Amicus Briefs

The ACLU Foundation of Northern California routinely files amicus briefs in state and federal cases, providing legal arguments that help expand and protect the rights of Californians. Amicus briefs, or "friend of the court" briefs, are filed by non-parties to offer legal arguments and expertise to assist the court in its decision-making.

Guillermo Mata v. Digital Recognition Network, Amicus Brief Filed in the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District: Our amicus brief explains why the surveillance of a person – here through the collection of precise driver locations by automated license plate readers – should be considered a harm for purposes of statutory standing under a California privacy law. Our brief argues that the superior court’s narrow interpretation of harm is inconsistent with well-understood notions of privacy harm, inconsistent with how courts treat privacy harm under the state constitutional right to privacy at Article I, Section 1, and inconsistent with how other parts of the California code discuss harm. (Case No. D084781, Date Filed: Sept. 25, 2025)
Independent Office of Law Enforcement Review and Outreach v. Sonoma County Sheriff's Office, et al., Amicus Brief Filed in the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District: Our amicus brief explains why the superior court erroneously refused to enforce subpoenas that the county’s Independent Office of Law Enforcement Review and Oversight served on the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office as part of an investigation into a whistleblower complaint of law enforcement misconduct. Our brief outlines the pervasive history of abuse of force and unaccountability in Sonoma County that predated IOLERO's creation of and underscores the role of meaningful civilian oversight to rein in law enforcement abuses. (Case No. A171763, Date Filed: Aug. 18, 2025)
People of the State of California v. Wayne Hsiung, Amicus Brief Filed in the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District: Our amicus brief contends that a state jury instruction that imposes criminal liability on individuals who "promote" the actions of others violates First Amendment rights because it risks punishing individuals for speech that merely expresses ideological alignment or moral support. (Case No. A169697, Date Filed: Aug. 5, 2025)
Ho Chan Kim v. Google, Inc., Amicus Brief Filed in U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Our brief explained the importance of free speech protections for anonymous online speech and encouraged the Ninth Circuit to direct district courts to apply the heightened Highfields standard to all Section 1782 attempts to unmask anonymous speakers. (Case No. 25-647, Date Filed: Jun. 18, 2025)
Evelyn Davis Alfred v. City of Vallejo, Amicus Brief Filed in U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Our amicus brief argues that the district court properly issued a narrowly tailored injunction to protect an unhoused Vallejo resident against the City’s attempts to remove her only available shelter. (Case No. 25-1658, Date Filed: May 29, 2025)
People of the State of California v. Superior Court of Orange County, Amicus Brief Filed in the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District: Our amicus brief supports a challenge to Huntington Beach’s placement of a charter amendment that would require citizens to present a voter identification to vote, focusing on the disparate burdens that voter ID laws place on marginalized communities. (Case No. G065492, Date Filed: May 13, 2025)
City of Huntington Beach v. Gavin Newsom, Amicus Brief Filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California: Our amicus brief explained why the California SAFETY Act protects students from discrimination and harassment caused by forced “outing” policies. (Case No. 8:24-cv-02017-CBM-JDE, Date Filed: May 9, 2025)
In re S.R., Amicus Brief Filed in the California Supreme Court: Our amicus brief argued that the Court should recognize that parents have a right to challenge their inclusion on California's Child Abuse Central Index (CACI) after children have been returned to the parent, based on both due process and the constitutional right to privacy. (Case No. S285759, Date Filed: Apr. 25, 2025)
R.D. v. Superior Court of Sacramento County, Amicus Letter Submitted in the California Supreme Court: Supported petition for review concerning whether and which remedies are required when a court finds a violation of the California Racial Justice Act. (Case No. S290023, Date Filed: Apr. 14, 2025)
Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Courts of California, Amicus Brief Filed in the California Supreme Court: Our amicus brief argues that Government Code section 69957.2, which prohibits electronic recording of most civil proceedings, violates the state constitution’s equal protection guarantee, because it creates an unconstitutional wealth-based classification that burdens the fundamental right to appellate review. (Case No. S288176, Date Filed: Apr. 9, 2025)
Carlos "Lina" Santiago v. Orange County Superior Court, Amicus Letter Submitted in the California Supreme Court: Supported petition for review contending that California Penal Code § 302(a), which prohibits “disturbing” and “disquieting” religious meetings, violates the First Amendment. (Case No. S289675, Date Filed: Mar. 25, 2025)
