates Article XXIII. You can read the decision from November 24, 2021 here.
We thank Patrick J. Lee-O’Halloran Thompson of Tarasek Lee-O’Halloran PLLC for his pro bono work on this case.
United States v. Jakes-Johnson
Brief in Support of Appellant
2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
This brief highlights the criminal justice system's lack of commitment to guarantee an individual’s right to a speedy trial. In a relatively simple criminal case, it took three years for the accused to reach trial. Speedy trials are fundamental to ensure norms in our justice system and prevent unfair pressures on those accused; it is past time for courts to enforce this right.
Filed with Cato Institute.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision that the right to a speedy trial was not violated. You can read the decision here.
Due Process Institute also thanks Timothy O’Toole of Miller & Chevalier for his pro bono work on this case.
Lange v. California
Brief in Support of Petitioner
U.S. Supreme Court
In our brief, we highlight warrantless home entries committed in the pursuit of alleged misdemeanor crimes. So-called “hot pursuit” searches are a categorical exemption to our constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure under the 4th Amendment. Not only do these warrantless invasions infringe on these rights, they enable racialized policing and erode public trust in law enforcement.
Filed with the DKT Liberty Project, Law Enforcement Action Partnership, and Reason Foundation.
The Supreme Court agreed with Due Process Institute that the Constitution puts limits on when police pursuing a fleeing suspect can enter a home without a warrant. You can read the 9-0 decision here.
Due Process Institute also thanks Jessica Amunson, Caroline Cease, and Philip Sailer of Jenner & Block for their amicus support on this case.
Allen, et. al. v. Edwards
Brief in Support of Plaintiffs
Louisiana Supreme Court
This amicus brief, joined by an impressive array of ideologically diverse co-amici, argues that the 6th Amendment prohibits states from systemically under-funding public defender offices and explains how the Framers intended the Constitution to establish a vibrant adversarial criminal legal system, not a “sacrifice of unarmed prisoners to gladiators.”
Filed with the American Conservative Union Foundation Nolan Center for Justice, Cato Institute, Freedomworks Foundation, the James Madison Institute, R Street Institute, Innocence Project New Orleans, The Innocence Project, National Legal Aid & Defender Association, Public Defender Services for the District of Columbia, and Promise of Justice Initiative.
Petition for certiorari denied on June 23, 2021.
Due Process Institute also thanks Chloé Chetta of Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman and Timothy O'Toole of Miller & Chevalier for their pro bono work on this matter.
Broadway v. United States
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
In this amicus brief, we argue courts should not provide deference to the US Sentencing Commission unless the three requirements set by Kisor v. Wilkie are met. Deference is only owed if the agency’s regulation is genuinely ambiguous, the reading of the regulation is reasonable, and the interpretation entitles the agency to a controlling weight. If this entire criteria is not fulfilled, criminal defendants are entitled to lenity and courts must not reflexively accept implausible readings of the US Sentencing Guidelines.
Petition for certiorari denied June 22, 2021.
Due Process Institute thanks Theodore Howard, Boyd Garriott, and Lukman Azeez of Wiley Rein for their pro bono work on this case.
Ringland v. United States
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.
Miller v. United States
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.
Lovato v. United States
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
This amicus brief tackles the tension arising from two principles: Stinson deference to an agency’s interpretation of its rules and the rule of lenity. Because the rule of lenity requires courts to interpret ambiguities in criminal statutes in favor of criminal defendants, courts must not “reflexively” accept the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s commentary on ambiguous Sentencing Guidelines. The proper application of the principles of lenity advances due process, the separation of powers, and other fundamental constitutional protections.
Filed with The New Civil Liberties Alliance.
Petition for certiorari denied June 21, 2021.
Tabb v. United States
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
This brief argues the courts do not owe deference to agency commentary that creates harsher sentences. By applying Stinson deference, courts increase the Sentencing Guidelines range approved by Congress and deny the core constitutional principles of lenity and due process. We urge the court to reconsider its outdated position and protect the rights of defendants.
Filed with The New Civil Liberties Alliance.
Petition for certiorari denied June 21, 2021.
Woodard v. United States
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
In this brief, we argue that SCOTUS should strike down requirements in the 10th Circuit and other appellate courts that place undue burdens on defendants to demonstrate that their due process rights have been violated by prosecutorial pre-indictment delay. Due process requires the court to focus on prejudice to the defendant rather than the subjective intent of the prosecution.
Petition for certiorari denied May 17, 2021.
We thank Michael Dreeben, Kendall Turner, and their team at O'Melveny & Myers for their pro bono work on this case.
Allen, et. al. v. Edwards
Brief in Support of Plaintiffs
Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal
This amicus brief, joined by an impressive array of ideologically diverse co-amici, argues that the 6th Amendment prohibits states from systemically under-funding public defender offices and explains how the Framers intended the Constitution to establish a vibrant adversarial criminal legal system, not a “sacrifice of unarmed prisoners to gladiators.”
