Amicus Briefs

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. 

In Egbert v. Boule the Court is deciding whether a Bivens action exists for First Amendment retaliation and Fourth Amendment violations committed by federal officers carrying out immigration functions.

In Fenty et al v. Penzone et al, the defendant failed to fully comply with the magistrate judge's order to deduplicate their email production. When the plaintiffs raised the issue, the magistrate ordered the defendant to perform threading of responsive emails and ordered the parties to split the $1400 cost to complete the process. The district court affirmed the magistrate's order.

Harris v. City of Newark is a New Jersey Civil Rights Act (NJCRA) case that asks whether a defendant is entitled to pursue an interlocutory appeal on a qualified immunity denial in civil rights cases brought under the NJCRA.

Dundon et al v. Kirchmeier et al is a case challenging law enforcement's violent response to the 2016 Dakota Access Pipeline protests. The brief focuses on how the use of less than lethal force against protesters can constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

NPAP members Rachel Lederman, Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, and Janine Hoft are representing plaintiffs-appellants in the case.