Center for Individual Rights

Last updated
Center for Individual Rights
AbbreviationCIR
Formation1988
FounderMichael McDonald
and Michael Greve [1] [2] [3]
TypePublic interest law firm
52-1600481
Legal status 501(c)(3) non-profit
PurposeTo provide representation on issues of significant public interest [4]
Location
  • 1100 Connecticut Ave. NW,
    Washington, DC 20036
Coordinates 38°54′23″N77°02′40″W / 38.9065°N 77.0445°W / 38.9065; -77.0445
Region
United States
MethodsLitigating and publicizing individual cases
President
Todd F. Gaziano
Revenue (2015)
$2,280,370 [5]
Expenses (2015)$2,139,103 [5]
Website www.cir-usa.org

The Center for Individual Rights (CIR) is a non-profit public interest law firm in the United States. [6] 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.

Contents

CIR's primary focus for most of its existence has been challenges to what it regards as unconstitutional or unlawful preferences based on race, sex, or another identity group. It has represented members of many races but is best known for challenging affirmative action. Another major focus for CIR is free speech. It has represented individuals and groups, often in university environments, challenging attempts to interfere with speech deemed "politically incorrect". A third focus has been federalism, the attempt to prevent Congress from legislating beyond the powers provided to it in the Constitution.

Institutional mission

CIR was incorporated in November 1988 and began operations in April 1989. Its name was chosen to underscore that its objective would be to defend individual liberties, broadly understood to encompass both civil and economic rights. Its founders, Michael McDonald and Michael Greve had previously worked together at the conservative Washington Legal Foundation. [1] [2] [3] McDonald, an attorney, specialized in First Amendment litigation. [7] wrote on environmental issues and assisted with WLF's fundraising.

CIR involves itself almost exclusively in litigation. It does not lobby Congress nor involve itself it the regulatory process. It does not have a large membership base to influence legislation or engage in fundraising. It has, however, aligned itself with several referendum movements to end State use of racial preferences.

From the outset, CIR specialized in a small number of areas of litigation: free speech and civil rights being the two most important. Unlike traditional liberal groups, CIR found its niche primarily in challenging racial preferences in favor of minorities also called affirmative action, government regulation, unconstitutional state action, and other similar entanglements.

Like its more avowedly liberal counterparts, CIR provides free legal representation to clients who cannot otherwise afford or obtain legal counsel and whose individual rights are threatened. It is funded primarily from individuals and foundations who favor its goals.

Important cases

CIR's primary focus has been on Civil Rights cases and First Amendment cases involving Freedom of Religion and Free Speech. It has also been involved in several cases involving federalism. For a relatively small organization in existence for only two decades, it has had quite a number of landmark cases, including a number that have reached the US Supreme Court.

Civil rights

CIR's most famous cases were Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger , challenges to the University of Michigan's policies giving preference to minority applicants to its undergraduate college (Gratz) and its law school (Grutter). CIR began litigation in 1997. The final Supreme Court opinions were delivered in 2003. Having failed to get the Court to ban use of race in admissions, CIR provided legal support for the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative and has brought subsequent challenges to the University's continuing use of racial preferences in admissions. [6]

The two Michigan cases capped a series of cases around the country, challenging discriminator admissions systems at various universities. Two other key cases were Hopwood v. Texas where the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit banned racial preferences at the University of Texas. [8] Another case, Smith v. Univ. of Washington in the 9th Circuit upheld use of racial preferences in admissions. [9]

CIR has also challenged numerous University programs which excluded non-minorities. For example, in Doe v. Department of Health and Human Services CIR ended the practice of excluding all non-minorities summer study program at Texas A&M University, a program funded in part by the National Institutes of Health. [10] [11] Similarly in Smith v. Virginia Commonwealth University CIR represented a high school student banned from attending a summer journalism workshop when it was determined he was white. In Tompkins v. Alabama State University CIR represented a black student challenging an all-white scholarship at a traditionally black university. [12]

