With politicians and government agencies continuously devising new ways to collect, store, aggregate, and search individuals’ selectively shared private information, the time for [the Supreme] Court to affirm Fourth Amendment protections is at hand.
March 02, 2026
Supreme Court of the United States
Courts must not help agencies to extend their powers beyond statutory and constitutional limits. But, for too long, agencies’ expansive views of their powers were assisted by judicial deference and acquiescence—at the expense of the people’s liberty and the rule of law.
March 02, 2026
Supreme Court of the United States
[The Iowa Supreme Court] should hold that the Iowa Constitution, like the U.S. Constitution, prohibits the government from using the toehold of a tax debt to take more than what is owed without just compensation.
February 27, 2026
Supreme Court of the State of Iowa
The Supreme Court has routinely looked to the common law when determining what the home encompasses for Fourth Amendment purposes. Doing so here confirms that a tenant’s apartment is his dwelling just the same as a standalone house. As such, it receives all the protections conferred by the common law, including curtilage protections.
February 02, 2026
Supreme Court of the United States
The Court should decline adopting the County’s theory... [and] ensure the Takings Clause continues to provide protection to this state’s vulnerable population, not merely those who are savvy enough to understand the legal system and who are able to predict problems long before an actual taking of private property occurs.
January 30, 2026
Supreme Court of the State of Oregon
Oregon’s EPR regime is unlawful. The statute exceeds the limits of state regulatory authority because the Constitution does not permit States to restructure interstate commerce or govern beyond their borders—directly or through private intermediaries.
January 27, 2026
U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
Under the substantial-evidence standard, executive branch agencies are given either non-executive or unilateral power, and the judicial branch is ordered to refrain from exercising judicial power. This Court should discard this system of executive adjudication followed by judicial non-adjudication because it violates the Arizona Constitution’s separation of powers and the due process of law.
December 09, 2025
Supreme Court of the State of Arizona
Louisiana’s Constitution draws a bright line against using expropriation to take private property for the exclusive use and benefit of a private enterprise. [Plaquemines Port Harbor] crossed that line. Because the project can proceed through an ordinary, voluntary transaction—and because the Port seeks only to insert itself to capture private revenue—this taking is precisely the abuse the post-Kelo amendments were enacted to forbid.
December 05, 2025
Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
In this appeal, the United States should admit the error of its prior litigation positions and advocate for vacatur and remand so that the District Court can correctly apply Sackett. If the United States does not, [the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit] should not let the government continue its overreach. It is time for the government and lower courts to respect Sackett, and this court can encourage that outcome by vacating and remanding.
December 01, 2025
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit