Publications & Resources

Search TCP documents by typing a keyword (e.g., author, document title, etc.) into the search box and hitting the search button. Refine your results by selecting from the issues, material types, date range, and committee options listed. You can also browse recent publications and resources below.

Search by Keyword


Browse by Issue(s)

  Checks & Balances
  Constitutional Amendments
  Judicial Independence
  Separation of Powers
  War Powers

  Counter-Terrorism Policies & Practices
  Detention & Prosecution of Terrorist Suspects
  Material Support of Terrorist Organizations

  Criminal Discovery Reform
  Data Collection & Privacy
  Data Mining
  Fusion Centers

  Death Penalty
  DNA Collection
  Government Surveillance & Searches
  Border Searches of Electronic Devices
  Cybersecurity
  Domestic Spying & FISA
  Location Tracking & ECPA
  Patriot Act
  Video Surveillance
  Watch Lists

  Immigration Reform
  Policing Reform
  Militarization of Police
  Body-worn Cameras

  Right to Counsel
  Sentencing Reform
  Transparency & Accountability
  Classification & Secrecy
  Controlled Unclassified Information
  Open Government
 Privacy & Civil Liberties Oversight Board
  State Secrets Privilege

Browse by Material Type(s)

  Advocacy Letters
  Amicus Briefs
  Reports
  Statements
  Testimony
  Transcripts

  News
  Press Releases
  Comments & Petitions
  Web Forums - Recess Appointments Clause
  Web Forums - Take Care Clause

Browse by Date Range
Browse by Committee(s)
*Note: Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in Clearinghouse material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Constitution Project.

Search Results

Amicus Brief of Law Enforcement and Corrections Officials in O’Donnell v. Harris County
Amicus brief in McWilliams v Dunn (U.S. Supreme Court, Cert. stage)
Amicus brief from Former Judges in Christeson v. Roper (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit)
Amicus Brief in Maples v. Dunn (11th Circuit Court of Appeals)
Amicus Brief in State v. Waine (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland)
Amicus Brief in State v. Waine (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland)
Amicus Brief in Ifenatuora v. United States (U.S. Supreme Court, Cert. Stage)
The Constitution Project, on behalf of its National Right to Counsel Committee, submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the petitioner’s application for certiorari in the case of Ifenatuora v. United States. Thank you to the contributions of Hunton & Williams as they assisted TCP in drafting and filing this brief.

TCP’s Ifenatuora brief raises two important questions relating to the Court’s post-Padilla jurisprudence. The first is that the non-retroactivity principle announced in Teague v. Lane should not apply to ineffective-assistance of counsel claims raised in a federal defendant’s first post-conviction challenge. The second is that the rule established in Padilla v. Kentucky—that the 6th Amendment requires counsel to inform his or her client of the immigration consequences of conviction—is a “watershed” rule of criminal procedure exempt from Teague. TCP’s brief explains that “[j]ust as Gideon revolutionized the way that the criminal justice system dealt with indigents, so too does Padilla revolutionize the way in which the system deals with aliens.”
Amicus Brief in Ifenatuora v. United States (U.S. Supreme Court, Cert. Stage)
The Constitution Project, on behalf of its National Right to Counsel Committee, submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the petitioner’s application for certiorari in the case of Ifenatuora v. United States. Thank you to the contributions of Hunton & Williams as they assisted TCP in drafting and filing this brief.

TCP’s Ifenatuora brief raises two important questions relating to the Court’s post-Padilla jurisprudence. The first is that the non-retroactivity principle announced in Teague v. Lane should not apply to ineffective-assistance of counsel claims raised in a federal defendant’s first post-conviction challenge. The second is that the rule established in Padilla v. Kentucky—that the 6th Amendment requires counsel to inform his or her client of the immigration consequences of conviction—is a “watershed” rule of criminal procedure exempt from Teague. TCP’s brief explains that “[j]ust as Gideon revolutionized the way that the criminal justice system dealt with indigents, so too does Padilla revolutionize the way in which the system deals with aliens.”
Amicus Brief in Thomas v. Nugent (U.S. Supreme Court, Cert. Stage)
This case involves a 21-year old man, Baron Pikes, who died after being electroshocked by a police officer at least eight times. A Section 1983 action was brought on behalf of Pikes’ young son, claiming that the officer used excessive force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Fifth Circuit held that the officer was immune from suit because it was not clearly established in 2008 that it was unconstitutional for police to use a Taser on a person multiple times even when he did not pose a safety or flight risk. The brief, filed by amici consisting of former Law Enforcement, Prosecutors, Judges, Corrections Officials, and Experts on Police Accountability and Use of Force, urges the Court to grant cert to make it clear that such devices cannot be used on people who are merely passively resisting but not posing a safety or flight risk.
Amicus Brief in Thomas v. Nugent (U.S. Supreme Court, Cert. Stage)
This case involves a 21-year old man, Baron Pikes, who died after being electroshocked by a police officer at least eight times. A Section 1983 action was brought on behalf of Pikes’ young son, claiming that the officer used excessive force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Fifth Circuit held that the officer was immune from suit because it was not clearly established in 2008 that it was unconstitutional for police to use a Taser on a person multiple times even when he did not pose a safety or flight risk. The brief, filed by amici consisting of former Law Enforcement, Prosecutors, Judges, Corrections Officials, and Experts on Police Accountability and Use of Force, urges the Court to grant cert to make it clear that such devices cannot be used on people who are merely passively resisting but not posing a safety or flight risk.
Donate Now

US Constitution

Upcoming Events