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.
The Objective Law Initiative is recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) public charity, and contributions are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law; while our online donation platform is being set up, prospective donors can contact us directly to coordinate contributions, including gifts by check.
Lawyers, scholars, writers, editors, designers, volunteers, and prospective collaborators can also contact us about contributing time, expertise, introductions, research, writing, media, design, or other support.
Ways to Contribute
Donations
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.
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.
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.
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.