ACRU Supports Firearms Industry in Supreme Court Case Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos
The American Constitutional Rights Union filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of America’s leading firearms companies as they seek Supreme Court review of a decision by the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit allowing the Mexican government to sue them.
Written Testimony submitted to the Ohio State Legislature
Written Testimony submitted to the Ohio State Legislature Senate General Government Committee Senate Bill 137 Public Hearing December 12, 2023 Lori Roman, Chairman and CEO, American Constitutional Rights Union Action Fund Thank you for the [...]
Written Testimony submitted to the Georgia Senate Ethics Committee
Written Testimony submitted to the Georgia Senate Ethics Committee Senate Bill 355 Public Hearing January 23, 2024 Lori Roman, Chairman and CEO, American Constitutional Rights Union Action Fund Thank you for the opportunity to provide [...]
Written Testimony submitted to the Wisconsin State Legislature Senate Committee on Elections
Written Testimony submitted to the Wisconsin State Legislature Senate Committee on Elections Senate Bill 528 Public Hearing December 12, 2023 Lori Roman, Chairman and CEO, American Constitutional Rights Union Action Fund Thank you for the [...]
ACRU Files Amicus Brief Opposing Prior Restraints on Speech
In an amicus curiae brief, joined by the Alabama Center for Law and Liberty, the ACRU supported the Petitioners in Center for Medical Progress v. National Abortion Federation in their effort to obtain certiorari review in the United States Supreme Court. The district court imposed an injunction that prohibited Petitioners from distributing materials gathered at meetings of the National Abortion Federation. The Petitioners complained that the injunction amounted to an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech.
ACRU Supports Free Exercise Rights in Supreme Court
In Groff v. DeJoy, the United States Supreme Court corrected a misreading of Title VII’s religious protections that had limited the rights of religious workers for years. In 1977, the Court considered the provisions of Title VII that require employers to accommodate the religious practices of their employees unless doing so would impose an “undue hardship on the employer’s business.” It said that undue hardship meant any effort or cost that was “more than ... de minimis.”
