"The mission of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence’s litigation program is, through strategic litigation, to restore the principles of the American founding to their rightful and preeminent authority in our national life and to educate the next generation of lawyers and opinion leaders about the importance of these principals to individual liberty."
- Dr. John C. Eastman, Founding Director
Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
The Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence (CCJ) fights for the Constitution in both the state and federal courts. In-house attorneys argue in strategically selected cases on originalist and natural law grounds.
They also submit amicus curiae briefs to the courts to bolster the arguments of other attorneys similarly working to rebuild the American Constitution.
Limited government, individual rights, and the principles of our Founding Fathers are the cornerstones of CCJ’s mission to cement the Constitution of 1787 as the ultimate authority in the American judiciary.
Currently before the Courts
Altitutde Express, Inc. v. Zarda
Whether discrimination on the basis of sex, which is banned by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, also encompasses sexual orientation.
Arlene’s Flowers v. Washington II
Whether forcing a floral designer to create works to celebrate a same-sex marriage violates the floral designer's right to free exercise of religion and freedom of speech under the First Amendment. Additionally, whether the executive branch is subject to the free exercise clause's prohibition of hostility to religion.
Bruni v. City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Whether Pittsburgh's buffer-zone ordinance violates the free speech clause.
Dignity Health v. Minton
Whether a biological female who is transgender can sue a Catholic health care provider for refusing a hysterectomy; not intended to treat a physical ailment.
Fulton v. City of Philadelphia
Whether people bringing suit arguing free exercise of religion claims can only succeed if they can prove that the government would allow the same conduct of someone with different religious views or whether courts must consider evidence that a law is not neutral. Additionally, whether the First Amendment is violated when the government conditions a religious institution's ability to participate in the foster care system on doing things that directly contradict the religious institution's beliefs.
Gleason v. Padilla
We are challenging the manner in which counties verify signatures on initiative and referendum petitions. Briefing on appeal is complete in this case, and we're waiting for an oral argument date.
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. Brown
Whether California's Senate Bill 1107, which gave California the power to adopt publically financed elections, is unconstitutional.
Klein v. Oregon
Whether compelling someone to design and create a wedding cake to celebrate a same-sex wedding violates the constitutionally protected freedom of religion and exercise of that religion.
Living Essentials, LLC v. Washington
Whether requiring corporations, but not individuals or politicians, to substantiate claims before they can make them violates the First Amendment.
Muthana v. Pompeo
Whether a United States citizen who joins a foreign terrorist organization and has their citizenship revoked as a result, in this case because Hoda Muthana joined ISIS, is entitled to return to the United States as a citizen claiming birthright citizenship.
Pasadena Republican Club v. Western Justice Center et al.
Whether barring certain groups from renting public space on account of their political and religious affiliations is unconstitutional.
Ricks v. State of Idaho Contractors Board
Whether the State of Idaho deliberately not following a prospective contractor's religious beliefs violates the First Amendment.
Trump v. Pennsylvania
Whether the Trump Administration had a legal basis for including a conscience objection to the contraceptive mandate and whether the District Court was correct in issuing a nationwide injunction.
Valent v. Saul
Whether the courts must defer to an agency's resolution of a conflict between opposing statutory provisions.