SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
March, 25 2016, 01:45pm EDT
Contact:
For more information or to schedule an interview, contact Naren Daniel at (646) 292-8381 or naren.daniel@nyu.edu.
Brennan Center Files Amicus Brief in "Soft Money" Case that Could End Up Before U.S. Supreme Court
Today the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, together with a pro-bono team led by Center board member Daniel F. Kolb, filed an amicus brief in Republican Party of Louisiana v.
Today the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, together with a pro-bono team led by Center board member Daniel F. Kolb, filed an amicus brief in Republican Party of Louisiana v. Federal Election Commission, defending the constitutionality of provisions in 2002's McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, or the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). The case is before a three-judge panel in the D.C. District Court, meaning an appeal would guarantee the U.S. Supreme Court considers the case.
Although the Brennan Center has proposed limited reforms to allow party committees more fundraising flexibility, the brief argues that these recommendations in no way imply that the current regime is unconstitutional:
"In fact, the core relief Plaintiffs seek -- permitting certain party committees to raise potentially unlimited funds for federal election activities -- could undermine the very objective of broad political participation that led us to call for reform," reads the brief. "Sensible contribution limits for political parties remain legitimate and necessary."
The Brennan Center's interest in the case is especially strong. The Center's research was cited by members of Congress during the congressional debate around BCRA, and the Center then represented congressional sponsors, including Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who intervened to defend the law against a previous constitutional challenge.
Read the Brennan Center's case page on Republican Party of Louisiana v. Federal Election Commission, and full amicus brief.
Read the Brennan Center paper Stronger Parties, Stronger Democracy.
Read more about the Brennan Center's work on money in politics.
The Brennan Center for Justice is a nonpartisan law and policy institute. We strive to uphold the values of democracy. We stand for equal justice and the rule of law. We work to craft and advance reforms that will make American democracy work, for all.
(646) 292-8310LATEST NEWS
Bar Complaint Filed Against Prosecutor Who Petitioned for Raid of Journalist's Home
"When prosecutors abuse their power to facilitate efforts to silence reporting and intimidate news sources, disciplinary authorities must hold them accountable and impose real consequences," reads a filing.
Feb 09, 2026
Soon after the FBI raided Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson's home in Virginia last month, the Freedom of the Press Foundation said it suspected that the Trump administration was either "ignoring or distorting" federal law when it allowed the search and seizure of Natanson's electronic devices to go forward.
On Monday, the organization said that recently unsealed court documents had proven its suspicions were correct as it filed a formal disciplinary complaint against the federal prosecutor who signed the search warrant application: Assistant Attorney General Gordon Kromberg had failed to disclose to the magistrate judge who approved the warrant the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, which strictly limit search warrants for journalists' work products and materials.
That allegation led the Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) to file a disciplinary complaint with the Virginia State Bar on Friday.
By not alerting Judge William B. Porter to the law, Kromberg "appears to have violated an ethical rule that requires lawyers to reveal relevant legal authority to the court, even if it undermines their arguments," said FPF.
Seth Stein, the chief of advocacy for FPF, filed the complaint nearly a month after the FBI executed the search warrant at Natanson's home and seized several devices.
The raid was completed as part of an Espionage Act investigation into Aurelio Perez-Lugones, a government contractor who's accused of leaking classified information to Natanson. The journalist has extensively covered the experiences of people in the federal workforce in the past year, as the Trump administration has fired or pushed out more than 350,000 employees.
The Privacy Protection Act prohibits searches of a journalist's materials unless there is probable cause to believe that the reporter themself has committed a crime related to their work materials. The law stipulates that the mere possession of materials by a journalist cannot trigger that exception unless the materials are child sexual abuse imagery or national security secrets.
As the New York Times reported last week, "It is disputed whether it is constitutionally permissible to apply the Espionage Act to ordinary news gathering activities by people without security clearances."
Prosecutors have never charged a traditional reporter with violating the Espionage Act for news gathering activities. The Department of Justice alarmed First Amendment advocates during President Donald Trump's first administration when it charged WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange under the Espionage Act for publishing classified files; Assange later struck a plea deal so the constitutionality of his charges were not tested in court.
Stein emphasized in the filing that Kromberg's omission of the Privacy Protection Act "could not have been a mere oversight—the warrant in question was, predictably, a subject of national news, given that raids of journalists’ homes during investigations of alleged leaks by government personnel are, according to experts, unprecedented."
"Disciplinary bodies cannot look the other way and ignore misconduct that threatens the First Amendment, particularly from an administration with a long history of misleading judges and everyone else."
"Under the Department of Justice’s own policies," reads the filing, "the search should have been discussed with and authorized by the highest levels of the DOJ, including the attorney general."
Several legal experts who specialize in ethics told the Times last week that if Kromberg knew about the Privacy Protection Act and didn't alert Porter that the search could violate the law, he violate an ethical statute called Rule 3.3, “Candor Toward the Tribunal."
New York University professor emeritus Stephen Gillers told the Times that Kromberg was required “to disclose the Privacy Protection Act because it is ‘controlling,’ which means the judge was required to consider it in his ruling on the government’s request, and because the act’s provisions are ‘adverse,’ which means its requirements could have the effect of denying the government’s request.”
Stein said in a statement that Kromberg and the federal government "omitted a federal law that should have prohibited the raid of Hannah Natanson’s home when applying for a search warrant."
Natanson and the Post filed a lawsuit demanding the return of her electronic devices and data, arguing that under the Privacy Protection Act, it is illegal for the government to review her reporting work that is unrelated to the investigation into Perez-Lugones.