Filed with American Conservative Union Foundation Nolan Center for Justice, Cato Institute, Freedomworks Foundation, the James Madison Institute, R Street Institute, Innocence Project New Orleans, The Innocence Project, National Legal Aid & Defender Association and Public Defender Services for the District of Columbia.
Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal’s unfortunately ruled against the plaintiffs. You can read the decision here.
Due Process Institute also thanks Chloé Chetta of Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman for her amicus support on this matter.
Brief in Support of Cross-Appellee
6th Circuit Court of Appeals
This brief explores whether reforms to mandatory minimum sentences adopted by Congress in the First Step Act apply to defendants whose pre-Act sentences were vacated on appeal after the Act's adoption and whether such individuals should receive the benefit of reforms Congress passed.
Filed with the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Foundation, R Street Institute, and Americans for Prosperity Foundation.
The Sixth Circuit unfortunately ordered resentencing pursuant to the law before the First Step Act. You can read the court's opinion here.
We thank Jonathan D. Hacker and Alec Schierenbeck of O’Melveny & Myers LLP for their pro bono work on this case.
Tribue v. United States
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
When a defendant on collateral review successfully challenges one or more of their Armed Career Criminal Act predicate convictions, can the Government resurrect an ACCA-enhanced sentence by substituting new predicate convictions without prior notice? We ask the Court to establish clarity and consistency on a sentencing question that impacts thousands of people.
Filed with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Petition for certiorari denied April 19, 2021.
Due Process Institute also thanks Thomas Burns for his pro bono work on this issue.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
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.
Torres v. Madrid, et. al.
Brief in Support of Petitioner
U.S. Supreme Court
The question in this case is if a "seizure" has occurred, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, when police attempt to stop a suspect by force but do not immediately succeed in doing so. The 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.
Fled with the American Association For Justice, Cato Institute, Law Enforcement Action Partnership, Reason Foundation, and R Street Institute.
The United States Supreme Court ruled 5-3 that the application of physical force to the body of a person with intent to restrain is a seizure even if the person does not submit and is not subdued. You can read the opinion here.
We thank Anton Metlitsky, Dimitri Portnoi, Daniel Tully, and Noah Ickowitz of O’Melveny & Myers LLP for their pro bono work on this issue.
Aposhian v. Barr
Brief in Support of Rehearing
10th Circuit Court of Appeals
This amicus brief tackles the intersection of the rule of lenity and Chevron deference. The brief concludes that the rule of lenity should prevail when such a conflict occurs in order to preserve proper separation of powers in our federal government and fulfill the constitutional requirement of fair notice.
Order granting rehearing en banc vacated on March 5th, 2021.
Due Process Institute thanks John Cline for his amicus support on this matter.
Due Process Institute filed another brief in this case during 2019 and the court has granted the Petition for Rehearing En Banc.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
When a juror denies having “unknown” (implied) bias during a material question on voir dire, should a new trial be granted? We ask the Court to consider the plain text reading of McDonough and find that implied bias, like “known” bias, is unmistakably within its reach; a juror’s denial should not defeat a clear showing of bias. Protecting the right to impartial jury trials is fundamental to maintaining due process.
Filed with Cato Institute and National Association for Public Defense.
Petition for certiorari denied February, 22 2021.
Due Process Institute also thanks L. Barrett Boss, Kara L. Kapp, Catherine C. Yun, Samuel M. Deau, and Cozen O’Connor for their pro bono work on this issue.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
This amicus brief adds to the significant number of petitions in recent years asking the Supreme Court to consider the issue of qualified immunity and clarify application of the "clearly established law" test. This case presents the story of Trent Taylor who was incarcerated in a cell with inhumane conditions and supervised by correctional officers who refused his use of a bathroom and medical treatment after complaining of chest and bladder pain.
Filed with Cato Institute,
After granting cert, the Supreme Court ruled 7-1 that the correctional officers were not eligible for qualified immunity. You can read the opinion here.
We thank Catherine Stetson and Kyle Druding of Hogan Lovells US LLP for their amicus support on this case.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
This amicus brief explores the question of whether prosecutors can knowingly use false testimony at trial to secure a conviction if they disclose enough other information to the defense counsel to uncover the false nature of the testimony.
Filed with National Association of Public Defense, Cato Institute, Innocence Project, and Americans for Prosperity Foundation.
Petition for certiorari denied December 15, 2020.
Due Process Institute also thanks Timothy O'Toole and Katherine Pappas for their amicus support on this matter.
