Constitutional and Civil Rights

In 2014, the Morris family began hosting an annual Christmas program at their Idaho home. This program aligned with the teachings of their Christian faith and raised funds for charities that serve children with cancer and children who have been victims of abuse and neglect. The next year, with a desire to grow their religious celebration, the Morrises bought a home in West Hayden Estates. As a courtesy, they informed the homeowners association that they planned to continue hosting their Christmas program at their new home. The homeowners association disapproved the program, sent the Morrises a letter expressing religion-based hostility, and generated ill will in the neighborhood against the Morrises. The Morrises sued under the Fair Housing Act, alleging unlawful discrimination on the basis of their religion. A jury agreed, but the trial court set aside the verdict, granting the homeowners association judgment as a matter of law and permanently enjoining the Christmas program.

Gibson Dunn appealed that judgment to the Ninth Circuit in 2019 and, in June 2024, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment as a matter of law on one of the Morris family’s claims under the Fair Housing Act. The court agreed with Gibson Dunn that the Morrises had presented evidence from which a jury could reasonably conclude that the homeowners association had “‘threatened, intimidated, or interfered with’ the Morrises’ right to purchase and enjoy their home free from religious discrimination. The Ninth Circuit vacated the injunction and remanded for a new trial.

Amicus briefs—briefs filed by nonparties to a litigation who nevertheless have a strong interest in the case and offer their insight regarding the underlying issues and the impact the case may have beyond the parties themselves—are a critical way for many of our clients to make their voices heard in cases raising important legal issues. Gibson Dunn regularly drafts and files amicus briefs for our clients, allowing them to weigh in on impactful cases and shape legal developments in litigation that will affect them and the communities they serve.

A report published by the Harvard Law Journal of Law & Public Policy in early 2024 found that Gibson Dunn filed more pro bono amicus briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years than any other big law firm. Notably, we filed the most liberal-leaning amicus briefs and the most conservative-leaning amicus briefs, demonstrating a diversity of pro bono amicus briefs when compared to other firms. In 2024, the Firm filed dozens of amicus briefs regarding some of the most pressing issues of the day—including racial justice, voting rights, religious liberty, criminal justice, and the First Amendment—in cases pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, federal courts of appeal, and state supreme courts.

Material witness warrants are designed to be used by prosecutors to incarcerate witnesses to crimes, to ensure those witnesses will testify during criminal trials. In practice, this frequently means that innocent people who have not been accused of any crime are placed in prison—without any of the rights normally afforded to criminal defendants, including the right to counsel. Gibson Dunn represents Tayjha Alfred, a young woman who faced particularly unconscionable treatment arising out of a material witness warrant, in a civil rights lawsuit in Louisiana.

In 2019, Ms. Alfred happened to pass near the scene of a crime, cooperated fully with a police investigation to report what she had witnessed, and subsequently moved on with her life—including by serving as a traveling nurse during the COVID-19 pandemic. Three years later, prosecutors in Louisiana decided they wanted Ms. Alfred to be a witness in a trial relating to the 2019 crime. Instead of serving Ms. Alfred with a witness subpoena, however, the prosecutors threw her in jail. Despite being accused of no wrongdoing, Ms. Alfred remained in prison for more than six months—without bail, an evidentiary hearing, or appointed counsel.  Even after she made clear that she would testify voluntarily, prosecutors still opposed her release. Ultimately, she was freed only after providing 30 minutes of testimony at trial.

Ms. Alfred has now filed a federal lawsuit arguing that prosecutors violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and that the Louisiana material witness statute is unconstitutional on its face. In October 2024, a district judge partially denied the prosecutors’ motion to dismiss the case, finding that Ms. Alfred had stated a claim that the District Attorney, in his official capacity, had violated her rights. We look forward to representing Ms. Alfred as the case continues.

Amin Booker, an inmate in the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”), was placed in solitary confinement in 2015, as retaliation for complaining about physical abuse by the prison staff at Green Haven Correctional Facility. DOCCS employees claimed that he was placed in solitary confinement because he was involved in organizing a peaceful protest. But the charges were fabricated; Mr. Booker was not involved in a protest at all.  Prison officials deprived him of due process during the hearing that resulted in his solitary confinement, and during the periodic review hearings he received over the years. During the more than six years that Mr. Booker was held in solitary confinement, he spent 23 hours a day alone in his cell and his regular visits and phone calls with loved ones were forbidden.

A team of Gibson Dunn attorneys represents Mr. Booker in a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against the DOCCS employees who carried out this scheme against him. Mr. Booker alleges that they violated his First Amendment right to free speech, his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. In February 2024, Judge Nelson Román of the Southern District of New York handed down a favorable summary judgment ruling, holding that Mr. Booker never should have been put in solitary confinement at all. Now, we are preparing to go to trial to vindicate the rest of Mr. Booker’s rights. Notably, in 2022, the New York state legislature banned holding an inmate in solitary confinement for more than 15 consecutive days.

In May 2024, the City of Pueblo, Colorado, passed an ordinance banning the distribution of clean syringes anywhere within city limits. The ordinance led to an immediate halt in local public-health programs aimed at preventing the spread of needle-borne illness, as well as a significant decrease in outreach, distribution of lifesaving opioid antagonists, and other critical health services for vulnerable members of the community. The city passed this ordinance over the opposition of community members and public health experts, and in the face of extensive evidence that syringe exchange programs save lives while limiting the spread of infectious disease and reducing healthcare costs—despite the fact that Colorado state law specifically authorizes and funds these programs.

Working in collaboration with the ACLU of Colorado, Gibson Dunn filed suit shortly after the ordinance was enacted, arguing that it was preempted by a state law that expressly authorized experienced non-profits to operate syringe-exchange programs without local approval. We quickly secured a temporary restraining order forbidding enforcement of the ordinance while the case was pending. A few months later, after full briefing and oral arguments, we secured a permanent injunction against the ordinance. The court’s opinion adopted Gibson Dunn’s framing of the relevant statute and issues, quoting both our briefing and statements at oral arguments. The opinion enjoined the local ordinance on a permanent basis and allowed our clients to resume their life-saving public-health programs.