Amicus Briefs

Coalition on Homelessness v. City and County of San Francisco et al challenges San Francisco's policy of towing safely parked cars solely because the owner has 5+ parking tickets. The policy disproportionately harms unhoused people who live in their vehicles. Our brief argues that allowing police to initiate these tows without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment and elevates the risk of police violence by unnecessarily increasing police contact with the public.

The majority panel’s decision enlarges the realm of police encounters where less lethal force can be applied for a long enough period to become deadly. In light of the number of deaths that result from prolonged police dog maulings, tasings, and restraint holds, immunizing these forms of force against a subdued individual could lead to more avoidable police killings in the Second Circuit. While the majority’s opinion seeks to justify its divergence from other circuits because the officers may have feared a subdued Mr.

This brief argues that the First Amendment protects the right to record the police and that such recordings are a vital tool of community oversight of police.

This brief argues that appellate jurisdiction does not extend to an appeal over the district court’s denial of qualified immunity based on factual disputes.

This brief argues that pretrial detention in the absence of probable cause is a violation of the Fourth Amendment and as such 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 provides recourse for such violation.

Thompson v. Clark asks whether an individual seized during criminal proceedings in violation of the Fourth Amendment must prove that the criminal proceedings ended in a manner indicative of their innocence before bringing a section 1983 action to redress the violation of their constitutional rights. This brief argues that criminal proceedings terminating in a manner indicating innocence is not a requirement for individuals seeking a 1983 claim.

Thompson v. Clark asks whether an individual seized during criminal proceedings in violation of the Fourth Amendment must prove that the criminal proceedings ended in a manner indicative of their innocence before bringing a section 1983 action to redress the violation of their constitutional rights. This brief argues that criminal proceedings terminating in a manner indicating innocence is not a requirement for individuals seeking a 1983 claim.

In Hernandez v. Mesa, the parents of 15-year-old Mexican national Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca sued US Border Patrol Agent Jesus Mesa, Jr. Mesa was standing on US soil and Guereca on Mexican soil when Mesa shot and killed Guereca. This brief argues that Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) provides a cause of action against immigration enforcement agents as it does for all other federal law enforcement agents.   

We filed our brief for CYAP v. Wilson in support of Carolina Youth Action Project and on behalf of thousands of of South Carolina students who have been arrested and charged for violating the state's vague statutes criminalizing typical and constitutional behavior in schools. 

NPAP's brief for Rockett v. Eighmy elucidates why Section 1983 suits are an important remedy for plaintiffs whose constitutional rights have been violated, and why it is especially important in cases where plaintiffs have suffered harms due to a judge's unconstitutional conduct.