The Claremont Institute formed the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, a public interest law firm, in 1999 in order to further its mission through strategic litigation. Since its founding, the Center has participated in more than three dozen cases before the Supreme Court of the United States, including such landmark cases as Boy Scouts v. Dale, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (the Ohio school vouchers case), Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (the Pledge of Allegiance case), Kelo v. New London, Connecticut (the property takings case), and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (terrorism case), urging the Court to restore the constitutional principles adopted by our nation's Founders. The Center also litigates on behalf of clients in a wide range of constitutional issues, and sponsors a student "Liberty Clinic" at Chapman University School of Law.
The founding Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence is Dr. John C. Eastman, professor of constitutional law and, since June 2007, Dean at the Chapman University School of Law. A former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, he has a J.D. from the University of Chicago and a Ph.D. in government and political philosophy from the Claremont Graduate School. He was previously affiliated with the Claremont Institute as a research associate beginning in 1983 and a Publius fellow in 1984.
Since 2008, the Center has been headed by Anthony T. "Tom" Caso, a Visiting Professor at Chapman and long-time public interest attorney and Vice-President of the Pacific Legal Foundation. David Llewellyn, former Dean of Trinity Law School and founder of the Western Center for Law and Religious Freedom, serves as litigation director. Assistant Director Karen Lugo supervises the students working in the constitutional litigation clinic that the Center sponsors at Chapman. The entire team works with a prestigious Board of Advisors, chaired by former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, to develop the Center's litigation strategy.
Archived events available here.
Recent Items
-
CCJ Files Brief in U.S. Supreme Court on National Security
Dr. John C. Eastman, Karen Lugo, and advisory board member John Yoo, representing the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, have filed an amicus brief in the case of Eric Holder et. al. v. Humanitarian Law Project et. al. arguing that the prevention of all aid, support, and assistance to terrorist groups by the federal government is both justified and constitutional, HERE.
-
Supreme Court Upholds Argument of CCJ Brief
This week a unanimous United States Supreme Court agreed with an amicus brief filed by the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence (CCJ) on the continued importance of federalism. The Supreme Court ruled that a 1993 Congressional resolution did not strip the State of Hawaii of its sovereign authority over lands granted to the state in the 1893 Act of Admission.
-
CCJ Files Brief in U.S. Supreme Court on Merit-Based Hiring
The Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, has just filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court to uphold merit-based hiring and promotion policies in government jobs. -
Eastman Files Reply Brief on California Tax Hike
Dr. John C. Eastman and Anthony Caso, representing the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, filed a lawsuit against the State of California for unconstitutional raising of taxes in violation of the California Constitution. -
Eastman Files Amicus Brief on Prop 8
Dr. John C. Eastman, on behalf of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, today filed an amicus brief relating to Proposition 8, an amendment to the California state constitution passed by the voters of California which defines marriage as between one man and one woman. In response to Attorney General Jerry Brown's recent declaration that he believes Prop 8 to be invalid, this amicus brief points to the constitutional obligation of the courts to treat it as a binding amendment to the California Constitution. Eastman is joined by CCJ affiliated attorneys David Llewellyn, Tom Caso, and Karen Lugo. The text of the brief is found HERE. -
Eastman on Supreme Court Partial Birth Abortion Decision
John C. Eastman summarizes the impact of the Supreme Court's decision on April 18, 2007 upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act enacted by Congress in 2003. -
Eastman & Meese Team with Hadley Arkes on Partial Birth Abortion Brief
CCJ Director John Eastman and CCJ Board of Advisor Chairman Edwin Meese III teamed up with Professor Hadley Arkes to file an important amicus curiae brief in the partial birth abortion case, currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Filed on Thursday, Aug. 3, the brief challenges the notion that the Supreme Court has the authority to create new substantive rights and then claim a monopoly on the inherently legislative power of defining the scope of the right and balancing it against other rights of at least equal importance, such as the right to life recognized as "unalienable" in the Declaration of Independence. -
Eastman Testifies Before House Intelligence Committee
Dr. John Eastman, Director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, testified before the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that the media is not exempt from provisions of the Espionage Act prohibiting the publication of classified information regarding U.S. intelligence capabilities. -
Eminent Domain Abuse in Long Beach, CA
