Videos

Grandmother's Arrest Sparks 1st Amendment Battle

Citizen ARRESTED for Calling Mayor "FASCIST"

No matter your viewpoint, you should get your turn to speak without ...

Shelter Wins Legal Battle, Finally Re-Opens

The Barber Shelter first opened its doors over 30 years ago, providing ...

The Barber Shelter first opened its doors over 30 years ago, providing overnight refuge to people who are temporarily homeless and have nowhere else to go. It is the only ...homeless shelter in Wilkes County and sleeps, on average, fewer than a dozen people per night.

https://ij.org/case/north-carolina-shelter-zoning/

In 2020, the Barber Shelter was looking for a new space when a local dentist generously offered his former office building as a location. The space was perfect: It was in an ideal part of town—near the services the shelter’s clients use, far from residential areas—and met each of the town’s zoning requirements. All it needed was a permit.

But the town was not interested in allowing the Barber Shelter to care for the area’s neediest. Instead, it invented bogus reasons to deny the shelter its permit, such as concerns about the shelter’s clients walking on the sidewalk near a busy road. But that is nonsensical; the town requires homeless shelters to have sidewalks and be situated near major roads.

The government’s reasoning meant that there was nowhere in town for the shelter to go. But the Constitution prohibits governments from ruling by paradox, and so the Barber Shelter teamed up with IJ to fight back. We sued the town, and, a few days before Christmas 2021, a federal court sided with IJ and the shelter, concluding that “deference cannot be an excuse for the Court to abdicate its duty to protect the constitutional rights of all people.”

Victory in hand, the Barber Shelter got to work renovating the property.

It now provides short-term housing for up to 10 men on the first floor and six women and a family on the second floor. There are kitchens, common areas, laundry facilities, and other necessities to provide comfort during a difficult time.

The opening ceremony memorialized an important principle: Government shouldn’t stand in the way of private citizens using their own property and initiative to help the least fortunate in their communities.[+] Show More

Gov't Wants Private Cameras for Public Surveillance

Learn more here: ...

Horseplay Lands Teacher in Trouble with Dept. of Ed

Freedom of speech is a cherished Constitutional protection, framed in ...

Speech About Legal Weed Is FORBIDDEN in This State

If it’s legal to sell a product, it’s also legal to talk about that ...

If it’s legal to sell a product, it’s also legal to talk about that product. But not in Mississippi—at least not if the product is medical marijuana.

https://ij.org/case/mississippi-advertising/

In 2022 Mississippi joined ...the growing number of states to legalize medical marijuana. And entrepreneur Clarence Cocroft recognized that a medical marijuana dispensary would be an excellent business opportunity. He opened Tru Source Medical Cannabis, LLC—the first state-licensed, Black-owned medical marijuana dispensary in Mississippi. The family-operated business has been successful, but an advertising ban imposed by the state Department of Health (DOH) has severely hampered it.

The Mississippi law legalizing medical marijuana lays out a scheme authorizing the cultivation, tracking, and sale of medical marijuana with a valid prescription. But the law also gives DOH discretion to regulate advertising for dispensaries, and the department has exercised that discretion aggressively: It has completely prohibited dispensaries from advertising and marketing in any media at all. Essentially, dispensaries are only permitted to have signs on their own property and maintain a basic homepage on the web, making it nearly impossible for patients to find the dispensaries best suited to their needs.

Like all entrepreneurs, Clarence wants to tell consumers about his business. He wants to be able to tell patients where it’s located, what he sells, and how much it costs. But he can’t, despite his constitutional right to do so.

The First Amendment protects the right to exchange truthful information about legal products. Medical marijuana is legal in Mississippi and the federal government has said it won’t enforce federal marijuana laws against state-legal medical-marijuana businesses. That means that no law—state or federal—justifies the state’s censorship here. Mississippians have a constitutional right to information that will inform their purchasing decisions. And the state has no interest in interfering with that right. That’s especially true here, where the state’s apparent goal is to manipulate consumers’ behavior by restricting their access to truthful information.

The advertising ban impermissibly harms Clarence’s business because it unconstitutionally restricts his speech. That’s why Clarence has teamed up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file a federal lawsuit challenging DOH’s advertising ban. Victory in this case will reaffirm that the First Amendment prevents the state from censoring people who want to speak about legal products and services and ensure entrepreneurs like Clarence can promote their legal businesses.[+] Show More

Mom of Daughter Abused at School Asks SCOTUS to Hear Case

All government employees must respect constitutional rights. School ...

NJ's Creepy Baby Blood Bank is Out of Control

Like all new mothers, New Jersey residents Hannah Lovaglio and Erica ...

Like all new mothers, New Jersey residents Hannah Lovaglio and Erica Jedynak each experienced the usual emotional whirlwind during their pregnancies. They had attended prenatal classes, meticulously planned their nurseries, ...and devoured books on parenting. They were determined to give their newborns the best possible start in life. Little did they know that a disquieting surprise awaited them after their babies were born.

https://ij.org/case/new-jersey-genetic-privacy/

Shortly after giving birth, medical staff performed a routine heel prick. Their children’s blood was collected on a card and whisked away to the New Jersey Department of Health’s Newborn Screening Laboratory to be tested for a range of disorders. New Jersey didn’t seek Hannah’s or Erica’s consent first; instead, each got a handout stating that New Jersey law mandated it. But that didn’t raise any red flags for the two: Every state conducts such testing, and they trusted the system.

But Hannah’s and Erica’s real shock came upon learning what New Jersey didn’t disclose.

Unbeknownst to parents, a portion of their baby’s blood remained unused after the screening was complete. And New Jersey had unilaterally decided that it could keep that blood for 23 years. Even worse, New Jersey believed it could use that blood however it saw fit, whether that be selling it to third parties, giving it to law enforcement, or even turning it over to the Pentagon.

Hannah and Erica were appalled. Their top priority was protecting their children’s health and safety. Realizing that they had no idea where their children’s blood might be or what it was being used for only deepened their distress.

Fueled by that concern and a shared sense of outrage, Hannah, Erica, and others have joined forces with the Institute for Justice to file a class action lawsuit, which invokes two fundamental claims under the U.S. Constitution. First, it raises a Fourth Amendment claim, arguing that the state’s retention of the children’s blood without consent was an unconstitutional seizure. And second, it raises a due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, asserting that the state’s creation of its blood database unconstitutionally infringed upon Hannah and Erica’s fundamental right to make medical decisions for their children.

What they ask for is simple: An order telling New Jersey to either obtain informed consent from parents to hold on to the remaining blood, or else return or destroy it. Their fight is part of the Institute’s Project on the Fourth Amendment, dedicated to safeguarding Americans’ foundational right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. In the eyes of Hannah and Erica, this fight is not just for their children but for all children born in New Jersey, to ensure that their future is not subject to the unknown whims of the state.[+] Show More