Rumsfeld v. Padilla (April 2004)

Rumsfeld v. Padilla: This brief argues that the prolonged and indefinite incommunicado detention of Jose Padilla as an enemy combatant–an American citizen arrested on American soil–was without due process of law or any of the other procedural protections guaranteed under the United States Constitution to civilian detainees. The brief argues that there is no constitutional, […]

Abu-Jamal v. Horn (July 2006)

Abu-Jamal v. Horn: This brief addresses improper statements by the prosecutor during the 1982 trial of Mumia Abu-Jamal. The brief gives special consideration to the prosecutor’s attempts to guide the jurors to distance themselves from the significance of their decision – whether or not to send a person to death. The prosecutor told the jury […]

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (October 2006)

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1: U.S. Supreme Court, No. 05-908 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1040 The case involves affirmative action programs designed to end de facto discrimination in public elementary and secondary schools. The NLG opposes efforts to misuse the 14th Amendment to prevent such programs. This […]

Hammer v. Ashcroft (November 2009)

Hammer v. Ashcroft: In support of death row inmates’ right to person-to-person meetings with reporters. This brief focuses on the fact that the current Bureau of Prison’s (BOP) proscription of in-person communication between maximum security inmates and members of the press is inappropriately based on the anticipation that the speech will be offensive to government officials […]

Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder (February 2013)

Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder The NLG brief in support of the respondents underscores the obligation of the Supreme Court not to arrogate to itself the job of the legislature, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence supporting the legitimacy of Congress’s decision to extend the constitutionally crucial role of Section 5 of the Voting […]

Blum, et al. (SHAC 7) v. Holder

Blum, et al. (SHAC 7) v. Holder Blum v. Holder is a federal lawsuit challenging the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) as an unconstitutional infringement on free speech. The plaintiffs are five longtime animal rights activists whose advocacy work has been chilled due to fear of being prosecuted as a terrorist under the AETA.

Chris Hedges, et al. v. Obama, et al.

Chris Hedges, et al. v. Obama, et al. Along with the Center for Competitive Democracy and Ralph Nader, the NLG filed this brief challenging the constitutionality of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012, part of which allows for indefinite detention by the U.S. military of individuals accused of terrorism, without due process.