The Long Beach Redevelopment Agency tried to condemn a local church in order to make way for more condos. Our Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence represented the Church and successfully blocked the condemnation. -
Fox News - Hannity & Colmes
Fox News' Hannity & Colmes featured our Long Beach, CA eminent domain abuse case. -
Toward a More Perfect Definition of 'Citizen'
John Eastman's testimony on birthright citizenship last fall before the House Judiciary Committee's Immigration Subcommittee, and the resulting legislative proposals, are featured in an article in Congressional Quarterly. -
Eating Up the Bread of Our Children
Dr. John Eastman attributes the current corruption scandals in Congress to unconstitutional spending, and the failure of the Courts to enforce the Constitution's requirement that spending be for the "general," national welfare and not for local or regional benefit. -
Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
-
Not All Law Is Politics in Robes
Professor Jonathan Adler, a member of the Advisory Board for our Center for Constitional Jurisprudence, reminds us in the pages of the Wall Street Journal that judges are not supposed to be politicians. -
Support the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
-
In-State Tuition for Illegal Immigrants
-
Eastman and Yoo on Rehnquist Court Legacy
CCJ Director John Eastman and CCJ Board of Advisor member John Yoo will participate in a panel discussion of the legacy of the Rehnquist Court in Sacramento, California at Noon, December 9, 2005. The event is sponsored by the Sacramento Lawyers' Chapter of the Federalist Society. -
CCJ to Argue in LA County Seal Hearing
John Eastman, Director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, will appear in court to argue against the change to the Los Angeles County seal. -
Institute Appeals to U.S. Supreme Court in Nevada Taxpayer Case
John Eastman, director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, joined by former Attorney General Edwin Meese and co-counsel Erik Jaffe and Jeff Dickerson, filed a reply brief in support of their petition for writ of certiorari, asking the Supreme Court to review the unconstitutional actions taken by the Nevada Legislature in July 2003 passing tax bills without the 2/3 vote required by the Nevada Constitution. -
Claremont Institute Challenges Removal of the Cross from Los Angeles County Seal
John C. Eastman, director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, filed a civil complaint in the Los Angeles Superior Court on Wednesday challenging the removal of the cross from the Los Angeles County Seal. Download the text of the complaint. (Requires Adobe Acrobat.) -
The Texas "Cave Bugs" Case
The Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence urged the United States Supreme Court to review an important constitutional challenge to the recent expansion of the federal Endangered Species Act. At issue: a handful of microscopic cave bugs in Texas. -
The American-Citizen-as-Enemy-Combatant Case
The Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed a brief with the United States Supreme Court arguing that Congress need not extend citizenship to terrorists because they happened to be born on U.S. soil. -
Wrong Question in Hamdi
Whatever the Supreme Court does with the case of Yaser E. Hamdi, it should at least make clear that Congress need not extend citizenship to terrorists because they happened to be born on U.S. soil, writes John C. Eastman. -
Eastman Files Amicus Brief in the Pledge Case
The Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed a new amicus brief before the United States Supreme Court on December 19, 2003, arguing that public acknowledgement of God was viewed by the founders as an essential component of the civic virtue necessary to sustain free government. -
The Toad Case
The Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence is taking on over-reaching federal jurisdiction with the Endangered Species Act. Center Director John Eastman and former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese just filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court in the case of Rancho Viejo v. Norton. -
The Michigan "Diversity" Case
Read the Claremont Institute's briefs in the Grutter v. Bollinger case, which the U.S. Supreme Court decided on Monday. -
The New Glass Ceiling
With impeccable credentials and widespread praise of a stellar judicial temperament by litigators of every political stripe, Carolyn Kuhl epitomizes the "mainstream" of appropriate judicial conduct. So, asks John Eastman, why can't she get confirmed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals? -
Judicial Nominations, Filibusters, and the Constitution: When a Majority is Denied its Right to Consent
Read John Eastman's testimony to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution on the constitutional questions raised by the Senate's 60-vote cloture requirement. -
Justice Delayed
The filibuster being waged by Senate Democrats against Miguel Estrada has now lasted longer than the war in Iraq, writes John Eastman. -
"In the President Alone"
In a Wall Street Journal article first published last fall, John Eastman offered a legislative proposal to end the confirmation stalemate. -
Eastman on Patronizing Diversity
The Supreme Court will have to address whether "diversity" is a compelling enough reason for discrimination. -
Justice at Christmas
Is the waiving of fines for environmental violations too much to ask of the federal government this Christmas? Better yet, we should expect the fulfillment of constitutional duty year round, writes John Eastman. -
Reaping the Whirlwind
