newsletter 04/23/24

Arguments, Arguments, Arguments!

Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection
GEORGETOWN LAW

It’s been a busy two months of appellate arguments for ICAP!

In the U.S. Supreme Court: 

After kicking off the fall with one of the first arguments of the 2023 term, ICAP was back in the Supreme Court yesterday—this time, defending the Ninth Circuit’s decision that the City of Grants Pass, Oregon, cannot punish homeless residents for resting or sleeping in public with a blanket when they do not have access to any shelter.  In Grants Pass v. Johnson, ICAP’s Supreme Court Director Kelsi Brown Corkran explained that the decision below does not prohibit the city from removing tent encampments, as critics have suggested.  Rather, as our brief explains, it only prevents the city from violating the constitutional rights of its homeless residents by punishing them for their existence in the community when they have nowhere else to go.  Over 1,100 amici filed 40+ briefs in support of our argument.  To learn more, check out the coverage in the Washington Postas well as the New York Times and its podcast The Daily.

Also in the Supreme Court, just weeks ago, ICAP’s faculty chair, Neal Katyal, defended the right of government officials to speak out about matters of public concern in National Rifle Association v. Vullo.  In that case, we represented New York’s former Superintendent of Financial Services, who was sued by the NRA for suggesting that banks and insurance companies should consider the reputational risk of doing business with the controversial organization. 

ICAP is also closely watching many other Supreme Court cases, including several that could have serious consequences for national security.  ICAP’s Executive Director Mary McCord wrote about some of these concerns in Just Security before the Court heard argument in Murthy v. Missouri, a case challenging the federal government’s so-called “jawboning” of private social media companies to take down disinformation and misinformation.  As Mary explained, it takes cooperation between the government and the platforms to protect against malign influences, both foreign and domestic, that seek to sow political discord and make us all less safe.  The article drew on similar concerns ICAP raised in an amicus brief filed on behalf of national security experts in the related NetChoicecases argued earlier this year, challenging laws in Texas and Florida that would limit the ability of private social media companies to engage in content moderation. That brief earned coverage by NPR.

Another case we’re following this term is Gonzalez v. Trevino, involving a 72-year-old city councilwoman in Texas who was arrested after she criticized the city manager and whose First Amendment retaliation claim was later dismissed by the Fifth Circuit. Before the Supreme Court heard argument last month, ICAP, along with the Constitutional Accountability Center, filed an amicus brief urging the Court to reverse the Fifth Circuit’s decision and allow Ms. Gonzalez’s claim to proceed.

Beyond the Supreme Court . . . 

In the Ninth Circuit, Neal argued in defense of a ban by the State of Hawai‘i on carrying firearms in certain sensitive places like bars, restaurants, parks, beaches, and banks, as well as on private property where the owner has not authorized others to carry firearms.  Representing Hawai‘i in Wolford v. Lopez has been the centerpiece of ICAP’s post-Bruen Second Amendment litigation, which also has included multipleamicusbriefs in defense of bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

And in the Seventh Circuit, ICAP’s Joe Mead argued Signet Builders v. Luna Vanegas on behalf of migrant construction workers who were not paid overtime rates required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Last year, we defeated a petition for Supreme Court review in the case, successfully defending a prior victory in the Seventh Circuit that allowed the employees’ FLSA claims to proceed. Our recent argument addressed a separate issue regarding the ability of employees outside the state of Wisconsin to join the lawsuit.)

Combating Political Violence

ICAP has been on the road providing training to local law enforcement, emergency responders, campus police, and university administrators about how to protect public safety during protests and demonstrations without trampling First Amendment rights.  With shut-downs of bridges and airports, and continued student protest activity, we’ve been in high demand for this kind of practical legal advice.  We’ve also provided similar training to organizers and activists, including those in the LGBTQ+ community, so they have a better understanding of what to do if paramilitary actors or other extremists seek to disrupt their events, including those planned for Pride Month in June.  And we’ve counseled religious leaders about the troubling rise of Christian nationalism and how to protect against it in their communities.

Explaining the Trump Trials

Finally, in this election year, which features the first-ever criminal trial of a former president, Mary continues to be busy with legal explanations and commentary on the trial and the other cases facing Donald Trump.  Her podcast, Prosecuting Donald Trump, with co-host Andrew Weissmann, just won two Webby awards! (During the trial, they’ll be podcasting twice a week, so be sure to check it out!)  Beyond the podcast, you can hear her as a guest on NPR’s 1A and Here and Now, and frequently on MSNBC and PBS. You can also read more of her analysis on Trump’s first criminal trial in New York City in the opinion pages of the New York Times. 

Keep up with ICAP on Twitter via @GeorgetownICAP; suggest what we should take on next via reachICAP@georgetown.edu, and make a gift at Donate to ICAP.

With thanks for your continued support, The ICAP Team.