Landmark Victories that Shaped the Law
– & “strengthen and restore individual rights that are essential to a free and flourishing society.”
Jump to:
Supreme Court Appearances | First Amendment History | Equal Protection History | Competitive Federalism History
In April 1989, the Center for Individual Rights began with an innovative mission: to change the way public interest litigators defend individual rights and enforce constitutional limits on government. At that time, conservative groups largely avoided filing original cases, focusing instead on filing friend-of-the-court briefs in existing cases. CIR changed that, and others eventually followed suit.
CIR drove constitutional change through client-focused, high-impact, direct representation cases. Original litigation demands substantial resources and years of persistence through lengthy appeals. Success meant pursuing a small number of carefully selected cases—often enduring losses in lower courts before ultimately winning on appeal. But CIR’s gamble paid off with tremendous dividends for liberty.
Over the years, CIR identified three priority issues. These support individual rights that are essential to a free and flourishing society–and that are both under particular threat by government and in which CIR could make a large impact:
- Equal Protection of the Law: Ending unconstitutional government-imposed racial, ethnic, and gender preferences.
- Free Speech: Defending the free speech and association rights of all Americans.
- Competitive Federalism: Restoring the original federalist design for government so that neither the federal government nor the states exceed their authorized powers at the expense of individual freedom.
Novel Strategies Yield Results
CIR’s biggest accomplishments often stem from our riskiest efforts. We were the first to defeat racial preferences in college admissions—a goal dismissed as unrealistic until CIR secured a victorious federal appeals court ruling in Hopwood v. University of Texas (1996). We subsequently appeared in three cases in the Supreme Court arguing to end pernicious racial, ethnic, and gender preferences. Gratz v. Bollinger & Grutter v. Bollinger (2003); Schutte v. BAMN (2014). Additionally, we celebrate that other organizations have now won key victories that built on CIR’s pioneering efforts.
More recently, in Ultima Services Corp. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture(2023), CIR secured a ruling that struck down one of the nation’s largest racial set-aside programs in government contracting—a victory on which we are continuing to build.
CIR has also appeared in eight consequential cases in the U.S. Supreme Court. Most of these yielded landmark rulings that continue to reverberate in unexpected ways.
- Our first free speech and religious liberty win, in Rosenberger v. UVA (1995), later helped uphold school choice programs central to modern education reform.
- Our victory in U.S. v. Morrison (2000) remains the most important case limiting Congress’s authority to enact laws with flimsy connections to commerce.
Today, CIR remains committed to its original strategy of selective, bold litigation while also adapting to new opportunities and favorable judicial trends. Under new leadership since August 2023, CIR has enjoyed rapid growth and success. We’ve more than doubled our staff, caseload, and revenue, and we generated Supreme Court interest in two cases in 2025—and many others in the nation’s highest courts.
Jump to:
Supreme Court Appearances | First Amendment History | Equal Protection History | Competitive Federalism History
CIR’s Supreme Court Appearances
All of CIR’s Supreme Court appearances resulted in either an immediate win or an eventual victory in a later case for the principle CIR championed.
The vote in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association was a tie, after Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, but the Supreme Court embraced the principle CIR argued for two years later in Janus v. AFSCME (2018)
Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995)
Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board I (1997)
Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board II (2000)
United States v. Morrison (2000)
Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
Schuette v. BAMN (2014)
Friedrichs v. California Teachers Assoc. (2016)
CIR’s First Amendment History
The Center for Individual Rights takes on cases in which individuals face suppression of their beliefs or of their right to form groups and associate with like-minded citizens.
Our vision is a nation where the public and government officials value, respect, and safeguard free expression.
Major Cases:
Rosenberger v. Rector of University of Virginia (1995)
Tompkins v. Alabama State University (1999)
White v. Lee (2000)
Columbia Union College v. Oliver (2001)
Boystown v. SCSD (2002)
Sypniewski v. Warren Hills R.S.D. (2005)
McConnell v. Le Moyne College (2006)
Burke v. Doe (2014)
Friedrichs v. CTA (2016)
Davi v. Spitzberg (Ongoing)
Wang v. University of Pittsburgh (Ongoing)
Mattson v. Guyette, et al. (2023)
CIR’s Equal Protection History
CIR’s Equal Protection cases challenge government policies that sort people into preferred and disfavored groups when awarding educational opportunities, employment, public benefits, or government contracts.
And we demand that courts enforce a simple rule: government must treat every person as an individual without regard to group membership.
Major Cases:
Lamprecht v. Federal Communications Commission (1992)
Hopwood v. Texas (1996)
Prop 209/ Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson (1997)
Tompkins v. Alabama State University (1999)
Reno v. Bossier Parish (2000)
Gratz v. Bollinger & Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
Michigan Civil Rights Initiative/ Operation King’s Dream v. Ward Connerly (2006)
Rau and Katapadi v. NYC Dept. of Ed (2008)
U.S. v. New York City Board of Education (2013)
Schuette v. BAMN (2014)
Dynalantic v. DOD (2014)
Davis v. Guam (2020)
Ultima v. USDA (2023)
CIR’s Competitive Federalism History
CIR brings lawsuits to restore and maintain constitutional limits on both the national and state governments, which helps protect individual rights and keep government more transparent, responsive, and constrained.
Share