Nichols v. Wayne County
Brief in Support of Rehearing
6th Circuit Court of Appeals
This amicus brief tackles the important issue of how due process applies when a municipalities seizes property through civil asset forfeiture and does not grant the owner a prompt, post-seizure hearing.
Filed with Institute for Justice, Mackinac Center for Public Policy, and DKT Liberty Project.
Petition for rehearing denied on November 23, 2020.
Due Process Institute also thanks Wesley Hottot, Marie Miller, and Keith Neely for their leadership in drafting this amicus brief.
Serrano v. U.S. Customs and Border
Brief in Support of Plaintiff
5th Circuit Court of Appeals
This case considers whether there is a due process right to a prompt post-seizure hearing when one's property is seized by the government.
Unfortunately, The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that it is not constitutionally required for a property owner whose property is seized through civil asset forfeiture to receive a prompt, post-seizure hearing while awaiting a formal forfeiture hearing. You can read the court's full opinion here.
Due Process Institute thanks Cynthia Orr for her amicus support on this matter.
Brief in Support of Plaintiff
11th Circuit Court of Appeals
This amicus brief tackles the practical impacts of state policies that suspend an individual's driver's license solely on account of court debt. This practice has been found to be counterproductive for public safety, government revenue collection, and local economic growth. This brief summarizes the body of recent research and calls for the end of this practice in the state of Alabama.
The Eleventh Circuit returned this case to the US District Court for decision. You can read that decision here.
U.S. v. Gozes-Wagner
Brief in Support of Appellant
5th Circuit Court of Appeals
This case--perhaps the first of its kind but not the last--asks the court to consider if the government has pursued a "trial penalty" (adding charges and recommending a higher sentence) against a defendant who exercised her right to trial.
The United State Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed with Due Process Institute that federal Circuit courts have a duty to determine whether a district court sentenced an individual more harshly because they went to trial instead of pleading guilty. You can read the court's full opinion here.
Due Process Institute thanks Jonathan Marcus and Michael McIntosh of DC's Skadden office for their amicus support on this matter.
Community Success Initiative v. Moore
Brief in Support of Plaintiffs
Superior Court of Wake County
This amicus brief analyzes the intersection of the significant increase in the number of acts considered a felony and a practice in North Carolina that bars individuals with any felony record from voting. This brief argues that overcriminalization and the growth of "user-funded" justice in America make disenfranchisement look very different from its original intent.
The Superior Court of Wake County agreed with Due Process Institute and found that North Carolina's statute barring individuals from voting simply because of a failure to pay fines and fees violated the state's Constitution. You can read the court's full order here.
Due Process Institute thanks Cheyenne N Chambers of Tin, Fulton, Walker & Owen and Tyce R. Walters of Latham & Watkins for their amicus support on this matter.
Brief in Support of Defendant
Florida Court of Appeals
DPI explains how the use of the police's covert video surveillance took advantage of the lack of privacy safeguards in the law and failed to utilize adequate minimization techniques to pass Constitutional muster-- therefore the evidence obtained from that surveillance must be excluded.
The Florida Court of Appeals agreed with the Due Process Institute and found that police had violated the Fourth Amendment. You can read the full opinion here.
Due Process Institute thanks Donnie Murrell for his amicus support on this matter.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has previously ruled that any facts which increase the range of possible punishments for a defendant’s criminal conviction must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. This brief tackles whether the Constitution also requires that state statutes that increase the minimum time a defendant must serve in prison before being released on parole be invalidated under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Petition for certiorari denied June 22, 2020.
Due Process Institute thanks Kendall Turner for her amicus support on this matter as well as National Association for Public Defense for joining our brief.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
This amicus addresses the issue of qualified immunity for a particularly egregious case, in which police had consent--and a key--to enter a home but instead shot tear gas into the home for hours. The brief was critical of the qualified immunity doctrine because of its unreasonably difficult hurdles to get justice for those who are wronged by law enforcement. Further, the brief argued that the doctrine erodes trust in law enforcement because of this lack of accountability.
Petition for certiorari denied June 15, 2020.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
This cross-ideological brief addresses the doctrine of qualified immunity and specifically attacked the "clearly established law" test that undergirds most instances whereby law enforcement personnel are not held responsible for wrongful conduct. The brief also discussed the importance of public trust in the institution of law enforcement and how qualified immunity undermines that trust.
Petition for certiorari denied June 15, 2020.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
This cross-ideological brief addresses the doctrine of qualified immunity and specifically attacked the "clearly established law" test that undergirds most instances whereby law enforcement personnel are not held responsible for wrongful conduct. The brief also discussed the importance of public trust in the institution of law enforcement and how qualified immunity undermines that trust.
Petition for certiorari denied June 15, 2020.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
This brief explores the problems with the doctrine of qualified immunity for law enforcement officials because it excuses unconstitutional conduct, imposes a heavy burden on civil rights litigants, and erodes public trust.