Topaz Johnson and Ian Henderson v. High Desert State Prison, Amicus Brief Filed in U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: This amicus brief explains why requiring indigent prisoners to each pay a filing fee when proceeding jointly in a single action impedes access to justice given the significant costs of incarceration and the financial burden placed on indigent prisoners by filing fees. (Case Nos. 23-15299 & 23-15396, Date Filed: Mar. 24, 2025)
Snap, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (Adrian Pina, et al.), Amicus Brief Filed in California Supreme Court: Our amicus brief argued that the Fourth District’s misinterpretation of the federal Stored Communications Act would seriously undermine privacy in digital communications by enabling the warrantless sharing of these communications. At the same time, our brief urges the high court to take the opportunity in its decision to highlight the tools and protections that are available to Californians to safeguard their fundamental right to privacy, including Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution and the California Consumer Privacy Act. (Case No. S286267, Date Filed: Feb. 28, 2025)
In re De'Jhaun Jones, Amicus Letter Submitted in the California Supreme Court: Supported petition for review concerning whether trial courts may intentionally set unaffordable money bail to achieve detention when they otherwise fail to make the findings required to order detention under Cal. Const. art. 1, sec. 12. (Case No. S288789, Date Filed: Feb. 6, 2025)
People of the State of California v. Gerald Louis Clymer, Jr., Request for Depublication Filed in the California Supreme Court: Sought depublication of appellate decision that improperly and unnecessarily limited the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act’s suppression remedy. (Case No. S288791, Date Filed: Feb. 3, 2025)

John Doe v. Merrick Garland, Amicus Brief Filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Our amicus brief supported en banc review of the panel's erroneous holding that the Eastern District of California, not the Northern District, is the proper venue for habeas petitions brought by people detained by ICE at Golden State Annex. (Case No. 23-15361, Date Filed: Dec. 20, 2024)
Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Courts of California, Amicus Letter Submitted in the California Supreme Court: Supported petition asking the Court to exercise its original jurisdiction to determine whether Government Code section 69957.2, which prohibits electronic recording of most civil proceedings, violates the state constitution. Our letter focused on how the statute violates the state equal protection guarantee because it creates an unconstitutional wealth-based classification that burdens the fundamental right to appellate review. (Case No. S288176, Date Filed: Dec. 13, 2024)
Terry D. Bemore v. Superior Court of San Diego, Amicus Brief Filed in the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District: Our amicus brief argued why, under the specific facts of this case, private counsel should be allowed to bring a habeas petition under the Racial Justice Act because the public defender is "unavailable." (Case No. D084579, Date Filed: Nov 26, 2024)
Davonyae Sellers v. Superior Court of Sacramento County, Amicus Brief Filed in the California Supreme Court: Supported petition for review contending that a de minimis or legal amount of marijuana in a car cannot supply probable cause to conduct a warrantless vehicle search after Proposition 64. Our letter also details how the appellate court decision will expand the disproportionate enforcement of cannabis laws and pretextual traffic stops on communities of color, especially Black and Latine drivers. (Case No. S287164, Date Filed: Nov. 7, 2024)
Steven Renderos v. Clearview AI, Inc, Amicus Brief Filed in the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District: Our amicus brief argued that Clearview’s invasive face surveillance practices are not First Amendment protected speech under the state anti-SLAPP law and that—if the court reaches the second step of the anti-SLAPP analysis—it should reject Clearview’s challenges to the state constitutional right to privacy and find that plaintiffs have shown a reasonable probability of success on their invasion of privacy claim. (Case No. A167179, Date Filed: Nov. 4, 2024)
In re @UCSBLIBERATEDZONE and @SAYGENOCIDEUCSB, Amicus Brief Filed in Santa Barbara Superior Court: Our amicus brief supported a motion to quash an overbroad search warrant served by the University of California Santa Barbara Police Department targeting two Instagram accounts, in which we highlighted the overbroad warrant's impact on the university community's First Amendment speech and privacy rights. (Case No. 24CR07427, Date Filed: Oct. 10, 2024)
Nelson Sequeira v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Amicus Brief Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California: Our amicus brief supported a challenge to the Department of Homeland Security’s suspicionless bulk surveillance of money transfers, arguing there is no legally protected interest in issuing overbroad subpoenas to money transfer companies. (Case No. 4:22-cv-07996, Date Filed: Sept. 30, 2024)
X Corp. v. Center for Countering Digital Hate, Inc., Amicus Brief Filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Our amicus brief argues that X (formerly Twitter) should not be able to enforce its terms of service to penalize the use of automated data collection — known as “scraping” — to inform research and public criticism of X. (Case No. 24-2643, Date Filed: Sept. 27, 2024)
