The Center for Law and Freedom (CLF) is a conservative public interest law firm housed within the Civitas Institute. Founded in early 2015, we provide free legal representation to North Carolinians facing difficult legal and policy challenges as a part of the Civitas Institute’s overall charitable mission. In addition to active litigation, CLF also publishes policy pieces and speaks with student and citizen groups around the state on a variety of topics.
As CLF closes in on our first birthday, the time is ripe to review the Center’s litigation activities so far. Up to this point, our cases have varied in subject matter, but have all put a strong focus on government accountability and the rule of law. Below is info on each CLF case, where it stands today, and links to all relevant legal filings and briefs.
Vong v. Aune, No. 14-952 (United States Supreme Court)
- Filed: March 3, 2015
- Topic: Occupational Licensure
- Partner: Cato Institute
- Status: Certiorari Denied
- Documents:
- Media:
Before formally adopting the name “Center for Law and Freedom”, the Civitas Institute’s legal center filed a joint amicus brief with the Cato Institute in Vong v. Aune. The case, originally brought by the Goldwater Institute in Arizona, presented the question of whether a state actor could prohibit the use of “fish spas” under the guise of safety even though they have never once been shown to cause harm anywhere in the world.
We joined with Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute in asking the Supreme Court to address the growing circuit split regarding total economic prohibitions, as opposed to mere economic regulation. Ultimately, the Court opted not to take up the case, meaning that the Arizona Board of Cosmetology is free to prohibit the use of “fish spas” in Arizona. Despite the outcome, we hope that our legal brief will be useful as a resource in future challenges to occupational licensure abuse, whether by CLF or others.
Civitas Institute v. Alamance County Board of Elections, 15 CVS 545 (Alamance County Superior Court)
- Filed: March 25, 2015
- Topic: Public Records
- Partner: Civitas Institute
- Status: Voluntarily dismissed pursuant to agreement with defendants
- Documents:
- Media:
The first Civitas lawsuit again predated the name “Center for Law and Freedom,” and was brought on behalf of the Civitas Institute itself. At issue was whether the Alamance County Attorney and Alamance County Board of Elections were illegally obstructing the Civitas Institute’s access to public records. After filing suit, we worked out an arrangement with the defendants whereby they sent us the disputed records, and we dropped the suit.
UNC-Chapel Hill Public Records Request
- Filed: May 11, 2015 (demand letter)
- Topic: Public Records
- Partner: Civitas Institute
- Status: University fulfilled records request
- Documents:
- Media
In early February of 2015, the Civitas Institute filed a public records request with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill asking for any records related to a dinner featuring high-ranking university officials and several student groups. At issue was whether the university excluded student groups with conservative or libertarian leanings. After seeing no action taken on our request for three months, while more complicated requests filed later were being fulfilled, we threatened suit against the university, citing the requirement that public entities respond to public records request “as promptly as possible.” Upon receipt of our letter, the university fulfilled our records request. Our conclusion upon receipt of the records was that the university did exclude several non-political conservative-leaning groups from the event, but that the error was a result of the planners’ inherent bias rather than some master plan to exclude conservatives.
Deitz v. City of Belmont, 15 CVS 3203 (Gaston County Superior Court)
- Filed: August 28, 2015
- Topic: Public Records
- Status: Awaiting defendants’ answer
- Documents:
- Media:
CLF filed suit against the City of Belmont on behalf of two individuals seeking to clarify the extent to which cities can refuse to release the results of third-party investigations into employee misconduct. Siblings Dan Deitz and Ellen Deitz Tucker originally filed a public records request with the city asking to see the results of an investigation into its police department. The siblings hoped that the investigation would shed light on the death of their sister, Donna Deitz, who was an innocent bystander killed by a motorist fleeing Belmont Police Department officers in 2012.
The city claims that the investigation is a confidential personnel record, but CLF is arguing that the city forfeited the protections of the personnel statute when it spent $90,000 in taxpayer money to bring in a private company to investigate its employees. The defendants asked for 30 extra days to respond to our complaint, and we did not oppose the request. The clerk granted the request, and a response should be forthcoming very soon.
Center for Competitive Politics v. Harris, No. 15-152 (United States Supreme Court)
- Filed: August 31, 2015
- Topic: Free Speech
- Partners: Buckeye Institute, Alliance Defending Freedom, National Taxpayers Union
- Status: Awaiting decision on grant of certiorari
- Documents:
- Media:
CLF joined with several other organizations in asking the United States Supreme Court to take up this case involving the First Amendment rights of nonprofit groups and their donors. California Attorney General Kamala Harris recently announced that charities and tax-exempt organizations may not fund-raise from California residents unless they first provide the government with a list of their significant donors. The Ninth Circuit held that the practice does not violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Our brief asks the nation’s high court to grant certiorari in order to overturn that holding.
Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, No. 14-915 (United States Supreme Court)
- Filed: September 11, 2015
- Topic: Free Speech
- Partners: Beacon Center of Tennessee, Idaho Freedom Foundation, John Locke Foundation, Washington Policy Center, and more
- Status: Awaiting decision from United States Supreme Court on grant of certiorari
- Documents:
The Center for Law and Freedom joined several other state-based legal and policy organizations in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the freedom of employees to choose what political causes they support. In a joint amicus brief, the coalition asks the Court to reach the common-sense conclusion that employees cannot be forced to support a labor union with which they disagree politically or in other ways. The Court has yet to decide whether to take up the case.
Breedlove v. Warren, 15 CVS 004434 (Wake County Superior Court)
- Filed: October 12, 2015 (notice of appeal)
- Topic: Religious Liberty
- Status: En route to North Carolina Court of Appeals
- Partner: W. Ellis Boyle, Esq.
- Documents:
- Media
On April 13, 2015, Raleigh-based attorney Ellis Boyle filed suit on behalf of two magistrates in Wake County Superior Court, alleging that they were forced to resign under duress due to their religious beliefs. The trial court has dismissed the case, and CLF has joined as co-counsel to help handle the appeal. At issue is whether the plaintiffs’ religious liberties, protected under the North Carolina Constitution, were violated when the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts instructed them that they could face criminal prosecution if they failed to perform same-sex marriages. The events at issue occurred before the General Assembly enacted a law allowing magistrates to opt out of performing marriages.
Owens v. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, 15 EHR 07012 (Office of Administrative Hearings, Perquimans County)
- Filed: September 25, 2015
- Topic: Administrative Law
- Partner: Energy & Environment Legal Institute
- Status: Preparing prehearing statements
- Documents:
- Media:
CLF has filed suit in the Office of Administrative Hearings on behalf of two Perquimans County property owners who are concerned about the construction of wind turbines next to their property. At issue is whether the NC Department of Environmental Quality violated administrative law when it told Iberdrola Renewables that the company’s Desert Wind facility would not be subjected to a legislatively enacted state permitting process.
Woodard v. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, 15 CVS 013685 (Wake County Superior Court)
- Filed: October 12, 2015
- Topic: Constitutional Law
- Partner: Energy & Environment Legal Institute
- Status: Awaiting defendant’s answer and/or motion to dismiss
- Documents:
This lawsuit, brought under the North Carolina Constitution, alleges that the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality violated the doctrine of separation of powers by opting not to subject Iberdrola Renewables to the state’s permitting process for wind energy facilities. The facts are similar to those in Owens v. DEQ, but this challenge is constitutional rather than administrative in nature.
Leave a Comment