Learn how you can help ensure that the principle of due process endures this crisis

DUE PROCESS INSTITUTE
DUE PROCESS INSTITUTE
  • Home
    • Leadership
    • Board
    • Employment Opportunities
    • Webinars
    • Resources
    • Key Court Rulings
  • Blog
    • Amicus
    • Legislation
    • #WeThePeople
    • Research
    • JURIESDECIDE
  • Support
    • Past Work
    • Due Process Torch
    • Constitution Day
    • Home
    • Our People
      • Leadership
      • Board
      • Employment Opportunities
    • COVID-19
      • Webinars
      • Resources
      • Key Court Rulings
    • Blog
    • Our Work
      • Amicus
      • Legislation
      • #WeThePeople
      • Research
      • JURIESDECIDE
    • Support
    • More
      • Past Work
      • Due Process Torch
      • Constitution Day
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Support

Pending Cases

Woodard v. United States

Amicus 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. 


We thank Michael Dreeben, Kendall Turner, and their team at O'Melveny & Myers for their pro bono representation in this case.  

Woodard v. United States

Lovato v. United States

Lovato v. United States

Lovato v. United States

Amicus 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. 

LOVATO v. UNITED STATES

Tabb v. United States

Lovato v. United States

Lovato v. United States

Amicus 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. 

Tabb v. United States

Lange v. California

Lovato v. United States

Tribue v. United States

Amicus Brief in Support of Certiorari 

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.

Lange v. California

Tribue v. United States

United States v. Jakes-Johnson

Tribue v. United States

Amicus 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.

We thank the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers for joining us in this brief.

Due Process Institute also thanks Thomas Burns for his pro bono work on this issue.

TRIBUE V. UNITED STATES

United States v. Jakes-Johnson

United States v. Jakes-Johnson

United States v. Jakes-Johnson

Amicus 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.

We thank Cato Institute for joining us in this brief.

Due Process Institute also thanks Timothy O’Toole of Miller & Chevalier for his pro bono work on this case.

U.S. V. JAKES-JOHNSON

Kousisis v. United States

United States v. Jakes-Johnson

United States v. Jakes-Johnson

Amicus 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 Nov. 9, 2020 with Americans for Prosperity Foundation, Cato Institute, and NACDL.

Kousis V. United States

United States v. Jackson

United States v. Jackson

United States v. Jackson

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.

U.S. v. Jackson

Taylor v. Riojas

United States v. Jackson

United States v. Jackson

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.


 Update: The Supreme Court will consider this petition at its next conference in October 2020.  

Taylor v. Riojas

Hopkins v. Hosemann

United States v. Jackson

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. 


  Update: The parties were scheduled to complete oral arguments in June 2020 but this was postponed with the date still to be determined by the court.

Hopkins v. Hosemann

Motley v. Taylor

Torres v. Madrid, et. al.

Hopkins v. Hosemann

 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.

Motley v. Taylor

Aposhian v. Barr

Torres v. Madrid, et. al.

Torres v. Madrid, et. al.

 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.


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


The Due Process Institute filed another brief in this case during 2019 and the court has granted the Petition for Rehearing En Banc.

Aposhian v. Barr

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 October 14, 2020 due to COVID-19.

Torres v. Madrid

Resolved Cases

Stein v. United States

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.


Petition for certiorari denied December 15, 2020.


We thank the National Association of Public Defense, Cato Institute, Innocence Project, and Americans for Prosperity Foundation for joining this brief.


Due Process Institute also thanks Timothy O'Toole and Katherine Pappas for their amicus support on this matter.  

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.

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.


We thank the Institute for Justice, Mackinac Center for Public Policy, and DKY Liberty Project for joining this brief.

Due Process Institute also thanks Wesley Hottot, Marie Miller, and Keith Neely for their leadership in drafting this amicus brief.  

The Sixth Circuit denied rehearing on November 23, 2020.


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.


U.S. v. Gozes-Wagner

Brief in support of Appellant  

5th Circuit Court of Appeals  


This case--perhaaps 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. The Court failed to find that this occurred in this case. 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. 


Florida v. Kraft

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.


Fogleman v. Mississippi

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. 


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 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. 


Zadeh v. Robinson

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. 


Corbitt v. Vickers

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. 


Baxter v. Bracey et. al.

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. 


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. 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.


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.

Copyright © 2020 Due Process Institute - All Rights Reserved.


Please note: contributions to Due Process Institute, a 501(c)(4), are not deductible for federal tax purposes.   

  • Home
  • Leadership
  • Blog
  • Amicus
  • Research
  • JURIESDECIDE
  • Support
  • Past Work