U.S. v. Steven Duarte, Amicus Brief Filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Our brief argued that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to someone convicted only of nonviolent offenses, addresses the statute's overbreadth and expansive scope, as well as its disproportionate harms on people of color. (Case No. 22-50048, Date Filed: Sept. 24, 2024)
In re Ex Parte Application of Gregory Gliner, Amicus Brief Filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Our brief explained the importance of free speech protections for anonymous online speech and encouraged the Ninth Circuit to direct district courts to apply the heightened Highfields standard to all Section 1782 attempts to unmask anonymous speakers. (Case No. 24-4624, Date Filed: Sept. 13, 2024)
Sergio Serratto v. Town of Mount Pleasant, Amicus Brief Filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester: Our amicus brief supported the broad application of the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York, drawing on our history of litigating cases under California’s Voting Rights Act—the first state voting rights act in the country. (Case No. 55442/2004, Date Filed: Sept. 12, 2024)
Ethan Zuckerman v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Amicus Brief Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California: Our brief supported the plaintiff’s claim for Section 230 immunity, underscoring that a core statutory purpose of that provision was to encourage the development of technology that empowers users. The brief also lifts up a variety of examples of that technology (from ad-blockers to anti-harassment tech) that would be protected by a favorable ruling. (Case No. 3:24-cv-02596, Date Filed: Sept. 5, 2024)
J.N. v. Oregon Department of Education, Amicus Brief Filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Our amicus brief supported a challenge by disabled students to the Oregon Department of Education’s practice of subjecting students to informal discipline in the form of shortened school days as a result of disability-related behaviors. The brief focused on the importance of a heavy mootness standard where state actors make mid-litigation legislative or policy changes that do not actually remedy plaintiffs’ claims. (Case No. 24-2080, Date Filed: Aug. 27, 2024)
Snap, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Diego County, Request for Depublication Filed in the California Supreme Court: Sought depublication of an appellate decision that misinterpreted the federal Stored Communication Act and urged further percolation of the statutory interpretation issue. (Case No. S286267, Date Filed: Aug. 15, 2024)
M.A., A.D.C.C., Z.H., L.R., and Z.S. v. Regents of the University of California, Amicus Brief Filed in Alameda County Superior Court: Our amicus brief argued that UC Irvine’s practice of imposing “interim” suspensions on students who protested on campus violated the students’ due process rights. (Case No. 24CV085280, Date Filed: Aug. 15, 2024)
In re Bonny Isabel Sanchez, Amicus Letter Submitted in the California Supreme Court: Supported petition for review concerning whether trial courts may intentionally set unaffordable money bail to achieve detention when they otherwise fail to make the findings required to order detention under California Constitution article 1, section 12. (Case No. S286045, Date Filed: Aug. 13, 2024)
U.S. v. Victor Manuel Ramirez, Amicus Brief Filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Our amicus brief supported en banc rehearing on whether the Fourth Amendment permits suspicionless parole-status questioning in traffic stops. The brief specifically highlighted the disproportionate effect suspicionless parole-status questioning will have on communities of color and non-parolees who reside with or near individuals on parole. (Case No. 22-50045, Date Filed: Aug. 12, 2024)
U.S. v. Dahryl Lamont Reynolds, Amicus Brief Filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Our amicus brief argued that felony non-association conditions of supervised release are racially discriminatory and counter to the goals of rehabilitation, deterrence, and de-stigmatization. (Case No. 24-2132, Date Filed: Aug. 5, 2024)
In re Sirhan B. Sirhan, Amicus Letter Submitted in the California Supreme Court: Supported petition for review presenting whether the California Governor's right to veto grants of parole is unconstitutional as it relates to individuals who committed their life crime at age 25 or younger. Our letter argues the Governor's veto ability denies these individuals, who have been found suitable for parole, a meaningful opportunity to obtain release and is highly political. (Case No. S286234, Date Filed: Aug. 2, 2024)
Center for Investigative Reporting v. U.S. Department of Labor, Amicus Brief Filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Our amicus brief argues that demographic data reporting requirements on government contractors are critical for public accountability and essential to challenge systemic racial and gender disparities. (Case No. 24-880, Date Filed: Jul. 18, 2024)
People of the State of California v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (John Kevin Woodward), Amicus Letter Submitted in the California Supreme Court: Supported petition for review arguing that a dismissal in furtherance of justice under Penal Code section 1385 only qualifies as an "acquittal" for purposes of double jeopardy when it explicitly rests on a finding that the evidence was insufficient. (Case No. S284711, Date Filed: May 22, 2024)
