Protesting shouldn’t be a deportable offense. But in Trump’s America, where immigration powers are being weaponized against dissent, you can be jailed for your opinions. For example, Mahmoud Khalil was arrested by ICE for criticizing U.S. foreign policy. If the government can do this to him, they can do it to anyone, citizen or not.

More federal judges have struck down Trump’s retaliatory executive orders targeting law firms. The rulings blast the orders as unconstitutional, authoritarian overreach that threatens free speech and the separation of powers.

In a significant First Amendment showdown, the U.S. Supreme Court has deadlocked 4-4 on whether states can ban religious charter schools, leaving unresolved the tension between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The split decision upholds Oklahoma’s ruling against a Catholic virtual school but leaves the national debate far from settled.

In a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a legal doctrine that allowed police to avoid scrutiny for reckless conduct leading up to a deadly shooting. Now, courts must consider the full sequence of events, not just the final moment of perceived threat.

In the wake of a court ruling against its politically motivated detentions and deportations of student protesters, the Trump Administration has signaled it may suspend the writ of habeas corpus—a cornerstone of constitutional liberty that protects against unlawful imprisonment. 

Warning that President Trump’s executive order retaliating against law firms, suppressing opposition and chilling lawful First Amendment activity “is a step in the direction of a totalitarian form of government,” the U.S. District Court for D.C. has ruled in favor of the Perkins Coie law firm.

Warning that the U.S. government is weaponizing immigration enforcement to punish political dissent, The Rutherford Institute has joined a coalition of civil liberties organizations in challenging the arrest and detention of a Tufts PhD student over her pro-Palestinian views. Her case marks a dangerous escalation in the government's use of immigration enforcement to silence dissent.

In the wake of a disturbing incident in which masked, plainclothes federal agents detained two men at the Albemarle County Courthouse without clear identification or warrants, sparking fears of a public kidnapping, The Rutherford Institute is calling on local leaders to protect due process, preserve courthouse access, and ensure the public is informed of their rights when interacting with federal agents.

A broad coalition of legal and civil liberties organizations is once again challenging President Trump’s use of executive orders to retaliate against law firms, suppress opposition and chill lawful First Amendment activity.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could determine whether FBI agents can be held accountable for a botched SWAT raid that terrorized an innocent family in the middle of the night.

A broad-ranging coalition of legal groups across the ideological spectrum is challenging President Trump’s weaponization of executive orders to silence dissent and punish critics. Free speech, due process, and the Constitution are on the line.

If non-citizens can be deported for engaging in lawful, nonviolent political speech, who’s next? The First Amendment protects everyone in the U.S., but this case threatens to undermine that fundamental freedom. 

Should parents have the right to opt their elementary-aged children out of mandatory public school curriculum that promotes alternative ideas about gender and sexuality? The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to affirm the right of parents from various religious backgrounds to be granted a religious exemption to opt their elementary-aged children out of required readings and discussions of books involving LGBTQ sexuality and themes.

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hold a SWAT team leader accountable for raiding the wrong house, wrecking the wrong home, and terrorizing an innocent family. The Rutherford Institute is warning that the Court’s decision not to hear the appeal in Jimerson v. Lewis, coupled with President Trump’s call for a new crime bill that would further insulate police from liability, accountability and charges of official misconduct, could usher in a new era of police brutality, lawlessness and the reckless deployment of lethal force on unarmed civilians. 

The U.S. Supreme Court has essentially handed the government a free pass to violate the Constitution—without paying the price. The 7-2 decision in Lackey v. Stinnie could gut civil rights enforcement and leave victims without access to justice.

The Rutherford Institute is calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to hold Facebook accountable for conspiring with the government to censor and suppress speech.

A battle over the separation of church and state is brewing in Isabella County, Michigan, where the local sheriff's office is facing demands to remove a “Blessed are the peacekeepers for they shall be called the children of God” quote from the wall of its new jail.

Should police be made to answer for their reckless actions leading to use of deadly force against unarmed citizens? That’s what the U.S. Supreme Court must decide.

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to protect homeowners from warrantless searches by police based merely on a suspicion that a person on probation or parole resides on the premises.

In the 30 years since the Crime Bill fueled the militarization of police and the explosive growth of SWAT teams, SWAT teams continue to terrorize innocent homeowners and then receive qualified immunity from the courts.