We are pleased to announce that we have just filed an friend-of-the-court (amicus) brief on behalf of the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance in an important First Amendment case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The brief explains why, as a matter of First Amendment law, Florida should not be able to monopolize the definition of “skim milk” — especially when Florida’s definition conceals the artificial addition of Vitamin A to skim milk and forces small farms that produce natural skim milk (which has no Vitamin A) to label their product “imitation skim milk.”

We are pleased to announce that we have just filed an friend-of-the-court (amici) brief on behalf of fifteen prominent food law & policy scholars in an important First Amendment case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The brief explains why the First Amendment rights of consumers are implicated and violated by state “ag-gag” laws, which effectively ban journalists, whistleblowers, and activists from using undercover investigations to inform consumers about what really goes on behind closed doors at livestock and agricultural processing facilities.

We are pleased to announce that we have just filed an friend-of-the-court (amici) brief on behalf of ten prominent First Amendment scholars in support of a group of New York retailers seeking review from the U.S. Supreme Court. These retailers want to tell their customers the truth about how much it really costs to pay by credit-card, but are prevented from doing so by New York law. The case is called Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman.

The Minnesota Lawyer has published the following comment from Mahesha Subbaraman on behalf of Subbaraman PLLC clients Public Record Media and the Minnesota Coalition on Government Information (MnCOGI) in an important case about the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act: “The reason this case is important is that it stands for the principle that all government entities have to keep their data in a way that makes it accessible. In 2016, if you’re going to maintain email, then that data should be readily accessible for keyword searches.” Read the full article here.

On May 19, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Petitioner CRST Van Expedited, Inc. in CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC. The Court held that civil defendants are eligible  to have their legal fees paid by plaintiffs under federal fee-shifting laws based on any kind of defense victory, be it procedural or “on the merits.” In reaching this conclusion, the Court echoed reasoning set forth in a friend-of-the-court brief authored by Subbaraman PLLC on behalf of Americans for Forfeiture Reform. That brief can be read here.

We are pleased to announce that we have just filed an friend-of-the-court (amicus) brief on behalf of Americans for Forfeiture Reform in an important civil forfeiture case now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: United States v. Gorman. At issue is how courts should analyze coordinated successive traffic stops — especially those resulting in civil forfeiture — under Fourth Amendment limits on seizures. The brief can be read here.

We are pleased to announce that we hav filed an friend-of-the-court (amicus) brief on behalf of Restore the Fourth in an important Fourth Amendment case pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Rodriguez v. Swartz. The case concerns a U.S. border agent’s shooting of a 16-year-old boy across the U.S.-Mexico border. This brief explains why such a shooting is subject to the Fourth Amendment’s demand that all seizures be reasonable, even if the target of the seizure is not a U.S. citizen. The brief can be read here.

On March 30, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Petitioner Sila Luis in Luis v. United States, holding that the government may not freeze the innocent assets of criminal defendants like Luis before trial — assets needed by criminal defendants to retain defense counsel of choice. We filed an friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Americans for Forfeiture Reform in support of Luis’s position. The brief can be read here.

We have just filed an friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Americans for Forfeiture Reform in an important U.S. Supreme Court case: CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC. At issue is when civil defendants should be eligible to have their attorney’s fees paid by unsuccessful plaintiffs. The brief can be read here.

The Institute for Justice’s Evan Bernick provides an excellent commentary at the Huffington Post on the stakes of Luis v. United States — now before the U.S. Supreme Court — and how the amicus brief of Americans for Forfeiture Reform (a Subbaraman PLLC client) could change the odds in Luis’s favor.