R.D. v. Superior Court of Sacramento County, Amicus Letter Submitted in the California Supreme Court: Supported petition for review concerning whether and which remedies are required when a court finds a violation of the California Racial Justice Act. (Case No. S284862, Date Filed: May 8, 2024)
People of the State of California v. Nicholas Aaron Robinson, Amicus Brief Filed in the Santa Clara County Superior Court: Our amicus brief challenges San Jose Police Department's use of workplace violence restraining orders to restrict individual's First Amendment rights to speak out critically against the San Jose Police Department. (Case No. 1-22-AP-002832, Date Filed: May 8, 2024)
Civil Rights Department v. Cathy's Creations, Inc., Amicus Brief Filed in the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District: Our amicus brief explained why the defendant's refusal to provide a wedding cake based on a couple's sexual orientation violates California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, and why that refusal is not protected under the First Amendment. (Case No. F085800, Date Filed: Apr. 11, 2024)
Manohar Raju v. Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, Amicus Brief Filed in the California Supreme Court: Our amicus brief argued that taxpayers have standing under Code of Civil Procedure section 526a and the common law to sue state courts in particular, and state defendants in general. The brief specifically explored the history and purpose of taxpayer standing and described the consequences that restricting standing would have on systemic-reform litigation and government accountability. (Case No. S281001, Date Filed: Apr. 4, 2024)
City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Gloria Johnson, Amicus Brief Filed in the Supreme Court of the United States: Our amicus brief supported the petitioner’s argument that laws punishing people for sleeping in public when they have nowhere to go violate the Eighth Amendment, and focused specifically on the history of the Eighth Amendment's proportionality principle, and why that principle applies to the kind of laws challenged here. (Case No. 23-175, Date Filed: Apr. 3, 2024)
U.S. Department of State v. Sandra Muñoz, Amicus Brief Filed in the Supreme Court of the United States: Our amicus brief argues that a consular officer's refusal of a visa to a U.S. citizen's noncitizen spouse impinges upon a constitutionally protected interest of the citizen, because the petitioner has a due-process interest in the visa denial. (Case No. 23-334, Mar. 28, 2024)
Yelp Inc. v. Ken Paxton, Amicus Brief Filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Our amicus brief argues that the district court improperly abstained under the Younger doctrine from deciding Yelp's free-speech claims challenging Texas AG Paxton's enforcement action, focusing in particular on how Younger doesn't apply to bad-faith prosecutions by state officers. (Case No. 24-00581, Date Filed: Mar. 19, 2024)
People of the State of California v. Ronnie Louvier, Amicus Brief Filed in the San Francisco County Superior Court: Relying on both social-science research and evolving CA caselaw, our brief argues that (1) despite common misapprehensions, rap lyrics and videos are not literal confessions – they are constitutionally protected speech; (2) recent amendments in California law mandate that courts strive to eliminate racial bias from criminal proceedings – and also to strictly limit the use of rap evidence at trial; and (3) the admission of rap lyrics and videos at trial contravened Mr. Louvier's constitutional protections, infected the proceedings with racial bias, and caused him unfair prejudice. (Case No. CRI-02388429, Date Filed: Mar. 14, 2024)
Hugo Rolando Garcia Alvarez v. Merrick Garland, Amicus Brief Filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Our amicus brief argues that Franco protections (i.e., the right to appointed counsel for mentally incompetent non-citizens in immigration detention) apply in truncated proceedings where all an immigration judge is considering is whether a person has a “reasonable fear” of persecution or torture. (Case No. 23-00026, Date Filed: Mar. 2, 2024)
People of the State of California v. Lee Sullivan, Amicus Brief Filed in the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District: Relying on both social-science research and evolving CA caselaw, our amicus brief argued that (1) despite common misapprehensions, rap lyrics and videos are not literal confessions – they are constitutionally protected speech; (2) recent amendments in California law mandate that courts strive to eliminate racial bias from criminal proceedings – and also to strictly limit the use of rap evidence at trial; and (3) the admission of rap lyrics and videos at trial contravened Mr. Sullivan's constitutional protections, infected the proceedings with racial bias, and caused him unfair prejudice. (Case No. A163607, Date Filed: Feb. 29, 2024)
Netchoice, LLC v. Rob Bonta, Amicus Brief Filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: In a First Amendment case challenging AB 2273, California’s “Age Appropriate Design Code," our amicus brief focused on preserving strong protections for speech online while also allowing space for the government to regulate tech platforms and other companies, including for potential harms to children, the environment, and privacy interests. (Case No. 23-02969, Date Filed: Feb. 14, 2024)
