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.
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.
Chiles v. Salazar
A professional-speech case testing whether licensing power may be used to suppress disfavored viewpoints in voluntary talk therapy.
First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport
A First Amendment associational-privacy case involving state investigatory demands for nonprofit donor information.
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
A Fourth Amendment geofence-warrant case testing whether government may compel a private database search of location history for everyone near a place and time.
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
A pair of social-media cases involving editorial discretion, compelled carriage, and the relationship between property and 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 First Amendment case involving alleged regulatory coercion against financial institutions because of a group's 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, habeas access, venue, and judicial review.
A.R.P. v. Trump
An active Alien Enemies Act controversy involving notice, habeas access, emergency authority, and the practical meaning of due process.
Majestic Realty Co. v. Salazar
A property and speech issue involving compelled expressive access to private shopping-center property.
Coalition for Fairness in Soho and Noho, Inc. v. New York City
A land-use issue involving exactions, permit conditions, and the danger of discretionary bargaining over property rights.
National Horsemen's Benevolent & Protective Ass'n v. Black
A private-nondelegation issue involving whether governmental regulatory power may be exercised by a private body without adequate public control.
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.