Moments from Friedrichs at the Supreme Court

Rebecca Friedrichs, Attorney Michael Carvin, and Harlan Elrich

Rebecca Friedrichs speaking with reporters after oral arguments.

Rebecca speaks to reporters after oral arguments.

Rebecca Friedrichs, Attorney Michael Carvin, and Harlan Elrich speaking with reporters after oral arguments

Plantiffs Peggy Searcy, Karen Cuen, and Harlan Elrich at Supreme Court following oral arguments

Attorney Michael Carvin speaking with reporters following oral arguments

Rebecca Friedrichs on steps of the Supreme Court after oral arguments

Grover Norquist speaks to Rebecca's supporters on the steps of the Supreme Court

Robert Alt, president of the Buckeye Institute, speaks to Rebecca's supporters on the steps of the Supreme Court

Supporters wait outside as oral arguments progress.

Lynn Harsh of the State Policy Network speaks to Rebecca's supporters.

Starr Parker of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education speaks on the steps of the Supreme Court

Gerard Robinson, former commissioner of education for the State of Florida and former secretary of education for the Commonwealth of Virginia, speaks in support of Rebecca

Congressman Barry Loudermilk speaks to Rebecca's supporters on steps of Supreme Court

Kim Crockett speaks to Rebecca's supporters on steps of Supreme Court

Jeanne Allen speaks to Rebecca's supporters on steps of the Supreme Court

  On January 11th, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Friedrichs v. CTA. While the attorneys argued before the court, Rebecca's supporters gathered on the steps to show their support and explain why they trust teachers to decide whether or not to join a union. Those present included teachers, school administrators, education reform leaders, congressmen, and academics.

Read More →
January 12, 2016 by CIR2 in Case Updates

Fifth Circuit Tosses Texas Psychology Licensing Law

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 →
January 26, 2016 by CIR2 in Case Updates

Listen to Oral Arguments at the Supreme Court

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 →
December 16, 2015 by CIR2 in Case Updates, Friedrichs, Timeline

CIR Files Reply Brief in Friedrichs

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 →
November 04, 2015 by CIR2 in Case Updates, Uncategorized

CIR Files Brief in Defense of Small Business Owner

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 →
November 03, 2015 by CIR2 in Case Updates

CIR Defends Police Union Against Government Electioneering

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 →
November 02, 2015 by CIR2 in Case Updates

Motion For Summary Judgment Filed in Voting Rights Case

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 →