Fogleman v. Mississippi

Torres v. Madrid, et. al.

Torres v. Madrid, et. al.

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.


We thank National Association for Public Defense for joining our brief.


Due Process Institute thanks Kendall Turner of O'Melveny's DC office for her amicus support on this matter.

Torres v. Madrid, et. al.

Torres v. Madrid, et. al.

Torres v. Madrid, et. al.

Brief in support of Certiorari 

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.


Update: The Supreme Court has postponed oral arguments in this case until the fall of 2020 due to COVID-19.

Taylor v. Stevens

Torres v. Madrid, et. al.

West v. Winfield, et. al.

Brief in Support of Certiorari

U.S. Supreme Court


This amicus brief adds to the significant number of petitions for 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.

West v. Winfield, et. al.

Zadeh v. Robinson and Corbitt v. Vickers

West v. Winfield, et. al.

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 is 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 argues that the doctrine erodes trust in law enforcement because of this lack of accountability.

Zadeh v. Robinson and Corbitt v. Vickers

Zadeh v. Robinson and Corbitt v. Vickers

Zadeh v. Robinson and Corbitt v. Vickers

Brief in support of Certiorari 

U.S. Supreme Court


Both of these cross-ideological briefs address the issue of qualified immunity and specifically attack the "clearly established law" test that undergirds most instances whereby law enforcement personnel are not held responsible for wrongful conduct. The briefs also discuss the importance of  public trust in the institution of law enforcement and how qualified immunity undermines that trust.


Zadeh v. Robinson

Corbitt v. Vickers

Baxter v. Bracey et. al.

Zadeh v. Robinson and Corbitt v. Vickers

Zadeh v. Robinson and Corbitt v. Vickers

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. 

U.S. v. Jackson

U.S. v. Gozes-Wagner

Hopkins v. Hosemann

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.

Hopkins v. Hosemann

U.S. v. Gozes-Wagner

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. 

U.S. v. Gozes-Wagner

U.S. v. Gozes-Wagner

Serrano v. U.S. Customs and Border, et al

Brief in support of Appellant  

5th Circuit Court of Appeals


This case asks the court to consider if the government has pursued a "trial penalty" against a defendant who exercised her right to trial. The prosecution did this by adding charges and recommending a higher sentence.


Due Process Institute thanks Jonathan Marcus and Michael McIntosh of DC's Skadden office for their amicus support on this matter.


 Update: The parties completed oral arguments in April 2020 and are awaiting the Court's opinion. 

Serrano v. U.S. Customs and Border, et al

Serrano v. U.S. Customs and Border, et al

Serrano v. U.S. Customs and Border, et al

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.

Due Process Institute thanks Cynthia Orr for her amicus support on this matter.


Update: The parties completed oral arguments in February 2020 and are awaiting the Court's opinion.

Florida v. Kraft

Serrano v. U.S. Customs and Border, et al

Allen et. al. v. Edwards

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.


Due Process Institute thanks Donnie Murrell for his amicus support on this matter.


Update: The Court has rescheduled oral arguments in this case for June 2020.

Allen et. al. v. Edwards

Serrano v. U.S. Customs and Border, et al

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.”    


We thank 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 and Public Defender Services for the District of Columbia for joining our brief in support of the right to counsel.   


Due Process Institute also thanks Chloe Chetta of Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman for her amicus support on this matter. 

Aposhian v. Barr

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. 


Due Process Institute thanks John Cline for his amicus support on this matter.


The 10th Circuit unfortunately ruled against Aposhian in an opinion you can read here.


Shaffer v. Pennsylvania

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. 


Asaro v. United States 

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.


Sanchez v. U.S.

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.


Beltran Leyva v. U.S. 

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.


United States v. Haymond 

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


Mitchell v. Wisconsin 

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.


Turner v. United States 

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.


I.B. and Doe v. Woodard

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.


Timbs v. Indiana

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. 


Mearing v. United States

Brief in Support 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.