Cases Before The Supreme Court
Sekulow has argued in front of the United States Supreme Court multiple times throughout his career. The first was in 1987, involving Jews for Jesus and their clash with Los Angeles International Airport’s policy against free speech. He has specialized in arguing key issues of the First Amendment, arguing with opponents such as current Chief Justice John Roberts, the Deputy Solicitor General at the time.
| Case: | Date: | Argument: | Result: |
|---|---|---|---|
| Board of Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus | 1987 | Arguing on behalf of Jews for Jesus, Sekulow argued that LAX’s policy banning all “First Amendment activities” violated the organization’s right to free speech. | Judgment for Jews for Jesus. |
| Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens | 1990 | Sekulow argued on behalf of students who were denied their request to form a Bible and Prayer club at their school. | Judgment for the Students. |
| U.S. v. Kokinda. | 1990 | Sekulow argued on behalf of two volunteers of the National Democratic Policy Committee who were arrested after refusing to leave the sidewalk near a post office. | Judgment for the United States |
| Lee v. ISKCON | 1992 | Sekulow served as co-counsel, arguing on behalf of ISKCON against a regulation that prohibited distribution of literature in airport terminals. | Judgment for the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. |
| Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic | 1993 | Sekulow argued on behalf of anti-abortion activists who were originally found as violating a statute by conducting demonstrations at abortion clinics. | Judgment for the Activists. |
| Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches School District | 1993 | In another case involving use of school property, Sekulow represented Lamb’s Chapel, and their right to show religious-oriented films in a school after-hours. | Judgment for the Church. |
| Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York | 1997 | Sekulow argued on behalf of Schenck, challenging a District court ruling that provided for speech-free floating “bubble zones” surrounding abortion clinics. | Judgment for Schenck. |
| Hill v. Colorado | 2000 | This case revolved around protesters’ rights to distribute literature in front of abortion clinics and a statute that barred them from approaching a non-consenting person. Sekulow, representing the protesters, argued that Colorado's “eight foot rule” was unconstitutional. | Judgment for Colorado. |
| Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe | 2000 | Sekulow, representing the school district, argued that prayer, initiated and led by students at football games, did not violate the Establishment Clause. | Judgment for Doe. |
| McConnell v. FEC | 2003 | In a highly publicized case, Sekulow, on behalf of a group of students including Emily Echols, argued that a portion of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 violated the First Amendment and was thus unconstitutional. | Judgment for Echols, et al. |
| Locke v. Davey | 2003 | Sekulow, representing student Joshua Davey, argued that a statute excluding theology students from publicly funded scholarships was unconstitutional. | Judgment for Locke. |
| Pleasant Grove City v. Summum | 2008 | Sekulow, representing the city of Pleasant Grove, challenged a Tenth Circuit opinion allowing Summum to erect a monument alongside a Ten Commandments monument donated to the city by the Fraternal Order of Eagles. | Judgment for Pleasant Grove City. |
In addition to his work as a Supreme Court advocate, Sekulow, as lead counsel of the ACLJ, has submitted several amicus briefs in support of conservative issues. He has submitted amicus briefs in landmark cases such as Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Rasul v. Bush, Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, and Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation. His amicus briefs for Van Orden v. Perry and Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC were cited by Justices John Paul Stevens and John Roberts respectively. Sekulow served as counsel to Robert and Mary Schindler during the controversy surrounding their daughter, Terri Schiavo. While he is widely acknowledged as a member of the Christian Right, Sekulow’s amicus brief in Morse v. Frederick was in support of the ACLU’s position; he argued that schools banning “offensive” speech would also be able to prohibit religious speech with which the administrators disagree.
Sekulow again argued before the Supreme Court on November 12, 2008 in Pleasant Grove City v Summum, case No.07-665. Sekulow represented the City in this case concerning government control over monuments and memorials in government-owned public places. On Feb. 24th the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in the City's favor. On March 2, 2009, the Supreme Court issued a summary disposition in the companion case of Summum v Duchesne City. The Court was again unanimous, vacating the 10th Circuit opinion and remanding the case for an opinion consistent with Pleasant Grove City v Summum.
Read more about this topic: Jay Sekulow
Famous quotes containing the words cases, supreme and/or court:
“I want in all cases to do right.”
—Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865)
“The supreme satisfaction is to be able to despise one’s neighbour and this fact goes far to account for religious intolerance. It is evidently consoling to reflect that the people next door are headed for hell.”
—Aleister Crowley (1875–1947)
“If a walker is indeed an individualist there is nowhere he can’t go at dawn and not many places he can’t go at noon. But just as it demeans life to live alongside a great river you can no longer swim in or drink from, to be crowded into safer areas and hours takes much of the gloss off walking—one sport you shouldn’t have to reserve a time and a court for.”
—Edward Hoagland (b. 1932)