Claremont, CA—Last month, the Supreme Court issued several important decisions, capping a term full of important decisions that will touch the lives of all freedom-loving Americans.
At the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, we make it our job to restore the constitutional design envisioned by our nation’s founders. This means taking the fight to the courts.
We are proud to share our successes and invite you to support us in the legal challenges to come.
Our work continues to be recognized by the Supreme Court. In the recently concluded term, our amicus (“friend of the court”) briefs were cited in two cases:
The concurring opinion by Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, in Sackett v. EPA, in which the court held, as the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence argued, that the EPA does not have jurisdiction over non-navigable waters that are not part of interstate commerce.
The dissenting opinion by Justice Thomas in Health and Hospital Corp. of Marion County v. Talevski, which cited Dr. John Eastman’s groundbreaking scholarship on the limits of the Constitution’s spending clause.
The Court provided a big win in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and the related case of Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, declaring race-based admissions in both public and private universities to be illegal. This was a major win for restoring equal protection of the laws, regardless of race.
The Court also agreed with us in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis that a state cannot compel businesses to design and publish websites that violate their convictions. This was an important win for the principle of free speech.
The Court unanimously agreed with our amicus brief in Tyler v. Hennepin County, Minnesota, in which we successfully argued that Minnesota’s policy of confiscating property for overdue taxes and then keeping the excess of the tax foreclosure sale beyond what was needed to cover the back taxes, penalties, and costs, was an unconstitutional taking of private property.
The Court not only agreed with our brief in Bohon v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission urging the Court to take the case, but summarily overturned the erroneous ruling of the lower court, accepting our argument that FERC’s requirement that challenges to its constitutional authority had to be ruled upon by FERC itself was itself unconstitutional. This is an important reassertion of the Founders’ notion of the proper separation of powers.
We successfully urged the court to accept review in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, involving a challenge to federal administrative agencies inventing fees to support regulatory programs where Congress has refused to provide an appropriation for the activity. The case will be heard next Fall. If our argument prevails this would be another blow to the out-of-control bureaucracy.
As always, we thank you for your support as we work to improve the justice system in America.