In a brief for the American Psychological Association in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, he wrote: “Abortion rarely causes or exacerbates psychological or emotional problems. When women do experience regret, depression, or guilt, such feelings are mild and diminish rapidly without adversely affecting general functioning. The few women who do experience negative psychological responses after abortion appear to be those with preexisting emotional problems ….”

Ogden also wrote: “In sum, it is grossly misleading to tell a woman that abortion imposes possible detrimental psychological effects when the risks are negligible in most cases, when the evidence shows that she is more likely to experience feelings of relief and happiness, and when child-birth and child-rearing or adoption may pose concomitant (if not greater) risks or adverse psychological effects ….”

In the 2005 case Roper v. Simmons, Ogden succeeded in convincing a narrowly divided Supreme Court to declare the juvenile death penalty unconstitutional and spare the life of his client, who killed a woman in cold-blood nine months before he turned 18.

Groves says Ogden argued that the high court should look to laws, legal opinions, and decisions of foreign countries and international organizations regarding the death penalty. He notes that in particular, Ogden cited the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) — a 1989 treaty that bars the execution of people who commit crimes while under the age of 18.

Ogden, says Groves, pointed out that the United States is one of only two countries in the world that has not signed onto that treaty.

“[He argued] that doesn’t mean that the U.S. doesn’t have to follow the treaty, [but that] it means the opposite — that the United States must follow the treaty that it has specifically decided not to join,” says Groves. “Why? Because [Ogden argued] the rest of the world has joined it — and so therefore it’s some new customary, international norm and the United States must outlaw the juvenile death penalty.”

Opposed the Children’s Internet Protection Act of 2000

In United States v. American Library Association, Ogden served as counsel of record for an amicus brief filed on behalf of fifteen library directors in support of the Association.

“As a condition of receiving federal funds, Congress has – with the Children’s Internet Protection Act … – insisted that public libraries affirmatively censor constitutionally-protected material. By demanding that libraries be censors and devote resources – not to facilitating – but to interfering with patrons’ pursuit of information and ideas, Congress has subverted the role of librarians and public libraries and violated the First Amendment rights of library patrons.” (p. 3).

CIPA “impairs the ability of librarians to aid patrons seeking information.” (p. 11).

Ogden represented several communications trade associations challenging provisions of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988. He convinced the court that requiring producers of pornographic materials to personally verify that models were over age 18 at the time the materials were made would “burden too heavily and infringe too deeply on the right to produce First Amendment protected material.” American Library Association v. Thornburgh, 713 F.Supp. 469, 477 (D.D.C. 1989).

Ogden has filed numerous amicus briefs in pornography and obscenity cases before the Supreme Court of the United States, including Knox v. United States, 510 U.S. 375 (1993) (on behalf of the ACLU and others); Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana, 489 U.S. 46 (1989) (on behalf of mail-order pornography distributor P.H.E., Inc.); Virginia v. American Booksellers Association, 484 U.S. 383 (1988) (on behalf of the Freedom to Read Foundation); Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497 (1987) (on behalf of the ACLU and P.H.E., Inc.). See also Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465 (1987) (on behalf of Playboy Enterprises, Inc., and the American Booksellers Association).

…

Was a major player in the Clinton Administration’s efforts to profit from the numerous court cases against tobacco companies and releasing a statement on the day the suit was announced [Source]. He also testified before Congress in 2001 stating he believed the government had a strong case because of the tobacco industry’s “long-standing conspiracy to defraud the American public.”

‘Constitutional interpretation cannot be limited to ascertain the way a particular law would have been viewed by the Framers. While constitutional principles do not change, the society and individuals in whom they are applied do, and our knowledge about that society and those individuals improves with time.’

Then you noted the changing social context is as much a part of the constitutional issues to be decided as the statute itself because to ignore it is to fail in the court’s basic task, adapting the great outlines of the Constitution to the particular problems of each generation, and then you went on to make some other comments.” Hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary, 106th Congress August 4, 1999.