Petition for certiorari denied June 15, 2020.
Brief in Support of Appellant
10th Circuit Court of Appeals
In this brief, we argue that the rule of lenity should take precedence over conflicting canons of construction (e.g. the doctrine of Chevron deference) for statutes with criminal application given the risk to life and liberty.
The 10th Circuit unfortunately ruled against Aposhian in an opinion you can read here.
Due Process Institute thanks John Cline for his amicus support on this matter.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
At issue is the private search doctrine in regards to digital devices. DPI argues on behalf of petitioner 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.
Petition for certiorari denied May 4, 2020.
Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
At issue in this case is the precedence of the "rule of lenity" doctrine versus Chevron deference in the interpretation of language that defines a crime.
Due Process Institute thanks John Cline for his amicus support on this matter as well as The Buckeye Institute for joining our brief.
Petition for certiorari denied March 2, 2020.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
In this brief we argue that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial prohibits judges from basing sentences on charges for which juries have acquitted criminal defendants.
Petition for certiorari denied February 24, 2020.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
At issue is the per se rule in antitrust law and its implications for the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to the finding by a jury that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Due Process Institute thanks Erin E. Murphy (Kirkland & Ellis, DC) and Alyssa Kalisky (Kirkland & Ellis, Chicago) for their amicus support on this matter.
Petition for certiorari denied January 13, 2020.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
The question presented will resolve a circuit split on the appropriate standard of review for sentencing enhancements based on the unsworn out-of-court statements of cooperating witnesses.
Due Process Institute thanks John Cline for his amicus support on this matter as well as the law professors and following organizations for joining our brief: Cato Institute, NACDL, Rutherford Institute, District of Columbia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and Texas Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Petition for certiorari denied on October 15, 2019.
Brief in Support of Respondent
U.S. Supreme Court
Are the portions of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k) that required the district court to revoke supervised release and to impose re-imprisonment based on a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent violated the conditions of his release an “unconstitutional and unenforceable” law?
Due Process Institute wishes to thank David T. Goldberg for his amicus support on this matter.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court agreed with the Due Process Institute's opinion and ruled in favor of Haymond. Read the opinion by Justice Gorsuch here.
Brief in Support of Petitioner
U.S. Supreme Court
Is there a Fourth Amendment warrant requirement exception for a statute stating that an individual implicitly consents to a blood draw?
The Court unfortunately ruled against Mitchell in an opinion you can read here.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
The question presented is whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches before an indictment in a situation where a prosecutor threatens to indict a defendant unless the defendant accepts a plea offer.
Due Process Institute wishes to thank Cozen O’Connor for their amicus support in this matter, particularly Stephen A. Miller, Barry Boss, and Kara L. Kapp. We also thank Cato Institute for joining our brief.
Petition for certiorari denied on June 24, 2019.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
This case involved a warrantless strip search of a minor child on suspicions that the child has suffered from abuse. The question considered in this amicus brief was on the application of qualified immunity.
Petition for certiorari denied on May 20, 2019.
Hillman v. Nueces County, Texas and Nueces County District Attorney's Office
Brief in Support of Petitioner
Supreme Court of Texas
A former district attorney filed suit against Nueces County for wrongful termination after he was fired for disclosing information to the defense, as he believed it was his legal and ethical duty to do so.
The Texas Supreme Court ruled against Hillman on the grounds that government immunity barred the lawsuit. Read the opinion here.
Brief in Support of Petitioner
U.S. Supreme Court
The case centered around the civil forfeiture of the plaintiff's $42,000 vehicle for a crime that had a maximum $10,000 criminal fine.
The Supreme Court agreed with Due Process Institute and ruled 9-0 in favor of plaintiff Timbs. The Court specifically held 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.
Cabrera-Rangel v. United States
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
The question presented was whether the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial prohibits judges from basing sentences on charges for which juries have acquitted criminal defendants.
Due Process Institutes wishes to thank Timothy O'Toole and Sarah A. Dowd of Miller & Chevalier for their amicus support on this case.
Petition for certiorari denied on January 14, 2019.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
Due Process Institute's Shana O'Toole authored this brief regarding the waiver of appellate review of what appears to be highly suspect restitution and forfeiture awards.
Petition for certiorari denied on January 7, 2019.
Almighty Supreme Born Allah, Petitioner v. Lynn Milling, et al.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
Second Circuit Court of Appeals
Due Process Institute joined a large array of cross-ideological organizations as co-signers for this amicus brief on qualified immunity.
The petitioner voluntarily dismissed his petition for certiorari following a settlement with the government.
Copyright © 2024 Due Process Institute - All Rights Reserved.
Please note: contributions to Due Process Institute, a 501(c)(4), are not deductible for federal tax purposes.
This website uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you accept our use of cookies.