In the filing on Friday, Stein warned that in addition to harming Natanson's ability to complete her work, the FBI has jeopardized the confidentiality of her sources, and "journalists and whistleblowers across the country are sure to think twice about drawing the ire of the current administration" in light of the reporter's ordeal.
"Disciplinary bodies cannot look the other way and ignore misconduct that threatens the First Amendment, particularly from an administration with a long history of misleading judges and everyone else," said Stein on Monday. "When prosecutors abuse their power to facilitate efforts to silence reporting and intimidate news sources, disciplinary authorities must hold them accountable and impose real consequences.”
FPF called on the Virginia State Bar to take "appropriate disciplinary action, up to and including disbarment," against Kromberg.
The bar, said the group, should "expedite disciplinary proceedings due to the dire consequences for First Amendment freedoms if illegal newsroom raids and seizures of journalists’ work product are allowed to go unchecked."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump-Heckling Auto Worker Keeps His Job and Faces No Discipline: UAW
"That's a union brother who spoke up," said UAW president Shawn Fain. "He put his constitutional rights to work. He put his union rights to work."
Feb 09, 2026
TJ Sabula, the auto worker who called President Donald Trump a “pedophile protector" last month, is reportedly keeping his job.
According to a report from the Detroit News, United Auto Workers (UAW) vice president Laura Dickerson said on Monday that Sabula is not getting fired from his job at a Ford truck plant in Dearborn, Michigan, and he will not face any discipline for his heckling of the president.
Dickerson, who discussed Sabula's case at the UAW's annual Community Action Program conference in Washington, DC, also took a shot at Trump for giving Sabula the middle finger while appearing to mouth or yell “fuck you” back at the auto worker.
"In that moment, we saw what the president really thinks about working people," Dickerson said. "As UAW members, we speak truth to power. We don't just protect rights, we exercise them."
UAW president Shawn Fain also took time during the conference to offer appreciation for Sabula, the Detroit News reported.
"That's a union brother who spoke up," said Fain. "He put his constitutional rights to work. He put his union rights to work."
Sabula, who said he decided to called Trump a "pedophile protecter" for his attempts to block the release of files related to late billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, had been suspended from his job after the incident took place.
Critics of the president quickly rushed to Sabula's aid, however, as two separate GoFundMe campaigns aimed at raising money for the auto worker raked in a total of over $800,000.
In an interview published last month by the Washington Post, Sabula said he had “no regrets whatsoever” about yelling at the president, even though it led to his suspension.
“I don’t feel as though fate looks upon you often, and when it does, you better be ready to seize the opportunity,” Sabula told the Post. “And today I think I did that.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We Rely on Hispanic Labor': ICE Raids Trigger Economic Alarm Bells in Trump States
“What happens if everyone who is Hispanic thinks they’re at risk?”
Feb 09, 2026
Communities in two red states that voted for President Donald Trump in the 2024 election have found themselves being unexpectedly hurt by his mass deportation agenda.
The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday that construction trade groups in southern Texas have been sounding the alarm about aggressive immigration raids on work sites that are leading to serious delays of projects, which in turn are raising prices for buyers and lowering profit margins for sellers.
Things have gotten so severe, wrote the Journal, that materials suppliers have started laying off workers and one concrete company filed for bankruptcy due to a drop off in sales that it blamed on the immigration raids.
Mario Guerrero, chief executive of the South Texas Builders Association, said that the raids were "terrorizing job sites," and grinding economic activity to a halt.
"They are basically taking everyone in there working, whether they have proper documentation or not," said Guerrero, who acknowledged backing Trump in the 2024 election.
Luis Rodriguez, a manager at a tile supplier called Materiales El Valle, confirmed to the Journal that immigration enforcement agents have started targeting all immigrants in the area, whereas in the past they would only detain specific people for whom they had an arrest warrant.
With workers afraid to come to their jobs, Rodriguez said he's started trying to recruit employees at local community colleges, where he has offered classes on installing tiles.
So far, he said, "nobody is coming forward" to fill the gap left by immigrant workers.
A Monday report in the New York Times similarly found that Trump's mass deportation policies have rocked the tiny town of Wilder, Idaho, which is still reeling from a federal raid that took place last year at a race track frequented by the local immigrant community.
As a result, 75 immigrants living in Wilder—just over 4% of its total population—have so far been deported.
Wilder resident David Lincoln told the Times that the raid "nearly destroyed" the community, and he said that it could have devastating impact on the town's agricultural economy once planting season begins this year.
“What happens if everyone who is Hispanic thinks they’re at risk?” Lincoln told the Times. “There’s fear now that didn’t exist here before. I don’t know how you make that go away.”
Chris Gross, a farmer in the town, expressed shock that so many members of the community have simply vanished in such a short time.
"We rely on Hispanic labor,” said Gross. "Nobody thought something like this could happen here."
Federal officials targeted Wilder for a raid after they were sent a tip from an informant about an alleged illegal gambling ring being operated at the local race track.
However, immigration attorney Neal Dougherty told the Times that the focus of the raid was clearly on immigration rather than trying to bust up an unlawful gambling operation.
“The one thing everyone got asked was, ‘Where were you born?’” Dougherty explained. “Not, ‘Did you see gambling?’ Not, ‘Did you participate in gambling?’ Just, ‘Where were you born?’”
The reporting came after a self-professed three-time Trump voter, identified only as “John in New Mexico, Republican,” called in to C-SPAN last week to apologize for previously supporting the president, whom he called a "rotten, rotten man," citing his immigration operations and racist post about the Obamas.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular