Issues and Cases

Equality Under the Law Program

Fisher Equality Under the Law case

University of Texas is flouting the Constitution with race-based admissions

Abigail Fisher v. University of Texas

This case asks whether the admissions policies and procedures at the University of Texas at Austin (UT) which grant preferences to students of certain races and ethnic backgrounds violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Read more

Caltrans' racial quotas are unfair, costly, and illegal image

Caltrans' quotas are unconstitutional

Associated General Contractors v. California Department of Transportation

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has launched a new program that uses race- and sex-based quotas in awarding contracts on federally funded highway projects. This quota program violates both the U.S. Constitution (Fourteenth Amendment) and the California Constitution. Read more

Ward Connerly, PLF client

Race- and sex-based commission selection violates Proposition 209

Connerly v. State of California

Challenges to Cal. Gov't Code § 8252(g) requirement that the California Citizen Redistricting Commission use race, ethnicity, and sex in selecting six members to the Commission in violation of Proposition 209. Read more

Golden Gate Bridge

Public contracting program violates Proposition 209

Coral v. Martin (& Schram)

Publicly flouting Proposition 209, San Francisco extended its race- and sex-based public contracting program to 2008. Since 1984, San Francisco has been enforcing a series of public contracting ordinances that discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, minority- and women-owned businesses. When the program was set to expire in June, 2003, the City quickly extended the illegal program for another five years. Read more

Shelby County Supreme Court Case image

Feds should no longer be micro-managing local political procedures

Shelby v. Holder

This case challenges the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 5 requires covered states and jurisdictions to obtain approval from the federal government before implementing even the most trivial changes to voting procedures. Read more

Looking for more cases?

Search the PLF case database
PLF is involved in hundreds of cases across the country. Our new case database is your gateway to all of them!

PLF Testimonial

"Most people wouldn't stick it out, and since PLF is litigating for principle, we have to thank PLF for doing what they do."
Trevor Burrus, Research Fellow at CATO Institute

Connect with Us       Donate to PLF

PLF Client Highlight

"PLF allowed me to keep operating my business, even in the midst of a crisis. My business means the world to me and my family - PLF saved it for us. Thank you."
R.J. Bruner, Wildcat Moving Co.

Connect with Us       Donate to PLF

PLF Client Highlight

"A 20 year battle is over, thanks to Pacific Legal Foundation.  My father would be proud. Thank you PLF for your support."
Coy Jr. and Linda Koontz

Connect with Us       Donate to PLF

What Your Support Means

Donate to PLF


A PLF Victory for Freedom

Supreme Court Victories

PLF Donor Highlight

"For PLF, it's not a job - it's a passion. You can feel very good about how well your money is used in support of the programs they have."
Dr. Robert S. Pepper

Our History       Join The Fight

PLF Testimonial

"Individuals for whom a major case is a one shot deal are far more aggrieved. Most individuals cannot afford to do anything with that grievance, and that's where organizations like PLF come in."

Professor Steven Eagle, George Mason School of Law

Our History       Join The Fight