People of the State of California v. Eric Wiley, Amicus Letter Submitted in the California Supreme Court: Supported petition for review concerning whether the California Supreme Court's post-Apprendi precedent allowing for factors relating to prior convictions to be decided by a judge, not a jury, should be overruled. (Case No. S283326, Date Filed: Feb. 7, 2024)
Legislature of the State of California v. Shirley N. Weber, Amicus Brief Filed in the California Supreme Court: Our amicus brief argues that the Taxpayer and Government Accountability Act unlawfully seeks to implement a constitutional revision, focusing on the major changes the Act makes to the voters' initiative power and the harms it will impose on voters who favor revenue-generating measures. (Case No. S281977, Date Filed: Feb. 1, 2024)
Aurora Regino v. Kelly Staley, Amicus Brief Filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Our amicus brief explains why the Chico School District’s policy directing staff not to disclose a student's transgender or gender non-confirming status to others, including their parents or guardians, complies with the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It also argues that, even strict scrutiny applies, the policy nonetheless is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling purpose to establish a safe and supportive school environment and protect student well-being and privacy. (Case No. 23-16031, Date Filed: Jan. 9, 2024)

Mark Bixby v. Robin Estanislau, Amicus Brief Filed in Orange County Superior Court: Our brief opposes Huntington Beach’s placement of a charter amendment on the March 2024 ballot that would require citizens to present a voter identification to vote. The amicus brief focuses on the disparate burdens that voter ID laws place on Latine and Black voters, young voters, voters with disabilities, and low-income voters; on the burdens the dropbox monitoring and voting location provisions will likely place on voters; and on the absence of a compelling government interest to impose these burdens. (Case No. 30-2023-01366664-CU-WM-NJC, Date Filed: Dec. 22, 2023)
John Doe v. Merrick Garland, Amicus Brief Filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Our brief argues that the ICE Field Office Director is the proper respondent and that venue is proper in the Northern District of California for habeas petitions brought by people detained by ICE at Golden State Annex, a private facility owned and operated by the GEO group. (Case No. 23-15361, Date Filed: Dec. 21, 2023)
Brayden Stark v. Patreon, Inc., Amicus Brief Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California: Our brief explains why the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”) advances important First Amendment interests by protecting people’s ability to watch videos without being monitored by companies or the government. Our brief further argues that the VPPA is not constitutionally overbroad because the vast majority of applications are permissible limits on Patreon’s commercial speech. (Case No. 3:22-cv-03131, Date Filed: Dec. 20, 2023)
Mae M. v. Joseph Komrosky, Amicus Brief Filed in Riverside County Superior Court: Our brief supports a student’s challenge to Temecula Valley Unified School District’s policy requiring school staff to out transgender and non-binary students to their parents without student consent. (Case No. CVSW2306224, Date Filed: Dec. 15, 2023)
In the Matter of the Appeal of The GEO Group, Inc., Amicus Brief Filed in the California Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Board: The short brief explains why detained immigrants who work in federal immigration detention centers in California are not subject to the restrictive provisions of California Labor Code § 6304.4, as they are not state prisoners. (Inspection No. 1609228, Date Filed: Dec. 14, 2023)
Claude Stephen Bent v. Merrick Garland, Amicus Brief Filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Our brief argues that a conviction vacated under California Penal Code § 1473.7 cannot form the basis of federal immigration proceedings. (Case No. 22-112, Date Filed: Dec. 5, 2023, Brief Filed Under Seal)
L.B. v. U.S., Amicus Brief Filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Our brief illustrated the longstanding patterns of law enforcement abuse of Indigenous women on Indian reservations and argues that Bureau of Indian Affairs Officer, Dana Bullcoming, acted “within the scope of his employment” when he abused his law enforcement authority as an on-duty officer to sexually assault an Indigenous woman. (Case No. 23-35538, Date Filed: Nov. 27, 2023)
X Corp. v. Center for Countering Digital Hate, Inc., Amicus Brief Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California: Our brief argues that X (formerly known as Twitter) should not be able to enforce its terms of service to penalize the use of automated data collection — known as scraping — to inform research and public criticism of X. (Case No. 3:23-cv-03836, Date Filed: Nov. 24, 2023)
Elizabeth Peterson v. Oracle America, Inc., Amicus Brief Filed in the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District: Our brief explains how claims challenging salary-setting practices under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) and wage disparities under the California Equal Pay Act (“EPA”) are fundamentally well-suited for class treatment because both address group-based discrimination. (Case No. A165726, Date Filed: Nov. 16, 2023)
