LITIGATION

» Access to Courts and Court Remedies

» Campaign Finance and Election Laws

» Constitutional Rights and Requirements

» Health, Safety, and the Environment

» Open Government and Open Courts

» Representing Consumers

» Workers' Rights

Currently Featured Topics

Government Transparency
Consumer Justice
First Amendment
Health, Safety and the Environment

Additional Resources

About Us
Case List
Recent News Alerts
Recent Publications


SUPREME COURT
ASSISTANCE PROJECT

Read about our work helping lawyers
with cases in the Supreme Court.

 

Public Citizen in the Supreme Court

Public Citizen Litigation Group is involved in three important cases pending before the United States Supreme Court this fall.

Northwest v. Ginsberg

Public Citizen represents Rabbi S. Binyomin Ginsberg, a long-time customer of Northwest Airline, who, in 2005, earned the highest level of membership benefits in Northwest’s customer loyalty program. In 2008, however, Northwest abruptly terminated his membership status in the program, claiming it could do so in its sole discretion. Rabbi Ginsberg filed suit, alleging, among other things, that termination of his membership status was a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The district court held that his claim was preempted by a provision of the Airline Deregulation Act that preempts state laws relating to air carrier prices, routes, or services, and the Ninth Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and Public Citizen attorney Adina Rosenbaum argued the case before the Court in December.

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission

In McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether to strike down longstanding provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act that impose an “aggregate limit”of approximately $125,000 on the amounts individuals can contribute during an election cycle to federal candidates, political parties, and other political committees. The elimination of that cap would allow candidates and party officials to solicit million-dollar plus contributions to be shared among the major parties’ various candidates and committees. Despite the Supreme Court’s repeated holdings that limits on such huge contributions are constitutional because they are a bulwark against corruption—the exchange of political favors for money—the Republican National Committee and one of its large donors argue in the case that the limits should be wiped away because the resulting contributions will not be “huge” enough to cause concern. On behalf of U.S. Representatives Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and David Price (D-NC), Public Citizen submitted an amicus brief supporting the constitutionality of the existing limits.

Mississippi, ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp

In Mississippi, ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., the state of Mississippi alleged that several companies artificially limited the supply and increased the price of LCD panels from 1996-2006. Mississippi filed a parens patriae lawsuit against the companies, which the defendant removed to federal court on the theory that suit constituted a removable class action under the Class Action Fairness Act. Because the suit was not a class action, Mississippi moved to remand it to state court. The district court granted the motion, but the Fifth Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court considered the case last fall, and in the process resolved a conflict among the federal courts of appeal on the question whether a state’s parens patriae action is a class action under CAFA. In an amicus brief filed in support of the state, Public Citizen argued that by CAFA’s express terms, parens patriae actions filed in the name of states by their attorneys general fall outside the scope of CAFA jurisdiction. In a 9-0 opinion, the Supreme Court agreed that a state’s parens patriae action is not a class action.

Copyright © 2014 Public Citizen. Some rights reserved. Non-commercial use of text and images in which Public Citizen holds the copyright is permitted, with attribution, under the terms and conditions of a Creative Commons License. This Web site is shared by Public Citizen Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation. Learn More about the distinction between these two components of Public Citizen.


Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation

 

Together, two separate corporate entities called Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation, Inc., form Public Citizen. Both entities are part of the same overall organization, and this Web site refers to the two organizations collectively as Public Citizen.

Although the work of the two components overlaps, some activities are done by one component and not the other. The primary distinction is with respect to lobbying activity. Public Citizen, Inc., an IRS § 501(c)(4) entity, lobbies Congress to advance Public Citizen’s mission of protecting public health and safety, advancing government transparency, and urging corporate accountability. Public Citizen Foundation, however, is an IRS § 501(c)(3) organization. Accordingly, its ability to engage in lobbying is limited by federal law, but it may receive donations that are tax-deductible by the contributor. Public Citizen Inc. does most of the lobbying activity discussed on the Public Citizen Web site. Public Citizen Foundation performs most of the litigation and education activities discussed on the Web site.

You may make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., Public Citizen Foundation, or both. Contributions to both organizations are used to support our public interest work. However, each Public Citizen component will use only the funds contributed directly to it to carry out the activities it conducts as part of Public Citizen’s mission. Only gifts to the Foundation are tax-deductible. Individuals who want to join Public Citizen should make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., which will not be tax deductible.

 

To become a member of Public Citizen, click here.
To become a member and make an additional tax-deductible donation to Public Citizen Foundation, click here.