Skip Navigation

Court Case

  • Arbor Hill v. Albany (Amicus Brief)

    The Brennan Center and allies filed an amicus brief emphasizing the importance of attorneys’ fee awards in enabling law firms to take civil rights cases and those cases benefiting low-income people.
  • NAMUDNO v. Holder

    NAMUDNO v. Holder involves a constitutional challenge to the Voting Rights Act, perhaps the country’s single most successful piece of civil rights legislation.
  • AAPS v. Brewer

    This case is the sixth challenge to Arizona’s optional system of full public financing for people seeking state office.
  • King v. King (Amicus Brief)

    The Brennan Center filed an amicus brief in this case is support of a right to counsel claim by an indigent parent seeking child custody.
  • Arar v. Ashcroft (Amicus Brief)

    The Brennan Center filed an amicus brief in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of a group of distinguished federal judges in support of Maher Arar, a Canadian who was subject to extraordinary rendition to Syria.
    • Court Case
    • Policy Advocacy
    • October 27, 2008
  • Capital Newspapers v. Bruno

    The Brennan Center and other good government groups submitted an amicus brief in support of an ultimately successful effort to shed light on New York legislators’ pet projects.
    • Court Case
    • Policy Advocacy
    • October 23, 2006
  • Boustani v. Blackwell (now Boustani v. LaRose)

    In 2006, the Brennan Center and co-counsel obtained a permanent injunction against the enforcement of an Ohio law that required voters challenged at the polls on the basis of citizenship to provide documentary proof of citizenship. In October 2024, Secretary of State Frank LaRose revised the form to put that requirement back into place. On October 23, 2024, the Brennan Center and co-counsel filed a motion to enforce the 2006 permanent injunction and block the revised form. Based on the Secretary’s public representation to the court that voters will only be required to produce additional documentation if they are relying on an outdated driver’s license marked “noncitizen” on the back, the court denied our motion on October 30, 2024.

    • Court Case
    • Policy Advocacy
    • October 26, 2006