Amicus Briefs

Case Background: A Rastfarian man incarcerated in Louisiana state prison had his dreadlocks forcibly cut by a correctional officer. He filed a suit under RLUIPA seeking monetary damages. The Fifth Circuit held that damage remedies are not available under RLUIPA and the Supreme Court granted cert on the question. I attached the cert-level briefing for additional context. 

Proposed Brief: Our brief focuses on the importance of damages in advancing the noncompensatory goals of civil rights statutes and discusses the legislative history of RLUIPA. 

Summary of the case:

This case is before the Michigan State Supreme Court. It is a technical case about when claims accrue in Michigan state court. Our brief focuses on why civil rights plaintiffs should be given time to investigate claims and file a complaint.

Sugar Law Center and Farmstand are representing the plaintiffs. 

This brief urges the Fourth Circuit to affirm the lower court's decision properly applying circuit precedent to the plaintiff's selective enforcement defense. The selective enforcement defense was appropriately supported by statistics revealing significant racial disparities in the Richmond Police Department’s (“RPD”) enforcement of traffic stops against Black drivers compared to their white counterparts. The evidence supplied by the plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated both discriminatory effect and discriminatory purpose, meeting the threshold for a selective enforcement claim.

Case Summary

The question presented is whether the Supreme Court should reject the "moment of the threat" doctrine and permit the Fifth Circuit (and other circuits that have adopted the same approach) to evaluate the totality of the circumstances when evaluating the constitutionality of an officer’s actions.

This brief is in support of the petitioner, Mr. Coffey, who is suing under the Post Conviction Relief Act to challenge his wrongful conviction that resulted from coercive investigation tactics. More on his case here. Our brief explains: (1) how coercive interrogation tactics are likely to result in wrongful convictions; and (2) Philadelphia Police Department's documented practice of using coercive investigation tactics to obtain false accusations in the '80s and '90s.

Michigan Immigrant Rights Center (MIRC) vs. Whitmer is a more technical case about when claims accrue in Michigan state court. Our brief focuses on why civil rights plaintiffs should be given time to investigate claims and file a complaint.

Gilmore v. Georgia Department of Corrections et. al. concerns a woman who was subjected to an invasive strip search when she visited her incarcerated husband in Georgia state prison. The panel found that while the search violated the woman's 4th Amendment rights, the officers were protected by qualified immunity.