The Objective Law Initiative fights to secure individual rights against arbitrary power.
OLI develops and applies a constitutional framework grounded in rational principles of rights, objective law, and limited government.
OLI was cofounded by Nicholas Provenzo and Arthur Zey. Questions may be sent to info@objectivelaw.org.
Rights need legal principles that can actually constrain power.
America's constitutional order depends on more than written text. It depends on courts, lawyers, scholars, and citizens understanding why individual rights exist, why government power must be limited, and why constitutional restraints must be enforced according to principle rather than expediency.
OLI exists to develop those principles into legal arguments, public education, and advocacy capable of resisting vague standards, open-ended balancing tests, excessive deference, and discretionary power.
Principled legal work for cases, courts, and public understanding.
Legal Research
Develop constitutional arguments grounded in objective standards, individual rights, due process, separation of powers, and limits on official discretion.
Amicus Advocacy
Prepare selected public-interest amicus work where a case presents a serious opportunity to clarify and defend objective limits on government power.
Public Education
Publish articles, explainers, videos, and commentary that make rights-based legal principles intelligible to lawyers, scholars, judges, and citizens.
Featured Resources
Concrete controversies where objective-law analysis could matter.
These are illustrative cases and legal controversies, not OLI filings, client matters, or final institutional positions. They show the kinds of problems OLI is built to address: disputes where government power becomes vague, discretionary, collectivized, or detached from the protection of individual rights.
Each example points to work that requires time-sensitive research, principled legal analysis, and the capacity to act before briefing windows close.
Apple Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc.
A pending Supreme Court case about whether civil contempt may be imposed for violating the 'spirit' of an injunction that did not clearly prohibit the conduct at issue.
Grand v. City of University Heights
A pending Supreme Court case about whether government threats that chill First Amendment activity can be challenged before land-use proceedings become formally final.
St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy
A pending Supreme Court case about religious neutrality, discretionary exemptions, and when a government program ceases to be generally applicable.
Trump v. Slaughter
A 2026 Supreme Court separation-of-powers decision rejecting statutory removal protection for FTC commissioners and substantially overruling Humphrey's Executor.
Chiles v. Salazar
An active post-remand First Amendment case concerning government restrictions on professional counseling speech.
First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport
An active post-remand First Amendment dispute over investigatory subpoenas, donor privacy, associational rights, and access to judicial review.
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump / Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.
A tariff and emergency-power controversy testing whether the executive may convert limited statutory authority into open-ended economic command.
Mahmoud v. Taylor
A public-school case involving parental authority, religious exercise, and the limits of compulsory ideological instruction.
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton
An age-verification case involving the tension between child protection and adults' anonymous access to lawful speech.
Chatrie v. United States
An active Fourth Amendment geofence-warrant case on remand after the Supreme Court held that acquiring Google's location-history data was a search.
Barnes v. Felix
An excessive-force case rejecting a narrow moment-of-threat rule in favor of totality-of-circumstances review.
Moody v. NetChoice, LLC / NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton
Active remand litigation over state attempts to regulate social-media platforms' editorial judgments and compelled carriage of speech.
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy
An administrative-adjudication case involving civil penalties, jury trial rights, and agency power.
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
A foundational administrative-law case overruling Chevron deference and restoring judicial responsibility for legal interpretation.
Garland v. Cargill
A statutory-interpretation case involving bump stocks, criminal liability, fair notice, and agency power.
National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo
A completed First Amendment coercion case illustrating how regulators may violate free-speech rights by pressuring private intermediaries to punish disfavored advocacy.
Trump v. Barbara
A birthright-citizenship case about constitutional text, executive power, and whether citizenship can be redefined by presidential order.
Mullin v. Al Otro Lado
A border-processing case about statutory meaning, asylum access, executive discretion, and whether legal duties can be avoided by controlling physical access to the port of entry.
Trump v. J.G.G. / J.G.G. v. Trump
An active Alien Enemies Act controversy over emergency removal power, meaningful judicial review, due process, and remedies for unlawful government action.
Majestic Realty Co. v. Salazar
A pending Supreme Court petition concerning whether a state may require private commercial property owners to allow unwanted expressive activity on their property.
Coalition for Fairness in Soho and Noho, Inc. v. New York City
A pending Supreme Court petition asking whether the Takings Clause's protections against unconstitutional land-use exactions extend to monetary permit conditions.
FTC v. National Horsemen's Benevolent & Protective Ass'n / HISA v. National Horsemen's Benevolent & Protective Ass'n
Pending Supreme Court petitions over private delegation, enforcement authority, and constitutional accountability in federal horseracing regulation.
Help us scale before the next briefing window closes.
OLI needs research, editorial, legal, technical, and donor-development capacity before major cases reach the decisive stage. Support helps turn a principled framework into timely legal work and public explanation.