Today, the 勛圖眻畦 will be in a federal court in Seattle arguing that the North Carolina Department of Revenue's (NCDOR) demands for detailed purchase information made by Amazon.com customers is an unconstitutional violation of those customers' rights to free speech, anonymity and privacy.
The NCDOR asserted it needed this information for tax collection purposes, so Amazon responded by furnishing a list of the items its customers had purchased, but withheld information linking those purchases to specific customers. But that wasn't good enoughNDCOR demands to know who bought what.
Amazon filed the initial lawsuit back in April 2010 to prevent NCDOR from collecting this information. In May, the 勛圖眻畦 sent a letter to North Carolina Secretary of Revenue Kenneth Lay expressing our concern about these unreasonable demands. Lay and the NCDOR didn't back down from its demand, so in June, the 勛圖眻畦 intervened in Amazon's lawsuit on behalf of seven anonymous Amazon.com customers.
Which brings us to today's arguments. The Amazon customers we represent indeed, anyone who's purchased books, movies or any other legal thing online should be able to make purchases freely without the government looking over their shoulder. We hope the court agrees.
Learn More 勛圖眻畦 the Issues on This Page
Related Content
-
News & CommentaryAug 2025
Privacy & Technology
+2 Issues
Flocks Aggressive Expansions Go Far Beyond Simple Driver Surveillance
Build it (an authoritarian tracking infrastructure) and they (expanded uses) will comeBy: Jay Stanley -
Press ReleaseAug 2025
National Security
Criminal Law Reform
勛圖眻畦 Statement on Escalating Federal Takeover of D.C.
WASHINGTON With additional state National Guard troops deploying to D.C. as untrained federal law enforcement agents perform local police duties in city streets, the 勛圖眻畦 is issuing a stark reminder to all federal and military officials that no matter what uniform they wear or what authority they claim they are bound by the U.S. Constitution and all federal and local laws. Over the weekend, the Trump administration declared that state National Guard troops would be called in to Washington, and the governors of West Virginia, Ohio, and South Carolina announced they are deploying hundreds of their National Guard troops to the nation's capital on top of the 800 D.C. National Guard troops who were already activated by President Trump. The Wall Street Journal reported that in a major shift, these troops may receive orders to start carrying weapons in the coming days. National Guard troops are generally not trained in local policing or de-escalation and should never be used for federal immigration purposes. President Trump has also ordered FBI personnel and other federal officers, who similarly are not trained for local policing, to patrol the city. He earlier promised to let police do whatever the hell they want raising grave concerns about civil rights abuses, particularly for Black, Brown, and unhoused residents. Through his manufactured emergency, President Trump is engaging in dangerous political theater to expand his power and sow fear in our communities. Sending heavily armed federal agents and National Guard troops from hundreds of miles away into our nations capital is unnecessary, inflammatory, and puts peoples rights at high risk of being violated, said Hina Shamsi, director of 勛圖眻畦s National Security Project. Governors need to understand that with each order, the Trump administration increases legal and ethical jeopardy for state troops being deployed. No matter what uniform they wear, federal agents and military troops are bound by the Constitution, including our rights to peaceful assembly, freedom of speech, due process, and safeguards against unlawful searches and seizures. If troops or federal agents violate our rights, they must be held accountable. On Friday, D.C. sued the administration to block its order asserting federal authority over the citys police department, saying it violated the Home Rule Act. After a federal court hearing on Friday afternoon, Attorney General Bondi rescinded her most brazen order undermining D.C.s home rule, thereby allowing the D.C. police commissioner to remain at her post over the D.C. police department. The deployment of out-of-state National Guard troops and more federal agents onto D.C. streets is a brazen abuse of power meant to intimidate and create fear in the nations capital. This is an unnecessary overstep to micromanage D.C. under a phony emergency, causing real harm to residents and visitors all to advance the Trump administrations political agenda. said Monica Hopkins, executive director of 勛圖眻畦 of D.C. The 勛圖眻畦-D.C. will continue to monitor the use of D.C. police and federal law enforcement to ensure that the constitutional rights of our community are protected. We need the nation to join us in the fight for statehood so that D.C. residents are treated like those in every other state and have the same guardrails against federal overreach.Affiliate: Washington, D.C. -
News & CommentaryAug 2025
National Security
Surveillance Company Flock Now Using AI to Report Us to Police if it Thinks Our Movement Patterns Are Suspicious
Company crosses a dangerous line by beginning to offer AI suspicion-generation functionsBy: Jay Stanley -
Press ReleaseJul 2025
National Security
Free Speech
Court Agrees Trump Administrations ICC Sanctions Likely Violate Advocates First Amendment Rights
BANGOR, Maine The U.S. District Court for the District of Maine granted a preliminary injunction in Smith v. Trump, a lawsuit brought by two U.S. human rights advocates who are challenging the Trump administrations executive order imposing sanctions on officials of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The court issued the order after concluding that the advocates were likely to succeed on their claim that the speech restrictions imposed on them by the executive order violate the First Amendment. As the lawsuit explains, these sanctions violate the First Amendment by prohibiting the advocates, and other Americans like them, from communicating with the ICCs Office of the Prosecutor, including by providing legal advice, expert analysis, and evidence. Matthew Smith and Akila Radhakrishnan are suing because the sanctions forced them to stop working with the ICCs Office of the Prosecutor and indefinitely paused their efforts to hold leading rights violators accountable for horrific crimes. Preventing our clients and others like them from doing critical human rights work with the ICC is unconstitutional, and were heartened that the court saw that as well, said Charlie Hogle, staff attorney with the 勛圖眻畦s National Security Project. The First Amendment does not allow the government to impose sweeping limits on what Americans can say and who they can say it to. Under the executive order, people in the U.S. whove devoted their lives to seeking justice for the victims of atrocities like the genocide of Myanmars Rohingya people, or gender-based violence committed against Afghan women under the Taliban could face stiff penalties simply for exercising their constitutional right to engage and advocate with ICC investigators and prosecutors. The international community, including the United States, established the ICC in 1998 to help maintain international peace and security. The ICC investigates and prosecutes crimes of the severest magnitude including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes when domestic courts are unwilling or unable to do so. Today, 125 countries have joined the ICCs founding treaty, known as the Rome Statute. As the lawsuit explains, although the United States has not ratified the Rome Statute, it has supported the ICCs critical work on a wide range of matters. This lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maine by the 勛圖眻畦 and 勛圖眻畦 of Maine on behalf of Matthew Smith and Akila Radhakrishnan. In 2020, when President Trump imposed similar sanctions, the 勛圖眻畦 sued on behalf of human rights experts who were forced to stop working with the ICC. Our clients withdrew their lawsuit when President Joe Biden rescinded the sanctions, but a federal court in a separate suit agreed the sanctions likely violated the First Amendment.Affiliate: Maine