Washington Legal Foundation

Last updated
The Washington, D.C. headquarters of the Washington Legal Foundation. The building on the left served as the residence of Alice Roosevelt Longworth for over 70 years; the building in the center was designed by Jules Henri de Sibour in 1901 for Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Horace A. Taylor. 2005 - 2009 Massachusetts Avenue, NW.JPG
The Washington, D.C. headquarters of the Washington Legal Foundation. The building on the left served as the residence of Alice Roosevelt Longworth for over 70 years; the building in the center was designed by Jules Henri de Sibour in 1901 for Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Horace A. Taylor.

The Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) is a non-profit legal organization located at 2007-2009 Massachusetts Avenue NW, on Embassy Row in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1977, the Foundation's stated goal is "to defend and promote the principles of freedom and justice." The organization promotes pro-business and free-market positions and is widely perceived as conservative. [1] [2] [3]

Contents

WLF addresses a range of legal matters, including commercial free speech, corporate criminal liability, environmental regulation, food and drug law, health care, and intellectual property through three primary functions. Its first functions as a public interest law firm that brings original lawsuits, files amicus briefs, intervenes in court cases, and petitions agencies for rulings. [4] It also works as a legal think tank that publishes in seven different formats once every two weeks[ citation needed ], and it is a non-profit communications company that hosts regular conferences, media briefings, and national educational advertising campaigns.

Litigation

Since its founding in 1977, [5] the Washington Legal Foundation has litigated more than 1600 court cases, participated in nearly 900 administrative and regulatory proceedings, and published nearly 2,900 legal studies by over 2,500 different legal experts. [6] They have also initiated 138 judicial misconduct investigations, and filed more than 165 attorney and reform actions and petitions.[ citation needed ]

Cases in which WLF have been involved include:

Abigail Alliance v. von Eschenbach , 495 F.3d 695 (D.C. Cir. 2007). WLF represented terminally ill plaintiffs who successfully sued their doctor for potentially life-saving drugs that had not yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Auvil v. CBS "60 Minutes", 67 F.3d 816 (9th Cir. 1995). The appellate court affirmed the trial court's rejection of a challenge to evidence which supported a 60 Minutes broadcast alleging that the Washington apples contained a carcinogen that harms children.

Goldwater v. Carter, 617 F.2d 697 (D.C. Cir. 1979). WLF represented several members of congress who enjoined President Jimmy Carter from unilaterally terminating the Mutual Defense Treaty between the U.S. and Taiwan without the support of a majority of both houses of Congress, or two-thirds of the Senate. The Supreme Court later overruled this decision.

Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation, 524 U.S. 156 (1998). This case determined that interest earned on a fund belongs to the person who owns the principal. The government’s effort to seize the funds in question was unconstitutional under the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment as applied through the 14th Amendment.

Washington Legal Foundation v. Henney, 202 F.3d 331 (D.C. Cir. 2000). This lawsuit forced the government to admit that neither the FDAMA nor the CME Guidance independently authorizes the FDA to prohibit or sanction drug manufacturers from discussing off-label uses for their drugs.

Washington Legal Foundation v. U.S. Department of Justice, 491 U.S. 440 (1989). This case held that the Federal Advisory Committee Act did not apply to U.S. Justice Department's solicitation of the American Bar Association’s views on prospective judicial nominees.

Washington Legal Foundation v. Shalala, U.S. Dist. Lexis 9377 (1993). The court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing when WLF sued on behalf of a cardiac surgeon and two human heart valve recipients to enjoin the United States Department of Health and Human Services and the FDA from enforcing regulatory restrictions that would subject human-tissue heart valves to FDA's premarket approval process.

Amicus curiæ

In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project , the Washington Legal Foundation filed a brief that argued that certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act do not violate the First Amendment. The statute makes it a crime to give any form of aid, including humanitarian assistance, to groups on the U.S. State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations. [7] [8]

"In All Fairness"

WLF regularly publishes an advertisement, "In All Fairness" in the national edition of The New York Times in which the organization presents its point of view on an issue.

Partnerships

WLF regularly partners with Washington-based think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution, the Cato Institute, and The Heritage Foundation.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1795 amendment restricting ability to sue states in federal courts

The Eleventh Amendment is an amendment to the United States Constitution which was passed by Congress on March 4, 1794, and ratified by the states on February 7, 1795. The Eleventh Amendment restricts the ability of individuals to bring suit against states of which they are not citizens in federal court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Child Online Protection Act</span> Former U.S. law to protect minors from certain material on the Internet

The Child Online Protection Act (COPA) was a law in the United States of America, passed in 1998 with the declared purpose of restricting access by minors to any material defined as harmful to such minors on the Internet. The law, however, never took effect, as three separate rounds of litigation led to a permanent injunction against the law in 2009.

<i>Bernstein v. United States</i> 1990s legal case involving Snuffle encryption

Bernstein v. United States is a set of court cases brought by Daniel J. Bernstein challenging restrictions on the export of cryptography from the United States.

The Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988, title VII, subtitle N of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law  100–690, 102 Stat. 4181, enacted November 18, 1988, H.R. 5210, is part of a United States Act of Congress which places stringent record-keeping requirements on the producers of actual, sexually explicit materials. The guidelines for enforcing these laws, part of the United States Code of Federal Regulations, require producers of sexually explicit material to obtain proof of age for every model they shoot, and retain those records. Federal inspectors may at any time launch inspections of these records and prosecute any infraction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judith W. Rogers</span> American judge (born 1939)

Judith Ann Wilson Rogers is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Diane Wood</span> American judge (born 1950)

Diane Pamela Wood is an American attorney who serves as the director of the American Law Institute, a senior circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School.

Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, which unanimously held that a right to assisted suicide in the United States was not protected by the Due Process Clause.

The Center for Individual Rights (CIR) is a non-profit public interest law firm in the United States. Based in Washington, D.C., the firm is "dedicated to the defense of individual liberties against the increasingly aggressive and unchecked authority of federal and state governments". The Center is officially nonpartisan. Its work focuses on enforcement of constitutional limits on state and federal power, primarily through litigation.

Dennis Jacobs is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">D. Brooks Smith</span> American judge (born 1951)

David Brookman "Brooks" Smith is a senior judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He was previously Chief Judge of both the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, and is the only judge in the history of the Third Circuit to have served as both a chief district judge and chief of the Court of Appeals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Thomas L. Ambro</span> American judge (born 1949)

Thomas Lee Ambro is a Senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Scott Matheson Jr.</span> American judge (born 1953)

Scott Milne Matheson Jr. is a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. He has served on that court since 2010.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jerry Edwin Smith</span> American judge

Jerry Edwin Smith is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Debarment is the state of being excluded from enjoying certain possessions, rights, privileges, or practices and the act of prevention by legal means. For example, companies can be debarred from contracts due to allegations of fraud, mismanagement, and similar improprieties. Firms, individuals, and non-governmental organizations can be debarred.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Janice Rogers Brown</span> American judge (born 1949)

Janice Rogers Brown is an American jurist. She served as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 2005 to 2017 and before that, Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court from 1996 to 2005. She is a member of the Federalist Society and frequently features at events hosted by the organization.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Thomas B. Griffith</span> American judge (born 1954)

Thomas Beall Griffith is an American lawyer and jurist who served as a U.S. circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 2005 to 2020. Currently, he is a lecturer on law at Harvard Law School, a fellow at the Wheatley Institute at Brigham Young University (BYU), and special counsel in the Washington, D.C. office of the law firm of Hunton Andrews Kurth.

Salazar v. Buono, 559 U.S. 700 (2010), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case concerned the legality of the Mojave Memorial Cross, a Latin cross which was placed atop a prominent rock outcropping by the Veterans of Foreign Wars foundation in 1934 to honor war dead. The location is known as "Sunrise Rock" in the Mojave National Preserve in San Bernardino County in southeastern California. The Supreme Court ruled that the cross may stay, but also sent the case back to a lower court, making the issue currently unresolved.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Robert Corn-Revere</span> American lawyer

Robert L. "Bob" Corn-Revere is an American First Amendment lawyer. Corn-Revere is the Chief Counsel at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and was formerly a partner at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP in Washington, D.C. He is regularly listed as a leading First Amendment and media law practitioner by The Best Lawyers in America (Woodward/White), SuperLawyers Washington, D.C., and by Chambers USA . Best Lawyers in America named him as Washington, D.C.’s 2017 “Lawyer of the Year” in the areas of First Amendment Law and Litigation – First Amendment. He was again named as Best Lawyers’ “Lawyer of the Year” for First Amendment Law for 2019 and 2021, and in Media Law for 2022.

Los Angeles v. Patel, 576 U.S. 409 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Los Angeles law, Municipal Code § 41.49, requiring hotel operators to retain records about guests for a ninety-day period is facially unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it does not allow for pre-compliance review.

In United States law, a nationwide injunction is injunctive relief in which a court binds the federal government even in its relations with nonparties. In their prototypical form, nationwide injunctions are used to restrict the federal government from enforcing a statute or regulation.

References

  1. ↑ Greenhouse, Linda (2002-12-10). "Method of Legal Services Financing Is Challenged Before Supreme Court". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-05-27.
  2. ↑ King, Wayne; Weaver Jr, Warren (1987-02-10). "WASHINGTON TALK: BRIEFING; A Legal Battle on Judges". The New York Times.
  3. ↑ Savage, David G. (2002-12-10). "$5 Dispute Could Decide Fate of Legal Aid Program". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2010-05-27.
  4. ↑ Lewis, Charles (1 October 1998). The Buying of the Congress: How Special Interests Have Stolen Your Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Avon Books. ISBN   978-0380975969.
  5. ↑ Anderson, Steven (2023-03-05). "50 years of fighting — PLF looks back at our beginning". Pacific Legal Foundation. Retrieved 2023-05-29.
  6. ↑ "Washington Legal Foundation 2021 Annual Report" (PDF). Washington Legal Foundation. 2021. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2023-05-29. Retrieved 2023-05-29.
  7. ↑ "Brief amici curiae of James J. Carey, et al. (SCOTUSblog)" (PDF). 2009-07-06.
  8. ↑ "COURT STRIKES DOWN PORTIONS OF LAW BARRING SUPPORT FOR TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS" (PDF). 2007-12-11.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.