Legislature of the State of California v. Shirley N. Weber, Amicus Letter Filed in the California Supreme Court: Our amicus letter urges the California Supreme Court to exercise its original jurisdiction and review the petition on an expedited basis to ensure that the questions raised about the constitutionality of the Taxpayer and Government Accountability Act are resolved far before the November 2024 election. (Case No. S281977, Date Filed: Nov. 13, 2023)
Orlando Garcia v. Gateway Hotel L.P., Amicus Brief Filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Our amicus brief argues that expanding the circumstances under which Defendants are entitled to fees under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) would defeat its remedial purpose. We further argue Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1)’s discretionary standard should not apply to ADA suits. (Case No. 21-55926, Date Filed: Nov. 9, 2023)
In re Gerald Kowalczyk, Amicus Brief Filed in the California Supreme Court: Our amicus brief argued that the Court should join all the other courts that have considered this question and hold that courts may not set unaffordable money bail in order to detain those who have the right to release on bail under Article I, Section 12 of the California Constitution. (Case No. S277910, Date Filed: Nov. 8, 2023)
Simulated Casino-style Games Litigation: Jennifer Andrews v. Google, Frank Custodero v. Apple, and Kathleen Wilkinson v. Facebook, Amicus Briefs Filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Our amicus briefs argue that the district court erred in holding that platform “sharing of [big] data” with app developers is properly treated as a “classic editorial role”—and thus immunized by Section 230 of the Communications Act—when users did not share that data voluntarily, much less for the purpose of publication. (Case Nos. 22-16921, 22-16923, 22-16914, 22-16916, 22-16888 & 22-16889, Date Filed: Nov. 1, 2023)
Sacramento Homeless Union v. City of Sacramento, Amicus Brief Filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Our amicus brief argued that the Ninth Circuit should affirm the lower court’s decision enjoining the City of Sacramento from clearing encampments during periods of extreme heat because such actions violated the due process rights of the unhoused. (Case No. 23-16123, Date Filed: Oct. 23, 2023)
Isaac Gabriel Gonzales v. Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Amicus Brief Filed in the Appellate Division of the Santa Clara Superior Court: Our brief is in support of Mr. Gonzales’ request for discovery under the Racial Justice Act (“RJA”). Our brief argues that the court established an excessively high bar for access to discovery pursuant to the RJA. (Case No. C2215191, Date Filed: Oct. 10, 2023)
In re Cedric Green, Amicus Letter Filed in the California Supreme Court: Our letter is in support of an Order to Show Cause in this case, which concerns whether California’s standard for release on parole is unconstitutionally vague. (Case No. S279269, Date Filed: Oct. 6, 2023)
People of the State of California v. Chino Valley Unified School District, Amicus Brief Filed in San Bernardino County Superior Court: Our brief is in support of the Attorney General’s motion for a preliminary injunction that challenges Chino Valley Unified School District’s (“CVUSD”) forced outing policy, which requires school staff to notify a student’s parents/guardians within 3 days if “it becomes known” that the student has asked to be treated as trans or non-binary. Our brief explains how CVUSD’s policy violates California anti-discrimination and privacy laws. (Case No. CIV SB 2317301, Date Filed: Oct. 5, 2023)
Hey, Inc. v. Twitter, Inc., Amicus Brief Filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Our amicus brief discusses the importance of free speech protections for anonymous online speech and argues that the lower court should apply the rigorous “Highfields” test when a party seeks to unmask an anonymous online speaker. (Case No. 23-15911, Date Filed: Sept. 27, 2023)
People of the State of California v. Tony Hardin, Amicus Brief Filed in the California Supreme Court: Our amicus brief argues that in analyzing Hardin’s equal protection claim, the Court should apply strict scrutiny (the most exacting, least deferential standard) because Penal Code § 3051(h) is a classification on the basis of race. In a U.S. Supreme Court decision called Arlington Heights, the Court held that a litigation can demonstrate that a facially neutral classification is in fact race-based through the use of circumstantial evidence. We argue that, under Arlington Heights, several factors point to an underlying, invidious intent. (Case No. S277487, Date Filed: Aug. 31, 2023)
U.S. v. Christian Alejandro Estrella, Amicus Brief Filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Our amicus brief is in support of the federal defender’s petition for a rehearing in this case, which involves the rights of people on parole. The brief argues that lowering the standard for parole searches will dramatically expand the circumstances under which police are permitted to conduct suspicionless, warrantless searches. (Case No. 22-10027, Date Filed: Aug. 23, 2023)
Cayla J. v. State of California, Amicus Brief Filed in Alameda County Superior Court: Our amicus brief urges the court to grant a protective order that would prevent the California Department of Education from invoking a contract provision against Dr. Thomas Dee, a Stanford Professor, in order to prevent him from testifying as an expert witness in that case. We argue that the enforcement of this provision violates the First Amendment. (Case No. RG20084386, Date Filed: Jul. 27, 2023)
