Center for Individual Rights

Parents cannot make informed medical decisions without medical information.

The Johnsons’ minor daughter has a serious medical condition that requires lifelong monitoring. That means that her parents need real-time access to their daughter’s records: test results, doctors’ notes, scans, and next steps.

The hospital says that unless their minor daughter meets alone with the hospital and gives her permission, the Johnsons will have to request paper records – and wait up to 30 days to receive them. That’s a violation of federal HIPAA law and the Johnstons’ constitutional rights as parents.

CIR is suing to enforce the Johnsons’ rights – because parents shouldn’t need a hospital permission slip to see their own kids’ medical records.

Parents Sue Hospital to Enforce Federal Right to Daughter's Electronic Medical Records - Center for Individual Rights Parents' fundamental rights are threatened by a hospital system. The Center for Individual Rights is fighting back.

Under the Constitution, each state is equal. No state is senior, no state is subordinate, and no state gets to govern its neighbors.

That is why CIR is representing Iowa, Missouri, and the American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce in a new lawsuit challenging New York’s effort to impose greenhouse-gas reporting requirements on out-of-state biofuel producers.

New York may regulate within its own borders. But it cannot force businesses in other states to comply with Albany’s policy choices.

Protecting Iowa and Missouri Residents From New York Regulation - Center for Individual Rights We are challenging an illegal imposition of New York’s regulatory power on producers and businesses in other states.

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:

Small Business Owners Ask Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to “Orwellian” Law That Treats Entrepreneurs as Suspects - Center for Individual Rights 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...

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:

Portland Parent Group Joins Federal Challenge to Portland Public Schools’ Race-Based Funding Policies - Center for Individual Rights 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.

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.

Amicus Brief: Executive Orders Targeting Law Firms Threaten Critics of Every Administration - Center for Individual Rights 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...

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.

CIR Statement on Chiles v. Salazar and What It Means for Our Louisiana Case - Center for Individual Rights 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...

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.

Louisiana Bans Counselors from Saying “Psychology” - Center for Individual Rights A Louisiana law bans licensed therapists and professional counselors from accurately using the words "psychology" and "psychological."

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:

Advocate for Military Families Banned from Naval Base’s page - Center for Individual Rights Rodriguez v. Bohner

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:

Stopping Race-Based Funding and Restoring Fairness in Portland Public Schools - Center for Individual Rights 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.

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.

Ending Race-Based Discrimination Across Federal Benefits Programs - Center for Individual Rights The SBA’s 8(a) regulation tells millions of Americans that their race determines their opportunities.