In another case that reached the Supreme Court, CIR participated in the voting rights case of Reno v. Bossier Parish in which the Department of Justice refused to provide pre-clearance for a state redistricting plan which expanded minority districts because the DOJ felt even more minority districts could be created. The Court held that DOJ could not deny pre-clearance to redistricting plans that did not show a discriminatory intent and which did not reduce the number of minority districts. [13]

First Amendment

In Rosenberger v. University of Virginia , CIR represented a student newspaper denied University funding because of the religious content of the paper. Wide Awake was a student run newspaper with a Christian perspective. Despite University funding for a wide range of student groups, including Jewish and Muslim groups, the University categorically denied funding for Wide Awake, arguing it would violate the Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that by funding a wide range of groups, the University could not discriminate by excluding religious organizations from funding eligibility. [14]

Building on Rosenberger CIR brought a second case on behalf of Columbia Union College. The school challenged a Maryland Program which provided private colleges and universities with funds based on the number of students they taught. Numerous Catholic colleges received funding but CUC (run by Seventh Day Adventists) was deemed "pervasively sectarian" or too religious. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that CUC was entitled to equal access to funding.

CIR has also brought a number of cases in lower courts challenging use of racial or sexual harassment codes to silence University Professors, students, and others who have challenged politically correct ideas or used other language considered controversial. It has brought cases against the University of Oklahoma, the University of New Hampshire and California Polytechnic State University. Most of these cases are settled quickly in CIR's favor and have not gone to trial.

Another area of focus has been defending citizens protesting various political matters who have been sued by entities arguing that their protests or criticism were civil right violations. For example, in White v. Lee, CIR defended a neighborhood group who opposed the conversion of hotel into a homeless shelter. [15] Their peaceful protests involved leafleting to let neighbors know of the plan and speaking out at public meetings. After a complaint was filed by the developer of the project the Department of Housing and Urban Development began an investigation threatening fines of up to $50,000 each for obstructing housing for the disabled (since recovering alcoholics and drug addicts who would live in the shelter were defined as disabled). The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the principle that civil rights laws could not be used to stifle legitimate political debate of these matters. CIR has brought similar cases on behalf of protesters against the City of Fresno and the District of Columbia.

Federalism

CIR also brought an important federalism case in United States v. Morrison . In that case, a female student at Virginia Tech accused several football players of rape but a grand jury found insufficient evidence to prosecute. The student brought a challenge in federal court under the newly enacted Violence Against Women Act, a recent law giving women the right to bring such actions. CIR represented one of the football players arguing that the alleged non-economic activity had little relation to interstate commerce, arguing that Congress lacked authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate non-economic activity. The Court agreed and found that portion of VAWA to be beyond Congressional authority. [16]

Staff

Both of CIR's founders, McDonald and Greve, have moved on to other projects. CIR's current president is Todd Gaziano.

CIR's litigation docket is run by the General Counsel, Michael Rosman, a graduate of Yale Law School and former attorney with the New York Law firm of Rosenman & Colin. He joined CIR in 1994. [17]

See also

Related Research Articles

Affirmative action refers to a set of policies and practices within a government or organization seeking to benefit marginalized groups. Historically and internationally, support for affirmative action has been justified by the idea that it may help with bridging inequalities in employment and pay, increasing access to education, and promoting diversity, social equity and redressing alleged wrongs, harms, or hindrances, also called substantive equality.

Racial quotas in employment and education are numerical requirements or quotas for hiring, promoting, admitting and/or graduating members of a particular racial group. Racial quotas are often established as means of diminishing racial discrimination, addressing under-representation and evident racism against those racial groups or, the opposite, against the disadvantaged majority group. Conversely, quotas have also been used historically to promote discrimination against minority groups by limiting access to influential institutions in employment and education.

