Support OLI
OLI is building legal, scholarly, and educational capacity around a single purpose: clarifying and defending objective limits on government power and the individual rights those limits exist to protect.
Donate below, explore other ways to contribute, or contact us to coordinate gifts by check, professional collaboration, and other support.
Donate
Financial support funds research, writing, publication, operations, and future legal advocacy capacity. OLI is recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) public charity, and contributions are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law.
Ways to Contribute
Workplace Giving and Employer Matching
If your employer uses Benevity, search for The Objective Law Initiative or EIN 41-5268364 in your workplace giving portal. Depending on your employer's program, you may be able to donate through payroll, request an employer match, or use other workplace-giving benefits.
Donor Introductions
Introduce OLI to people who may be interested in principled constitutional advocacy and public legal education.
Legal Research
Help identify legal issues, doctrines, cases, scholarship, and historical materials relevant to objective law.
Writing and Editing
Assist with articles, explainers, newsletters, educational scripts, copyediting, and source checking.
Media, Video, and Design
Support clear public communication through video, visual design, diagrams, and accessible web presentation.
Scholar and Lawyer Collaboration
Collaborate on research, public education, and future amicus work consistent with OLI's mission.
What Support Makes Possible
Support gives OLI the capacity to turn principled legal analysis into timely advocacy, public education, and institutional work.
Financial and professional support helps OLI develop research, briefs, public education, editorial capacity, media assets, and the infrastructure needed to present serious legal-philosophical arguments clearly.
OLI's work requires more than good ideas. It requires time, research capacity, legal judgment, writing, editing, publication tools, design, outreach, and the ability to act before important legal windows close.
Cases Do Not Wait for Infrastructure
Major constitutional cases often reach the decisive stage before a young organization has the funding, research capacity, or briefing infrastructure to participate.
By the time a case is granted, argued, or decided, the opportunity to shape the legal argument may already have passed. The matters below illustrate the kind of work OLI is built to do when it has the capacity to act: identify the principle at stake, develop an objective-law analysis, coordinate with lawyers and scholars, and intervene where a focused amicus brief or public explanation could add something other groups are not already saying.
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.
Support Does Not Control Legal Judgment
Donors and volunteers do not control OLI's legal positions, research conclusions, advocacy judgment, publication decisions, or institutional priorities. OLI welcomes support because of its mission, not as a vehicle for private control over legal arguments.