People of the State of California v. Bruce Peterson, Amicus Brief Filed in the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District: Our amicus brief urges the Court to interpret the “credible threat” element of California’s stalking statute to cover only “true threat.” This guards against the government punishing someone for their constitutionally protected speech. (Case Nos. A163458, A163800, Date Filed: Jul. 26, 2023)
Taylor Anders v. California State University Fresno, Amicus Brief Filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Our amicus brief argues that the district court’s holding that the plaintiffs from the Fresno State lacrosse team were not adequate representatives of the putative class of women athletes that spanned across different sport teams, runs contrary to decades of case law, congressional intent, and federal agency guidance. (Case No. 23-15265, Date Filed: Jul. 17, 2023)
Friends of Oceano Dunes v. California Coastal Commission, Request for Depublication Filed in the California Supreme Court: Our amicus brief argues that, in evaluating a motion to intervene by a third party, Callahan did not reduce the “identical interests” inquiry to a question about whether a prospective intervenor and a party seek the same general “outcome.” We argue that, instead, Callahan stands for the principle that a party and potential intervenor have “identical interests” when they desire the same litigation outcome. (Case No. S280617, Date Filed: Jun. 30, 2023)
Samantha Liapes v. Facebook, Inc., Amicus Brief Filed in the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District: Our brief argues that complaints that allege that Facebook’s ad targeting tools are discriminatory should not be afforded immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. (Case No. A164880, Date Filed: Jun. 29, 2023)
People of the State of California v. Daniel Meza, Amicus Letter Filed in the California Supreme Court: Our letter is in support of a petition for review in a case challenging the use of a geofence warrant in Los Angeles. The petition seeks review of a Second District Court of Appeals decision that misinterpreted the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act (“CalECPA”), which ACLU NorCal led the coalition effort to pass in 2015. Our letter argues that, in the underlying case, CalECPA was violated in two ways. First, because the violations of the Fourth Amendment also constitute a violations of CalECPA. And second, because CalECPA requires that warrants be particularized with respect to the “target individuals or accounts.” The breadth of this warrant was inadequately particularized according to that standard. (Case No. S280089, Date Filed: Jun. 1, 2023)
Twitter, Inc. v. Merrick Garland, Amicus Brief Filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Our amicus brief argues that in barring Twitter from engaging in speech before that speech occurred, the government imposed a quintessential prior restraint that infringes on First Amendment rights. The brief further argues that the lower court’s decision expands officials’ power to gag anyone who interacts with a government agency and wishes to speak publicly about that interaction. (Case No. 20-16174, Date Filed: Apr. 28, 2023)
In re N.R., Amicus Brief Filed in the California Supreme Court: Our amicus brief urges the Court to (1) overturn the presumption of harm set forth in In re Christopher R. and In re Drake M. and require a determination that the specific parent’s drug abuse puts the specific child in substantial risk of specific harm in order to remove that child; (2) require courts to utilize the definition of substance “abuse” set forth in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (“DSM”) in determining whether a specific parent’s drug use puts the child in substantial risk of specific harm; and (3) require courts to weigh the harm to a child of separation against the risk of harm of remaining with their parent to determine whether removal is necessary to protect the child. (Case No. S274943, Date Filed: Apr. 5, 2023)
Nelson Chavez Zepeda v. Superior Court of San Francisco, Amicus Brief Filed in the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District: Our amicus brief highlights due process issues created by using the Rules of Court to define sentencings enhancements. We argue that the Court should apply the canon of constitutional doubt to interpret the statute in a manner that avoids these issues. (Case No. A166159, Date Filed: Mar. 17, 2023)
James Lacy v. San Francisco, Amicus Brief Filed in the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District: Our amicus brief highlights the importance of expanding the franchise on noncitizen voting ordinances/policies. (Case No. A165899, Date Filed: Mar. 7, 2023)
Los Angeles Police Protective League v. Los Angeles, Amicus Brief Filed in the California Supreme Court: Our brief argues that California Penal Code § 148.6 is unconstitutionally overbroad because it chills a significant amount of protected speech. The brief explains why historically marginalized communities are particularly likely to be deterred from filing even legitimate complaints of police misconduct. Additionally, it argues that Penal Code § 148.6 is unconstitutional because it violates the right to petition the government under the California Constitution. (Case No. S275272, Date Filed: Mar. 6, 2023)
Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. Alejandro Mayorkas (Feb. 2023 Brief) (Dec. 2023 Brief), Amicus Briefs Filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Our amicus briefs addressed the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) after the Supreme Court’s decision in Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez; we argue that an injunction’s collateral effects on the covered provisions do not trigger the jurisdictional bar. (Case Nos. 22-50170 & 23-3396, Dates Filed: Feb. 28, 2023 and Dec. 12, 2023)
Disability Rights California v. Gavin Newsom, Amicus Letter Filed in the California Supreme Court: Our letter is in support of the petition for writ of mandate arguing that the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act violates due process and equal protection. Our brief focuses on the real-world harms to the law and on the importance of the California Supreme Court taking the case in this unusual posture. (Case No. S278330, Date Filed: Feb. 17, 2023)
U.S. v. Christopher Marcel Esqueda, Amicus Brief Filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Our amicus brief discusses how advances in technology have rendered law enforcement’s covert surveillance capabilities more invasive than ever before. We also discuss the First Amendment implications of permitting unchecked, surreptitious recording in private. (Case No. 22-50170, Date Filed: Feb. 14, 2023)
Mark MacDonald v. Kristina Lawson and Michael Couris v. Kristina Lawson, Amicus Brief Filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Our amicus brief urges the Court to narrowly construe Assembly Bill 2098 (“AB 2098”) so that it reaches only conduct by holding that the phrase “or advice” violates the First Amendment. We urge the court to enjoin the State from enforcing that portion of AB 2098. (Case Nos. 22-56220 & 23-55069, Date Filed: Feb. 9, 2023)
Kevin Rebong v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Amicus Letter Filed in the California Supreme Court: Our letter is in support of the petition for review in this case and argues that asking a jury to evaluate vague and abstract concepts like a person’s perceived dangerousness to society or the relative seriousness of their past convictions encourages reliance on implicit biases and exacerbates racial disparities in sentencing. That is an outcome that the vagueness doctrine was designed to avoid. (Case No. S278303, Date Filed: Feb. 6, 2023)
Andrew MacMurray v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Amicus Letter Filed in the California Supreme Court: Our letter is in support of the petition for review in this case, which raises a due process vagueness challenge to “circumstances in aggravation” under Penal Code section 1170(b). Our letter argues that asking a jury to evaluate vague and abstract concepts like a person’s perceived dangerousness to society or the relative seriousness of their past convictions encourages reliance on implicit biases and exacerbates racial disparities in sentencing. That is an outcome that the vagueness doctrine was designed to avoid. (Case No. S277823, Date Filed: Jan. 25, 2023)
Reynaldo Gonzalez v. Google, Amicus Brief Filed in the Supreme Court of the United States: Our brief argues that the allegations against Google in the case—that YouTube recommendations of “terrorist” videos resulted in terrorist attacks—are within the scope of immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Act. Our brief also discusses important areas where Section 230 immunity is limited, including when the platforms’ own conduct is at issue or where the platform is contributing to the content that is alleged to be unlawful. (Case No. 21-1333, Date Filed: Jan. 19, 2023)
Cedric Epple v. Albany Unified School District, Amicus Brief Filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Our brief urges the Court to amend its opinion to construe section 48907(a) of the California Education Code consistently with California precedent and reaffirm that the protections of section 48907(a) apply to all student speech in public schools and exceed those of the First Amendment. (Case No. 20-16541, Date Filed: Jan. 17, 2023)
People of the State of California v. Kelsey Carpenter, Amicus Brief Filed in San Diego County Superior Court: Our brief is in support of Ms. Carpenter’s Motion to Dismiss the Information and argues that California law does not permit prosecution for murder based on pregnancy outcomes or based on prenatal conduct. (Case No. SCN422556, Date Filed: Jan 13, 2023)
Letrinh Hoang v. Rob Bonta, Tracy Høeg v. Gavin Newsom, and Michael Couris v. Kristina Lawson, Amicus Briefs Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern and Southern Districts of California: Our briefs urge the Court to narrowly construe Assembly Bill 2098 (“AB 2098”) to reach no more conduct than that already regulated as “unprofessional” under existing law. Specifically, we argue that the phrase “or advice” as used in AB 2098 violates the First Amendment. We urge the court to enjoin the State from enforcing that portion of AB 2098. (Case Nos. 2:22-cv-02147, 2:22-cv-01980 & 3:22-cv-01922, Dates Filed: Jan. 10, 2023 & Jan. 20, 2023)
In re Gerald Kowalczyk, Amicus Letter Filed in the California Supreme Court: Our letter is in support of the petition for review in this case, which asks the Court to consider whether courts authorizing pretrial detention by means of setting intentionally unaffordable bail defies the limits set by Article I, Section 12 of the California Constitution. (Case No. S277910, Date Filed: Jan. 6, 2023)

Amicus Briefs

2025

2024

2023

Become a Member