Cases

Issue

Whether the tax code's confidentiality provision, which permits limited disclosures for non-tax criminal enforcement upon a particularized written request, authorizes the IRS–ICE agreement under which ICE requests in bulk the last known addresses of immigrants designated for criminal investigation — one request named 7.6 million people, with monthly or regular transfers to follow. The district court read the statute's individualized-request requirements to foreclose the program; the United States appealed.

Our position

A tax return is compelled, testimonial communication, so the Fifth Amendment privilege turns on the filer's hazard of incrimination — a hazard the statute's particularized-request safeguards ordinarily keep trifling. For filers ICE has designated for investigation for remaining despite final removal orders, name and address are themselves the incriminating facts, a line-item privilege claim would only restate them, and the government's reading converts the request pathway into a standing bulk pipeline to the investigating agency — leaving each truthful filing to face the trilemma of self-accusation, perjury, or punished silence. The Supreme Court has repeatedly reserved whether the Fifth Amendment tolerates that arrangement, so constitutional avoidance requires the district court's reading, which preserves every genuinely individualized criminal request and forecloses only the bulk-transfer program the statute never contemplated.

Issue

Whether Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 entitles the Justice Department to California's complete, unredacted voter roll, including partial Social Security numbers and driver's license numbers linked to each voter's party affiliation. The district court called the demand unprecedented and dismissed the government's suit; the United States appealed.

Our position

Compelled disclosure of every voter's party affiliation, keyed to Social Security digits and driver's license numbers, would raise serious First Amendment association questions, and the demand fails exacting scrutiny: the government sought the complete, unredacted roll without demonstrating that it genuinely considered less intrusive alternatives, and stockpiling data it cannot currently use — keeping it close at hand, just in case — would serve mere administrative ease, not a sufficiently important interest. If the court finds Title III ambiguous, constitutional avoidance requires adopting California's plausible narrower reading, under which sensitive voter information may be redacted.

Issue

A companion to United States v. Weber: whether the Justice Department can compel Oregon to surrender its full voter registration file, including each voter's birth date, driver's license number or partial Social Security number, and party affiliation. The district court held the statutes invoked authorize no such demand; the United States appealed.

Our position

Under Shelton v. Tucker, the federal government's mere capability to link a voter's party declaration to the other records it holds threatens to chill protected political association — no public exposure or retaliation need be shown — and the demand fails exacting scrutiny: the government's compliance interest is not narrowly tailored, and its broader interest in running the rolls through federal databases amounts to administrative ease, which is not sufficiently important. If Title III is ambiguous, constitutional avoidance requires the reading that forecloses using it to force states to hand over their complete, unredacted voter rolls: a purpose tied to a voting-rights investigation, and records that may be produced with sensitive fields redacted.

Issue

Whether federal law preempts the Texas Dream Act, which for 24 years let undocumented students who grew up and graduated from high school in Texas pay in-state tuition. Hours after the United States sued, Texas agreed to a judgment ending the law; the students, community college, and advocacy group that sought to defend it were denied intervention and appealed.

Our position

Federal law bars granting undocumented students a postsecondary benefit on the basis of "residence" — which Congress narrowly defined as one's principal dwelling place — unless citizens are eligible for the same benefit regardless of residence. The challenged provision keys eligibility to Texas high-school graduation and a broader state-law definition of residence, so it never triggers the federal bar; even if it did, the benefit is open to all citizens without regard to residence. The Act is not preempted, and the movants' intervention to defend it was not futile. The Center's team drafted the brief, which amicus curiae Giveducation filed in support of movant-appellant Students for Affordable Tuition.