Court Cases

In this case, a Republican congressman from Illinois sued to challenge a state ballot counting deadline. His case was dismissed for lack of "standing" — meaning a personal stake in the outcome that is a prerequisite to filing a case in federal court. The lower courts ruled that it wasn't enough that the plaintiff's campaign had to spend money to cope with the election rule that he was challenging. When the Supreme Court agreed to review the case, we saw an important opportunity. Although we vigorously disagree with the congressman's position on the merits, it's vitally important that courts remain open to plaintiffs challenging voting rules that may disadvantage them. We have represented the League of Women Voters in such cases, and the government always seeks to challenge their standing, making the same types of arguments that kicked the plaintiff out of court here. Together with the League of Women Voters, the National ACLU, the ACLU of Illinois, and the Rutherford Institute, we filed an amicus brief in July 2025 to urge the Supreme Court to hold to its previous rulings permitting plaintiffs to sue based on economic harms to their organization. As we summarize our point in the brief: "political actors, candidates, and civic organizations may have standing to challenge electoral laws and regulations that affect their activities, force them to divert resources, and thus cause them concrete and tangible harms." Preserving access to the federal courts is fundamental to the defense of civil liberties and civil rights, because courts cannot vindicate these rights if they lack the power to hear the case in the first place. In January 2026, the Supreme Court ruled that the congressman had standing, though not for the reason we urged. Instead, the Court reasoned that candidates for election have a special interest in the fairness of election procedures, and this interest gives them standing. Concurring, Justices Barrett and Kagan agreed with our the economic-cost approach of our amicus brief. Regardless, expanding standing to test the fairness of election procedures will help ensure that legitimate challenges are not shut out of court.

This brief argues that the Freedom of Information Act does authorize private lawsuits to enforce the publication provision, and that the courts do have authority to order agencies to comply with it.

Ebosele Oboh was renovating his house without having obtained the necessary permits. The Department of Buildings issued him a fine for the violation, then doubled the fine as a penalty for not responding to the first. This amicus brief argues that the excessive penalty violates the 8th Amendment.

In 1969, seventeen-year-old Bruce Taylor enlisted in the army and volunteered for a secret weapons testing program at the Edgewood Arsenal in Maryland, where he was used as a human guinea pig in experiments with chemical weapons. As a result, he has suffered from a lifelong health condition.

The D.C. Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) sued to block that legislation, claiming that it violated the separation of powers (arguing that only the Mayor has the power to supervise the police) and infringed the substantive due process privacy rights of officers.