Examples of the cases JFF has been involved in include:

District of Columbia v. Heller (USSC 2007): The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitutional guards the "right to bear arms"—a right vital to the life and liberty of every American. When a challenge to Washington, D.C.'s gun control laws reached the Supreme Court, JFF wrote in support of the basic natural right to self defense—a right of "the people." Mass public shootings often occur in supposedly safe "gun-free" zones, but crime decreases significantly in states where "right-to-carry" laws enable heroic law-abiding citizens to defend and save lives in emergencies. The Court upheld the individual right of American citizens to bear arms in self-defense. This decision honors the original intent of the framers rather than pursuing an activist perspective that allows courts to mold the Constitution and manufacture novel "rights" found nowhere in the text.

Pleasant Grove City v. Summum (USSC 2007): Pleasant Grove City, Utah, set aside "Pioneer Park" for displays of its local history and monuments donated by civil groups that have contributed to the community. After a donated Ten Commandments monument had stood for years without objection, Summum—a religious group with no ties to the city—sued when the city declined permission to erect a monument of its Seven Aphorisms. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city. The display was government speech—not to endorse religion, but to communicate a visible message about local history. Summum did not fit the criteria. At oral argument and in its written opinion, the USSC echoed JFF's observation that the Establishment Clause lurked beneath the surface but was not violated.

Citizens United v. FEC (USSC 2008-2009): During the 2008 Presidential election year, a nonprofit organization (Citizens United) produced "Hillary: The Movie," a documentary film to educate and inform voters. DVD's were sold online and the movie was shown in selected theatres across the country. The First Amendment protects the film as core political speech. But complex campaign finance laws—directed at the many fleeting candidate ads that flood the TV screens at election time—squelched distribution of this educational piece. JFF filed a brief in support of the nonprofit, arguing that people need this type of information--particularly in the crucial days preceding a national election—in order to make informed decisions at the polls. In a controversial decision, the U.S. Supreme Court championed free speech rights and ruled in favor of Citizens United. 

Salazar v. Buono (USSC 2009-2010): In 1934, members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) erected a Latin cross on Sunrise Rock in California’s Mohave National Preserve to honor the sacrifice of World War I soldiers. For decades no one objected. The cross was repaired and even replaced, standing peacefully in this remote region where summer temperatures often exceed 100 degrees. But the isolated setting and high temperatures didn’t halt the legal battles that heated up a few years ago. The cross--a Christian symbol--was on federal land, ripe for a “separation of church and state” challenge. Someone, sometime, passing by might mistakenly think the federal government endorsed Christianity. Frank Buono, a retired National Park Service employee, is a Catholic who doesn’t object to the cross and never complained—until a Buddhist buddy was denied permission to mount his own religious shrine. Then he filed a federal lawsuit. The suit should have never launched, because Buono asserted the rights of another person—his Buddhist friend—who was not involved in the case. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ignored that detail and forbade display of the cross, leaving Congress in a quandary. They either had to violate the court order or convey profound disrespect for the fallen soldiers honored by the cross. In order to accommodate these competing concerns, Congress passed legislation authorizing the sale of a small piece of land to the VFW—at fair market value. Now the cross would stand on private land. But that wasn’t enough for the Ninth Circuit, which questioned congressional motives and found a continuing violation of the Establishment Clause. The case moved up the ladder to the U.S. Supreme Court, where JFF argued that, in this context, the cross is a symbol honoring the sacrifice of America's soldiers—not an improper endorsement of religion. The Court agreed—a victory for Veterans of Foreign Wars and all Americans who want to honor the memory of those who have died to preserve our liberties. 
 
Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (USSC 2010): The Christian Legal Society organizes student chapters at law schools across America, providing fellowship and opportunities to understand the law from a faith-based perspective. More than once, these student groups have clashed with campus nondiscrimination policies that would require them to admit non-Christians as voting members and leaders, or forego the benefits available to all other recognized student organizations. Hastings Law School denied CLS recognition, violating its own nondiscriminatory policy by discriminating against the Christian students on the basis of religion, one of the policy's protected categories. JFF supported CLS with an amicus brief, arguing that an expressive association must be able to craft its own unique "voice" through careful selection of its leadership. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court brushed aside the nondiscrimination policy allegedly at issue and based its ruling on an "all comers" policy that would preclude any group from maintaining its identity through any selection criteria. Conservative justices criticized the slim majority ruling, hoping later case law will clarify the rights of expressive students groups in the context of nondiscrimination policies such as the one employed at Hastings.

Doe v. Reed (USSC 2010): Many voters in the State of Washington were alarmed when their legislature passed a bill dubbed "everything but marriage" that grants expanded legal rights to unmarried couples. People circulated petitions in support of Referendum 71, in order to place the issue on the ballot so voters could decide whether to revoke the new law. Petition signers exercised their rights to speak, associate, and petition the government for redress of grievances. But there was one little glitch—under Washington law, the petitions were public documents available to anyone requesting copies. Two groups, knowthyneighbor.org and whosigned.org, threatened to post the names and home addresses of all petition signers on the worldwide web—to facilitate "uncomfortable" conversations. JFF filed a brief arguing that such broad disclosure serves no legitimate government purpose and chills protected political speech, thus violating the First Amendment. JFF's legal counsel also participated in a "moot court" in Washington, D.C. that helped counsel prepare for oral argument in the Supreme Court.

Joyner v. Forsyth County (4th Circuit 2010): Legislative prayer is a tradition that dates back to the founding of America. In 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Nebraska Legislature's practice of hiring a paid chaplain to offer its opening prayers. Many local governments follow a similar practice. Forsyth County, North Carolina established a prayer policy inviting clergy from a variety of religious organizations in the community, then scheduling them on a first-come, first-serve basis. Objectors challenged the County, alleging there were too many Christian prayers—and thus a violation of the Establishment Clause. After an unfavorable District Court decision, JFF supported the County with an amicus brief in the Court of Appeals. The government has no business becoming entangled in the wording of prayers—and no right to discriminate against those who offer prayer according to conscience, merely because those prayers are "sectarian."

National Day of Prayer (7th Circuit 2010): In 1952, Congress passed legislation requiring the President to annually proclaim a "National Day of Prayer." Private organizations and private individuals around the country organize and sponsor events so that Americans can pray for our nation as a people. Government involvement is nominal and the declaration acknowledges America's religious heritage—but the Freedom From Religion Foundation filed a lawsuit claiming it violates the Establishment Clause. JFF filed an amicus brief citing the voluminous evidence of religion in America, and arguing that no one has an absolute right to be free from all religious references in the public sphere. The First Amendment was drafted to protect religion—not erase it.

ACSTO v. Winn (USSC 2010): Arizona offers a broad array of educational options, including a unique program where taxpayers can utilize a tax credit to direct a few of their own "tax dollars" to School Tuition Organizations, which use the funds to award scholarships that families can use at private schools of their choice. But because "too many" of those schools are religious, a few people filed a lawsuit alleging that the government had improperly advanced religion. JFF supported Arizona with an amicus brief explaining that there is no "state action"—and thus no constitutional violation. Only the government can violate the Constitution. Here, several layers of private choices direct the flow of funds—thousands of taxpayers, private citizens who organize and manage the STOs, and parents. And since taxpayers direct only their own tax dollars, no one can complain that the state has improperly financed religion.

Human Rights Complaint Against China - - click here

White Paper on IRS 'Gag' Orders - - click here