Reverse discrimination is a term used to describe discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group, in favor of members of a minority or historically disadvantaged group.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that involved a dispute of whether preferential treatment for minorities could reduce educational opportunities for whites without violating the Constitution. It upheld affirmative action, allowing race to be one of several factors in college admission policy. However, the court ruled that specific racial quotas, such as the 16 out of 100 seats set aside for minority students by the University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, were impermissible.

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), was a landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning affirmative action in student admissions. The Court held that a student admissions process that favors "underrepresented minority groups" did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause so long as it took into account other factors evaluated on an individual basis for every applicant. The decision largely upheld the Court's decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), which allowed race to be a consideration in admissions policy but held racial quotas to be unconstitutional. In Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), a separate case decided on the same day as Grutter, the Court struck down a points-based admissions system that awarded an automatic bonus to the admissions scores of minority applicants.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1996 California Proposition 209</span> Referendum banning affirmative action

Proposition 209 is a California ballot proposition which, upon approval in November 1996, amended the state constitution to prohibit state governmental institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, specifically in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education. Modeled on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the California Civil Rights Initiative was authored by two California academics, Glynn Custred and Tom Wood. It was the first electoral test of affirmative action policies in North America. It passed with 55% in favor to 45% opposed, thereby banning affirmative action in the state's public sector.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Danny Julian Boggs</span> American judge

Danny Julian Boggs is an American lawyer and a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He was appointed to the court in 1986 and served as its chief judge from September 2003 to August 2009. Boggs was on the short list of President George W. Bush's candidates for the U.S. Supreme Court.

<i>Hopwood v. Texas</i> 1996 U.S. court case

Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932, was the first successful legal challenge to a university's affirmative action policy in student admissions since Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. In Hopwood, four white plaintiffs who had been rejected from University of Texas at Austin's School of Law challenged the institution's admissions policy on equal protection grounds and prevailed. After seven years as a precedent in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Hopwood decision was abrogated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Michigan Civil Rights Initiative</span> American ballot initiative

The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), or Proposal 2, was a ballot initiative in the U.S. state of Michigan that passed into Michigan Constitutional law by a 58% to 42% margin on November 7, 2006, according to results officially certified by the Michigan Secretary of State. By Michigan law, the Proposal became law on December 22, 2006. MCRI was a citizen initiative aimed at banning consideration of race, color, sex, or religion in admission to colleges, jobs, and other publicly funded institutions – effectively prohibiting some affirmative action by public institutions based on those factors. The Proposal's constitutionality was challenged in federal court, but its constitutionality was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The University of Texas School of Law is the law school of the University of Texas at Austin, a public research university in Austin, Texas. According to Texas Law’s ABA disclosures, 87.20% of the Class of 2022 obtained full-time, long-term bar passage required employment nine months after graduation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Affirmative action in the United States</span>

In the United States, affirmative action consists of government-mandated, government-approved, and voluntary private programs granting special consideration to groups considered or classified as historically excluded, specifically racial minorities and women. These programs tend to focus on access to education and employment in order to redress the disadvantages associated with past and present discrimination. Another goal of affirmative action policies is to ensure that public institutions, such as universities, hospitals, and police forces, are more representative of the populations they serve.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund</span>

The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) is a New York-based national organization founded in 1974 that seeks to protect and promote the civil rights of Asian Americans. By combining litigation, advocacy, education, and organizing, AALDEF works with Asian American communities across the country to secure human rights for all.

The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) is an American nonprofit public interest law firm established for the purpose of defending and promoting individual freedom. PLF attorneys provide pro bono legal representation, file amicus curiae briefs, and hold administrative proceedings with the stated goal of supporting property rights, equality and opportunity, and the separation of powers. The organization is the first and oldest libertarian public interest law firm, having been founded in 1973.

<i>Tompkins v. Alabama State University</i> Legal case involving affirmative action

Tompkins v. Alabama State University, 15 F. Supp. 2d 1160, was a legal case involving affirmative action, that was decided in a United States Federal Court.

