Center for Individual Rights

05/06/2026

BREAKING: CIR returns our Corporate Transparency Act case to the Supreme Court, where we're defending small business owners against an "Orwellian" law that treats entrepreneurs like suspects. Read more:

Washington, DC—Running a dairy farm shouldn’t require registering your personal information in a federal law-enforcement database. But that’s exactly what Congress demanded when it passed the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). Today, the Center for Individual Rights (CIR) returned to the Suprem...

04/17/2026

Meet Richard Raseley: Portland dad, longtime school volunteer, and founder of Families for Fair School Funding. Now, Richard and FFSF are suing to overturn two of Portland Public Schools’ funding policies that illegally discriminate based on race.

Portland Public School’s “equity funding” policy explicitly grants additional staff and resources to schools based in part on the racial composition of their student bodies. And its new fundraising policy cuts off millions of dollars in community support for kids.

CIR is proud to represent Richard and Families for Fair School Funding in their challenge to Portland’s race-based school funding policies. Learn more about FFSF and their fight for fairness:

This lawsuit is challenging two District policies that distribute school resources based on race and ban parents from donating to their own children’s schools.

04/06/2026

CIR has spent decades opposing race-based admissions policies in court—putting us on the opposite side from many of the law firms targeted by Trump’s executive orders. But we filed an amicus brief defending those firms anyway.

Why? Because the Constitution doesn’t change based on who the Presidential Administration dislikes. The executive orders targeting Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey—revoking security clearances, blocking access to federal buildings, and canceling client contracts—are exactly the kind of government retaliation the First Amendment was designed to prevent.

A precedent allowing this kind of punishment could just as easily be turned against CIR and other public-interest law firms. That is why PILFs of all political stripes have submitted briefs supporting the law firms.

Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice, et al.,   Beginning in March 2025, President Trump issued a series of executive orders targeting specific law firms—Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey. The orders suspended security clearances for firm employees, barred t...

04/01/2026

Darpana Sheth, General Counsel for the Center for Individual Rights, issued the following statement:

“Yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling should end the fiction that governments can silence licensed professionals simply by calling it professional regulation. A therapist’s words to a willing client are speech—and the First Amendment protects them whether the state finds those words inconvenient or not. Chiles v. Salazar is a victory for every professional the government has tried to muzzle through the back door of licensing law, and it goes straight to the heart of what we are fighting for in Louisiana. Granting a license to practice does not give the government a license to censor.”

Chiles v. Salazar has made clear that professional licensing does not create a First Amendment-free zone. A license to practice does not give the government a license to censor. We look forward to pressing that principle on behalf of Julie Alleman and Juliet Catrett.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court delivered a clear rebuke to states that try to regulate professional speech as conduct. In Chiles v. Salazar, the Court held that Colorado’s ban on talk therapy regulates speech based on viewpoint—and that courts must apply strict scrutiny, not the toothless rationa...

03/09/2026

Here’s the problem: the state’s monopoly on the use of common words doesn’t serve a lawful purpose. CIR’s lawsuit seeks to protect free speech and allow licensed professionals to communicate honestly with clients about their services.

A Louisiana law bans licensed therapists and professional counselors from accurately using the words "psychology" and "psychological."

03/05/2026

The First Amendment doesn’t stop at the login screen. When a government page is open to the public for comments, officials can’t delete criticism and ban a speaker because they don’t like the message. CIR is representing Sergio Rodriguez to restore his free speech rights.

Read more:

Rodriguez v. Bohner

03/02/2026

Portland Public Schools uses an “equity allocation” formula that distributes staffing partly based on student race. Two schools with identical needs can receive different funding solely because of racial composition of the student body. CIR’s lawsuit will end this unconstitutional conduct.

Learn more:

A Portland parent is suing Portland Public Schools over its race-based “equity allocation” formula and fundraising restrictions, arguing they violate the Fourteenth Amendment and undermine fairness in public education.

02/26/2026

This case asks a basic question: will the government treat people as individuals, or as members of racial categories?

Our clients aren’t seeking special treatment—they’re seeking fair and equal treatment.

The SBA’s 8(a) regulation tells millions of Americans that their race determines their opportunities.

02/23/2026

CIR’s litigation team targets the kind of cases that create real change. Are you ready for more meaningful work? We're growing fast and hiring litigators at all levels.

https://cir-usa.org/career-opportunities/

02/05/2026

You:
- An experienced, strategic litigator, devoted to the cause of liberty, who wants to channel their talent, skills, and passion into protecting individual rights from government abuse in high-profile constitutional litigation.

Us:
- Principled, zealous advocates dedicated to establishing landmark precedents that strengthen and restore the individual rights essential for a free and flourishing society

Sound like a match? Learn more and apply here:
https://cir-usa.org/experienced-litigator/

01/30/2026

The federal government’s role in criminal law enforcement should be limited to important national interests—and not a roving mandate to police all contested First Amendment activity with journalists and local citizens. The arrest of former CNN journalist Don Lemon under vague federal statutes is part of a troubling attempt to extend federal criminal authority beyond its proper bounds.

While CIR does not condone unlawful disruption of religious services, it still condemns politicized prosecutions that threaten fundamental constitutional protections for speech and press coverage.

Individuals who believe their First Amendment rights have been infringed by government action are encouraged to contact the Center for Individual Rights.