Adjunct fellow Robert Alt writes on the after effects of the New Jersey Supreme Court decision in replacing Senator Torricelli. -
Eastman and the Orange County Campaign Finance Laws
John Eastman, director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence has filed another suit challenging the remaining ordinances that restrict contributions to independent expenditure committees. -
The Senate Is Supposed to Advise And Consent, Not Obstruct and Delay
John Eastman and Timothy Sandefur analyze the constitutional role of the Senate in judicial appointments. -
Irvine Campaign Finance Restriction Unconstitutional
A Federal Court has ruled that a portion of Irvine, California's campaign finance law was unconstitutional in limiting contributions to political committees that make independent expenditures in Irvine municipal elections. -
The Principled Vice President Cheney
It is critical that the executive branch be able to perform its constitutional duties without obstructive interference from another branch — or from unelected offices — in its deliberation, writes John Eastman. -
Judge Shopping by . . . Judges?
John C. Eastman reviews the procedural irregularities by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals's in the Michigan Law School affirmative action case, a case very likely to be headed to the Supreme Court next fall. -
The Vanishing Right to Property
The recent Supreme Court ruling in favor of a "temporary" ban on development in the Lake Tahoe basin deprives property owners of their fundamental rights, writes John Eastman. -
The Federalism Issue Underlying The Vouchers Case
John C. Eastman discusses how opponents of vouchers cannot rest their case so easily on the First Amendment. -
Moral Equivalency in International Law
John C. Eastman addresses arguments for granting the Guantanamo Bay prisoners POW status under the Geneva Convention. -
Saving the Legal Services Corporation From Itself
-
The Forgotten, Newest Amendment
John C. Eastman writes on intended limits on Congress's power to spend tax revenues. -
To Defend America
As the United States prepares to defend itself, we must be reminded exactly what it is that we are defending. John C. Eastman writes on critical difference between vengeance and justice. -
Deadly Sucker Fish
The "endangered" sucker fish — as worthy of protection as the bald eagle — has brought about fatal errors at the hands of federal regulation. John C. Eastman writes on the over-extensive reach of federal power. -
Morality Without God?
The Founders were well aware of the moral conditions of freedom, and that sustaining those conditions were only possible through moral education. John C. Eastman explains the effects of recent decisions by the Ohio State Supreme Court. -
Bad News for Good News Clubs?
With the modern understanding of the Establishment Clause, the courts have erased the distinction between all possible high school clubs, thereby doing away with the kind of moral education necessary for self-government, writes John Eastman. -
Balancing the Ninth
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is dominated by Democrat appointments, yet President Bush's efforts to bring some balance have been thwarted by Senators claiming the right to essentially blackball any nominee from their home states, writes John Eastman. -
Out From The Shadows
President Bush has rightfully ended the preferred status of the American Bar Association in nominating judges, placing the decisions back in the hands of the Senate where it belongs, writes John Eastman. -
With God, All Things Are Possible - At Least In Ohio
The ACLU has once again attempted to reject the necessary theological basis for political life in America. John Eastman writes on the recent court decision on Ohio's state motto. -
The "Undercount" Fallacy
The Founders intended the greatest legislative force to be Congress, not the Courts, writes John Eastman. Letting the courts determine the outcome of a presidential election on the basis of "undercounts" is more characteristic of an oligarchy, not a constitutional republic. -
Deciding Not to Decide
In a republic, the decision making responsibility lies with the legislature, not the courts. John Eastman writes on the interpreting role for Florida's supreme court. -
California Supreme Court Upholds Extensive Reach of Proposition 209
If rights are based on one's race instead of one's individuality, then equal protection under the law is destroyed. Senior fellow Edward J. Erler writes on the California Supreme Court's decision to strike down a recent ordinance that would have done just that. -
Saving the Legal Services Corporation From Itself
Once designed to give legal help to those who could not afford their own, the LSC is now a political forum for changes in law and policy, explains Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence John Eastman. -
Hand-to-Hand Combat
We can and will survive Florida. We might not survive a 50-state Florida fiasco, yet that is just what we will likely get if we abolish the Electoral College, writes John C. Eastman. -
You Can't Put Dollar Limits on Free Speech
America's Founders wanted debates about candidates and issues to be free at election time, keeping government in its role as a servant of the people. John C. Eastman writes how campaign reform alters the First Amendment and what that means for deliberative democracy. -
Frenzied Spending and the "General Welfare"
Like many things, the restriction of federal spending to "the general welfare" is not just a constitutional rule; it also makes good policy sense. John C. Eastman writes on the commonly mis-applied spending clause. -
Is the EPA "The Very Definition of Tyranny"?
The United States Supreme Court begins its new term with a docket filled with crucial cases. John C. Eastman writes on the dangerous tradition of rejecting the Constitution's checks and balances for the sake of government without limits. -
Beware Migratory Birds
Does the Commerce Clause allow the Federal Government to regulate wholly intrastate waters, simply because they serve as a habitat for migratory birds? John Eastman tackles the question. -
Thoughts On Liberty On The Fourth of July
John Eastman reflects on the Boy Scout case and homosexual marriage in Vermont. -
First Amendment Doesn't Protect Virtual Kiddie Porn
Legitimate speech is not threatened by governmental restrictions on child pornography, writes John C. Eastman. -
The 20th Century's Twin Relics of Barbarism
It was said in the 19th Century that slavery and polygamy were the twin relics of barbarism. John Eastman explains today's twin relics. -
Boy Scouts' Victory Is A Victory For Freedom
The Founders viewed a virtuous citizenry as an essential pre-condition of republican self-government, writes John Eastman. -
The Constitution Still Limits Congress
The decision rendered by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Morrison was a verdict that shows how the Constitution limits the federal government's power over the States. -
Sending Boy Back To Cuba Means A Return To Slavery
We as a free people not only have no duty to return Elian to Cuba, we have a legal and moral obligation not to return him, writes John Eastman. -
Politics and Virtue
Government-imposed orthodoxy infringes liberty and undermines the consent that gives legitimacy to government, argues John Eastman. -
Fair Interpretation
John C. Eastman discusses the establishment clause and the founders' original intent. -
A School Board's Dilemma
Our public schools are not supposed to be forums for alternative lifestyles, nor incubators of moral relativism, writes John Eastman. -
Avoiding a Supreme Court Crisis
If the rumors swirling around Washington are true, U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is seriously considering retirement. It is doubtful if Stevens' announcement could come at a worse time. -
Is It Still the Economy, Stupid?
-
Eastman and the Battle Over the Establishment Clause
John C. Eastman has filed a second brief in the ongoing legal battle of tax exemption for churches. -
Chapman University Receives Full Accreditation from ABA
-
Before the Federal Election Commission
-
Eastman Testifies Before the House Judiciary Committee
Dr. John Eastman, Director of The Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, recently testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution. -
The Limited Nature of the Senate's Advice and Consent Role
-
Coordinated and Independent Expenditures
-
The L.A. County Seal Case
-
The Migratory Bird Case
-
Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence Archive
-
Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence Archived Events
-
Major Briefs Filed by the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
-
Butler v. Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission
-
CBS Channel 2 - March 12, 2006
CBS Channel 2 in Los Angeles aired a segment on our Long Beach eminent domain abuse case. -
Affirmative Action and the Federal Government
-
Coffin Makers Case
The 6th Circuit Court of appeals has upheld the district court opinion in Craigmiles v. Giles. -
Institute Brief on Affirmative Action at University of Michigan
John Eastman, Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence has filed a brief in the case of Grutter v. Bollinger. -
The 27th Amendment Case
-
The Boy Scouts Case
-
The School Voucher Case
