On January 12 2016, Dr. Mary Louise Serafine, a Texas psychologist with impressive academic credentials, but not licensed in the state of Texas to practice psychology, won her appeal in her case challenging Texas’s law regulating the practice of psychology. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled both that Texas violated the free-speech guarantee of the First Amendment by restricting Serafine’s political speech and that its law licensing psychologists violates ...Read More →
Audio recording's of oral argument in Friedrichs v. CTA have been released by the Supreme Court. Rebecca's attorney, Michael Carvin, argued for the first forty minutes. The Solictor General of California, the Solicitor General of the United States, and the union attorney divided their time over the next forty minutes.Read More →
The Union, the state of California, and the Obama administration, filed briefs last month in an attempt to justify their position that the First Amendment does not protect public school teachers. This week, CIR filed reply briefs that forcefully argue in defense of the First Amendment.
There is rarely any justification under the constitution for restricting the political speech of individuals. There are even fewer justifications for compelling an individual to ...Read More →
Like many government agencies, the Small Business Administration utilizes a system of racial preferences in the awarding of government contracts (called the “Section 8(a)” program). Unfortunately, when Congress created the Section 8(a) program, it failed to provide guidance to agencies on the basic question of what sort of small business owners qualify for a preference and why. While many wealthy small business owners continue to qualify for preferences year after ...Read More →
It seems commonsense to say that the government should not spend public funds to support one particular candidate or cause in a public election, yet that is exactly what the government of Montgomery County, Maryland has done. In an ongoing case against the county, CIR has filed an amicus brief to convince the courts that government electioneering is always bad for democracy.
Like most jurisdictions across the country, Montgomery County allows ...Read More →
CIR plaintiff Arnold Davis is back in the U.S. District Court for the District of Guam to continue his challenge to Guam’s race-exclusive plebiscite. In 2013, this same District Court dismissed Davis’ lawsuit by saying he had no standing to sue the government of Guam. However, with CIR’s help, Davis appealed his case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit reinstated Davis’ case and instructed the District Court ...Read More →