Fisher v. University of Texas, 570 U.S. 297 (2013), also known as Fisher I, is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Texas at Austin. The Supreme Court voided the lower appellate court's ruling in favor of the university and remanded the case, holding that the lower court had not applied the standard of strict scrutiny, articulated in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), to its admissions program. The Court's ruling in Fisher took Grutter and Bakke as given and did not directly revisit the constitutionality of using race as a factor in college admissions.

Schuette v. BAMN, 572 U.S. 291 (2014), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning affirmative action and race- and sex-based discrimination in public university admissions. In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause does not prevent states from enacting bans on affirmative action in education.

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the court held that race-based affirmative action programs in college admissions processes violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. With its companion case, Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, the Supreme Court effectively overruled Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), which validated some affirmative action in college admissions provided that race had a limited role in decisions.

Edward Jay Blum is an American conservative litigant who opposes classifications and preferences based on race and ethnicity.

Fisher v. University of Texas, 579 U.S. 365 (2016), also known as Fisher II, is a United States Supreme Court case which held that the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit correctly found that the University of Texas at Austin's undergraduate admissions policy survived strict scrutiny, in accordance with Fisher v. University of Texas (2013), which ruled that strict scrutiny should be applied to determine the constitutionality of the University's race-conscious admissions policy.

Affirmative action refers to activities or policies that seek to help groups that are often affected by discrimination obtain equal access to opportunities, particularly in areas such as employment and education. In the United States, in the early 2000s, the use of race, gender, and other factors in college and university admissions decisions came under attack.

References

  1. 1 2 Greenhouse, Linda (2002-12-10). "Method of Legal Services Financing Is Challenged Before Supreme Court". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-05-27.
  2. 1 2 King, Wayne; Weaver Jr, Warren (1987-02-10). "Washington Talk: Briefing; A Legal Battle on Judges". The New York Times.
  3. 1 2 Savage, David G. (2002-12-10). "$5 Dispute Could Decide Fate of Legal Aid Program". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2010-05-27.
  4. ↑ Organizational Profile Archived 2014-12-22 at the Wayback Machine – National Center for Charitable Statistics (Urban Institute)
  5. 1 2 "Center for Individual Rights" (PDF). Foundation Center. Retrieved 26 May 2017.
  6. 1 2 Ivers, Gregg; McGuire, Kevin T. (2004). Creating Constitutional Change. Clashes over Power and Liberty in the Supreme Court. p. 313.
  7. ↑ "Michael McDonald: About". Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. Retrieved 2015-03-02.
  8. ↑ "Washingtonpost.com: Minority Applications Up in California". www.washingtonpost.com. Retrieved 2019-10-18.
  9. ↑ "Smith v. University of WA | 392 F.3d 367 (2004) | 2f3d3671726". Leagle.com. Retrieved 2019-10-18.
  10. ↑ "Whites need not apply | The Center for Individual Rights". 6 March 1997. Retrieved 2019-10-18.
  11. ↑ Pell, Terence (24 February 1997). "Texas A&M and federal agencies sued for running segregated summer program | The Center for Individual Rights". Center for Individual Rights. Retrieved 2019-10-18.
  12. ↑ "Tompkins v. Alabama State University, 15 F. Supp. 2d 1160 – CourtListener.com". CourtListener. Retrieved 2019-10-23.
  13. ↑ "Reno v. Bossier Parish Fact Sheet | The Center for Individual Rights". 15 January 2000. Retrieved 2019-10-23.
  14. ↑ "Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia | Background & Opinion". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2019-10-23.
  15. ↑ "White v. Lee".
  16. ↑ "U.S. v. Morrison | The Center for Individual Rights" . Retrieved 2019-10-23.
  17. ↑ "StackPath". fedsoc.org. Retrieved 2019-10-23.
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.